Slashdot Mirror

Soooo you are too lazy to google it? Here, here, and here.

Granted the list was from 2013 and I remembered where I read it when Vestas was trading at 25 bucks a share. I am sure the record Amonix set is impressive, but they have a habit of doing things like this. I could do impressive things too if I was getting that kind of federal funding.

Loss of Biodiversity and Genetically Modified Crops

And Pesticide Tie-in by Monsanto who also sell and heavily lobby for bee-killing neonicotinoids.

Dirty practices by GM companies.
Supreme Court Sides With Monsanto, Against Organic Farmers

50 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS

Yeah, a couple/few years ago the energy to produce a panel fell blow the energy that it would produce over its lifetime.

It passed that threshold probably a couple of decades ago.

Googling around, it appears you are referring to actually generating more energy than it took to produce, which is a threshold which was achieved apparently both in 2000 and some point in the last three years. If there is a future, large surge in solar generation installation, then there might well be another period of net negative energy production until solar generation catches up with the cost of producing it.

Really? You're using the Internet. Until you go back to can and twine, I call bullshit. We've out-paced all reduction goals. http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23803

they tried to get a senate vote to protect themselves from legal actions

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24665

there is a case Bowman v. Monsanto Co still pending

Organic Farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto over suing for patent infringement where cross-pollination was the culprit and the judge threw the case out because the farmers could not produce one single example of this happening.

I am not overly familiar with the US court system but how about out of court settlements, could the judge even take those into consideration? http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23451

Monsanto has sued more than 700 additional farmers who have settled out-of-court rather than face Monsanto's belligerent, and well-financed, litigious actions.

The article you refer to is very vague on the actual specifics in the Organic Farmers' lawsuit and equally vague on the details for the judge's decision. To me it almost read as a press release with just that tiny hint of "balanced" reporting needed to not be overly blatant in for whom it were written.

What was it that they could not produce one single example of happening, cross pollination? If so, your linked article contain a link ( http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134162035/a-growing-debate-how-to-define-organic-food ) leading to the below:

Organic farmers aren't allowed to plant GMO seeds. But most conventional corn in America is genetically modified, and among all grains, corn is perhaps the most promiscuous cross-pollinator, so its genes often migrate into organic fields via windblown pollen that lands on the tassels of organic corn..... most organic corn in the U.S. typically contains anywhere from half a percent to 2 percent GMOs, according to companies that sell such corn to organic dairies or poultry farmers. It has been that way since genetically engineered corn and soybeans became popular, more than a decade ago

So cross pollination would appear to be a fact. Leaving us to assume that the judge threw out the case as the Organic Farmers' were unable to prove any cases of Monsanto suing farmers for cases where the claimed infringement were due to cross pollination. How about the below, close enough for you? http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-seeds-trial-bowman-123/:

At the center of the case is Monsanto’s protection of its patented soybean, known as Roundup Ready. When farmers like Bowman plant the company’s seeds, they are only allowed to harvest the resulting crop – not keep any for next year’s harvest.

Under these rules, farmers have to buy new Monsanto seeds to plant each season, even if they already have usable seeds in their possession.

However, farmers are able to buy excess soybeans from local grain elevators, many of which are likely to be Roundup Ready seeds. One of Bowman's trips to such a grain elevator put him in Monsanto’s sights.

“We have always had the right to go to an elevator, buy some ‘junk grain’ and use it for seed if you desire,” Bowman explained.

While not a case of cross pollination in the strict meaning of the word it do get pretty damned close, if a ruling is made in favor of Monsanto it would invite them to get even more aggressive in their intimidation tactics and I would be little surprised if the number of out of court settlements increased exponentially.

Seriously. (Picture)

Some references:

Power line canceled

Brightsource canceled

Six solar projects blocked by Native American groups

On the effect of the Mojave national monuments on solar projects

Climate may change but right now we're driving the climate, not the sun. While it has been warmer, it hasn't been warmer for a very long time. Usually the climate changes slower than the pace we're driving it at, warming too fast will lead to problems for a planet full of people, crop yields are rising slower than they should be because of climate change, which means food prices are going up not just because of the rising price of oil, but also because that oil is producing less food than it should.

So, you admit that your first post on the subject was completely wrong? You can't legally "come to the nuisance" and then whine about it? Thank you for that.

In a courtroom, "coming to the nuisance" is a defense for the nuisance. But the courts aren't the only government bodies out there. The simplest is to act via local government. They have significant powers to impose and enforce regulation on nuisances.

In which cases of regulated pollution has harm NOT been shown? I say, it ha been shown in all cases.

For example, the EPA has recently created new standards for sulfur dioxide concentrations at 75 parts per billion. They didn't pick the threshold because 76 ppb was harmful but 74 ppb not harmful. So if a coal plant releases enough SO2 so that a nearby measurement shows 80 ppb, that doesn't mean that the coal plant's pollution is harmful even though it exceeds the threshold.

Externalities exist even though value is not objective. If someone is harmed, and the person causing the harm does not have to pay for it, there is an externality. The magnitude of the externality might be open to debate, and certainly, some may cry "harm" when there is none, but that does not negate the existence of externalities as class. You are basically saying, "Harm is not objective," and I agree, but so what? Our legal system still manages to work fairly well regardless.

My point is that saying "externalities exist whether people define them or not" is incorrect. A lot of externalities, such as deciding 80 ppb of SO2 exceeds standards, are externalities only because someone with power decides they are.

Not really.

Toyota paid $50 million of a piece of Tesla pre-IPO, Toyota paid them $60 million for the Rav4 deal.

But if Toyota wanted some of the DOE money (the Tesla $465 million LOAN) they would have asked and more than likely got something more like the $5.9 Billion Ford got from the same program.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/18900

Here are a few more sources for info. regarding the contract...posted for no other reason than my own annoyance with Inhabitat =P

DOE Press Release with Media Contact Number

Sustainable Business Blog, apparently the initial plant will produce 49.5 MW in capacity

Home website of NGP, the contract winner

Write up from EON, with quite a bit more info, including contact info. for various parties involved.

Sorry man but it's seattle only and won't be in effect untill January..
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/16499

Sometimes Seattle gets this idea that it is the entire state but there is lots more out here.

even if we knew that we cannot enforce harsh provisions on developing countries politically (and that matters - killing your own economy to accomplish nothing is dumb).

The first part, about forcing developing countries to adopt "harsh provisions", is true but not the second, "killing your own economy to accomplish nothing is dumb". As regards reducing geenhouse gas emissions, quite the opposite. If the US or other developed countries were to develop alternative energy sources it could be a boon to the economy. Research will create jobs as will building and manufacturing. Licensing the technology will bring in money as well. Even Shell Oil is getting into the act with one of the biggest pv, photovoltaic, manufacturers. Sharp is the biggest solar manufacturer as well as an efficiency leader. Seventy four percent of Sharp's sales are in products with a Green Seal. Maxwell is the leading company developing ultracapacitors, used to store energy generated by solar, wind, and other sources. GE has it's eco-magination initiative and is growing it's wind genie business. For other examples checkout SustainableBusiness.com.