Atom

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/23/us/how-nazis-tried-to-steer-us-politics.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LU0.WGf0.-8sCQw7Z9Qn1&smid=url-share

Gifted link

I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Dredge this year. Highly recommend

Environmental impact statements and plans for projects like these rarely include details for end of life stages. In my environmental program, we reviewed and submitted comments on some. I selected a solar farm that was scheduled to last 20 years and then be removed. The only details they provided for end of life was that the panels would be disposed of locally. This is a common trend in any industry, not just green tech. However, I argue that we are at a point where we need to transform our entire energy infrastructure system in a short time. We have an opportunity to do it right and not end up with solar panels in landfills or derelict wind farms as we have burning coal mines and wells leaking gas.

For US based readers, you can look up projects on the EPA's site and make comments yourself. You don't need to be an expert to encourage sustainable practices.

https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search

Joe Biden finalized a 5.2% federal pay raise for many civilian employees for 2024. The highest in over two decades, with the second highest being last year's.

Not really, just decent ranching land mainly. There's a reason the US was willing to briefly give it away to the Native Americans.

Reminds me of the time GOP Senator Mark-Wayne Mullin shouted "I don't want reality!" In a senate hearing

The article, and their sources for cost analysis, don't appear to say, but how long is the lifespan of the production infrastructure? This detail is often left off these kinds of graphics and I have found that many articles pick 20 years as the lifespan, since that is the typical lifespan of common solar panels (not saying that can't last longer, but 20 years is a nice easy number). This becomes problematic when leveling cost against nuclear, where the plants a built to run 50 years and often run longer. Fossil fuels to a similar extent with many running long past 50 years. Nuclear takes a long time to become profitable, around 15 years typically. Not a problem in a 50-65 year cost analysis, but certainly a problem in a 20 year scenario. Unfortunately, 20 year cost analysis are common and if the article doesn't say what their timeline is, that is usually the case.

Already forgotten about the infrastructure bill? That also includes a lot of climate action.

The 119th Congress will be seated on January 3rd 2025 and the presidential election certification will be January 6th. So if the Dems win the majority in 2024, they won't have the power to deny certificatation outright. Though, I'm sure a minority will still object to every swing state like they did in 2020, just to draw it out.

The country music genre is another casualty of 9/11

"The news shows that it’s difficult for consumers to make virtuous or even healthy choices when many of the options on the market are a “pick your poison.” It makes any eco-conscious person want to throw their hands up in despair."

Interesting conclusion given the headline of the article... So 90% of the paper straw brands tested had PFAS. Okay, obviously not good. But that means some companies already make them without PFAS, so 1: What compaies do and that will help consumers select a good alternative. I imagine a 'PFAS free' label would be just as successful as the 'BPA free' movement. 2: it's possible to make them without, so all that is needed to PFAS regulation, which many nations are already working on, and then the paper alternative is viable again.

It's stories like these that say "the good you are trying to do is really bad" that make it hard. Environmental problems don't have silver bullets. They require trade offs and problem solving and informed decisions.

To target something so ubiquitous that everyone has dealt with it and doesn't like it?