Climate Change? Nahhh ...

nuclear

China bans Japanese seafood after Fukushima wastewater release

 

Residents of Yellowknife are trying to return, but the fire is still burning.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nwt-wildfire-update-august-23-2023-1.6945337

 

I'm sure science is at the forefront of the decision-making here and no political influence is involved.

 

Nails it from 3:40 to 4:25. ... Too bad most Texans won't see it.

 

Nah, there's no space to put solar panels in Texas.

 

AC, green?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ning-technology-could-be-the-future-of-cool/?

This past July was the hottest recorded month in human history. Heat waves smashed temperature records worldwide and even brought summer temperatures to Chile and Argentina during the Southern Hemisphere’s winter. It’s more than just a matter of sweaty discomfort. Severe heat is the deadliest of all weather events; in the U.S. alone, it kills more people each year than floods, tornadoes and hurricanes combined. As climate change worsens, access to artificially cooled spaces is rapidly becoming a health necessity—and an issue of basic human rights.

Yet standard air-conditioning systems have ensnared us in a negative feedback loop: the hotter it is, the more people crank the AC—and the more energy is used (and greenhouse gases are emitted) as a result. “We’re in a vicious cycle,” says Nicole Miranda, an engineer researching sustainable cooling at the University of Oxford. And “it’s not only a vicious cycle, but it’s an accelerating one.” Cooling is the fastest-growing single source of energy use in buildings, according to 2018 data from the International Energy Agency (IEA). Following a business-as-usual scenario, the IEA projects that worldwide annual energy demand from cooling will more than triple by 2050. That’s an increase of more than 4,000 terawatt-hours, which is about how much energy the entire U.S. uses in a year.

 

this is 51/49 kind of issue.

 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan said the agency had no alternative after the Supreme Court sharply limited the federal government’s power to regulate wetlands that do not have a “continuous surface connection” to larger, regulated bodies of water.

Yep, sounds 51-49 to me. Pendejo.

 

Not said: The federal government spent decades expanding the Clean Water Act to ridiculous proportions, to the point that it had come to regard "navigable waters" as practically any body of water — no matter how small — on public or private land. The Supreme Court "sharply limited" power the federal government had seen fit to create for itself out of thin air, thinking no one would ever push back on it.
The case that led to the most recent decision involved a ditch that was three tributaries removed from a major lake.

Supreme Court reins in EPA overreach