Its black history month and I thought it would be a good idea to highlight one man who was the vanguard of the agriculture and bio-green movement. That man is George Washington Carver.
He was born on or around July 12, 1865 into slavery. After slavery was abolished, he was raised by his original slave owner as his son. He was taught how to read and write at a time when African-Americans received no such fundamental training because they were not allowed to go to school where he lived. He ultimately went to a school for blacks and later attended college in Iowa where he ultimately studied agriculture.
In 1896, he joined the faculty at Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute (nka Tuskegee University), which was founded by Booker T. Washington. He became the school's director of agriculture. He devoted his time to research projects for helping farmers improve there methods of agriculture. He conducted experiments on soil management. He was shocked coming from the beautiful diverse agriculture and farming industry of Iowa to the limited astere cotton growing agriculture of the South. He wanted to change this myopic method of agriculture in the South.
Due to the poor condition of the soil in the South, he provided solutions to revive the soil by planting peanuts and soybeans. These crops help inject nitrogen back into the soil restoring it to a more fertile condition.
During his research and an effort to promote other crops in the South, such as peanuts and sweet potatoes, he developed 300 derivative products from peanuts, including inks, dyes, plastics and cosmetics, and another 118 from sweet potatoes, including postage stamp glue and rubber. His efforts help transformed the Southern agriculture to a multi crop and profitable business.
His concepts in reinventing agriculture were the stepping stones for other agriculture innovations that followed. Therefore, he was not only an important person in African-American history, he was a very important and influential figure in American history.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
What a Waste?
Americans have criticized for being wasteful in many ways even though there has been a slight shift to becoming a more frugal society due to the economic downturn. Nevertheless, there is one area, however, where frugality has not set in, our food consumption. I will not bore you with a story about America's obesity problem. The issue I am concerned about is that we tend not to do what my Grand mom always made sure I did at the dinner table, clean off my plate. We have become a wasteful society when it comes to food. There are reports out there stating that the rich countries throw away 25 to 30% of what is bought at the supermarkets.
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Maryland has looked into this issue in regard to Americans. They concluded that the average American wastes 1,400 kilocalories a day, which amounts to 150 trillion kilocalories a year for the entire country. This represents 40% of the US food supply, which is up from 28% in 1974.
The production of these wasted calories has accounted for more than 1/4 of America's consumption of freshwater and 300 million barrels of oil a year. Add in the amount of methane that this rotting heap of thrown away food creates, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, this level of waste is not just a food problem anymore.
One must be scratching his or her head trying to tie the obesity problem with this wasted food crisis. At first blush, they would seem to be contradictions; however, scientists concluded in their above report that there is a connection. They call it the "push effect" in which the increased supply of food and how it is marketed has created this wasteful food culture. Also, the fact that food still is relatively cheap is another contributing factor. If food was more costly, we would not be so wasteful because we would see both money and food that is being thrown away every time we turn to that garbage can.
Perhaps we can all make a another New Years resolution this year along with our goal to lose weight. Let's be less wasteful. Of course, this still means us cleaning off your plate, but this time we will not asking for seconds.
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Maryland has looked into this issue in regard to Americans. They concluded that the average American wastes 1,400 kilocalories a day, which amounts to 150 trillion kilocalories a year for the entire country. This represents 40% of the US food supply, which is up from 28% in 1974.
The production of these wasted calories has accounted for more than 1/4 of America's consumption of freshwater and 300 million barrels of oil a year. Add in the amount of methane that this rotting heap of thrown away food creates, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, this level of waste is not just a food problem anymore.
One must be scratching his or her head trying to tie the obesity problem with this wasted food crisis. At first blush, they would seem to be contradictions; however, scientists concluded in their above report that there is a connection. They call it the "push effect" in which the increased supply of food and how it is marketed has created this wasteful food culture. Also, the fact that food still is relatively cheap is another contributing factor. If food was more costly, we would not be so wasteful because we would see both money and food that is being thrown away every time we turn to that garbage can.
Perhaps we can all make a another New Years resolution this year along with our goal to lose weight. Let's be less wasteful. Of course, this still means us cleaning off your plate, but this time we will not asking for seconds.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Bill McKibben Interview of 350.org
I heard a great interview with Bill McKibbon of 350.org at Speaking of Faith. Here is the link.
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/moral-math/
He has some interesting points about the cost of climate change to the world economy.
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/moral-math/
He has some interesting points about the cost of climate change to the world economy.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
America is falling behind in the Green Revolution
Just like the automobile industry, the US is falling behind Asia in the area of green technology. Japan is about 10 years ahead of the US in solar technology. That country offers residential solar technology on a large scale. China has been putting in tons of money in development of wind technology.
According to a report from the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, as reported in the Financial Times, the US attracted about $56 billion in private capital for renewable energy technology between 2000 and 2008. China ended this same period with $41 billion in private capital invested. However, the report states that over the next 5 years, Japan, China and South Korea would between them invest a total of $509 billion in clean technology. In contrast, the US will invest about $172 billion over that same period.
This report states further that China is poised to repeat the same success in green technology that South Korea and Japan had established in electronics and automobiles. It looks like these "Green Tigers" will be the leaders in the gren technology industry with the US trying to play catch up once again. This will be a missed opportunity for the US the shift its economy from an unbalanced service oriented economy back to a balanced service and manufacturing economy. This economic transformation will benefit the US both in economic growth and security.
Unfortunately, we may be too late. China is already the leader in exporting solar power components and has one of the biggest wind turbine manufacturing industries. This year China will export the first wind turbine destined for use in a US wind farm valued at $1.5 billion. With a 10% unemployment rate, this is unacceptable that we would not be providing these wind turbines by our own companies to US wind farms.
According to the report, the US relies on foreign-owned companies to manufacture most wind turbines and produces less than 10% of the world's solar cells. In addition, we have already fell behind the other foreign automobile companies in hybrid and electric car technology.
The US needs to take the lead in this. There should be no debate on this by Congress because it benefits all Americans: conservatives, liberals, independents, farmers, city dwellers, the wealthy and the poor. Let's get to work become the leader in the Eco-economy.
According to a report from the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, as reported in the Financial Times, the US attracted about $56 billion in private capital for renewable energy technology between 2000 and 2008. China ended this same period with $41 billion in private capital invested. However, the report states that over the next 5 years, Japan, China and South Korea would between them invest a total of $509 billion in clean technology. In contrast, the US will invest about $172 billion over that same period.
This report states further that China is poised to repeat the same success in green technology that South Korea and Japan had established in electronics and automobiles. It looks like these "Green Tigers" will be the leaders in the gren technology industry with the US trying to play catch up once again. This will be a missed opportunity for the US the shift its economy from an unbalanced service oriented economy back to a balanced service and manufacturing economy. This economic transformation will benefit the US both in economic growth and security.
Unfortunately, we may be too late. China is already the leader in exporting solar power components and has one of the biggest wind turbine manufacturing industries. This year China will export the first wind turbine destined for use in a US wind farm valued at $1.5 billion. With a 10% unemployment rate, this is unacceptable that we would not be providing these wind turbines by our own companies to US wind farms.
According to the report, the US relies on foreign-owned companies to manufacture most wind turbines and produces less than 10% of the world's solar cells. In addition, we have already fell behind the other foreign automobile companies in hybrid and electric car technology.
The US needs to take the lead in this. There should be no debate on this by Congress because it benefits all Americans: conservatives, liberals, independents, farmers, city dwellers, the wealthy and the poor. Let's get to work become the leader in the Eco-economy.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
News from Copenhagen December 9th
Well, it looks like that China and the US cannot play nice in the global sandbox. China yesterday pushed back the climate change obligations onto the developed countries stating that the developed countries should be responsible for reducing carbon emissions, not the developing countries.
The US has returned responded by stating that it is China, whose Co2 emissions will increase dramatically in the upcoming years, that needs to seriously commit to such C02 reductions.
The fact is the both US and China have to step up to the plate. One country, the US, is currently the largest emitter and the other country, China, will be the largest emitter. Until these two countries commit to take serious action to reduce their emissions, the rest of the world will not take action. We are in an international relations suspended state in a rapidly changing environment. It is time for these two "babies" to grow up, get out of the sandbox and start acting like adults and not like children.
Speaking of children, a US Republican "delegation" is showing up to Denmark to protest any real commitment by the President to a global pact to reduce Co2 emissions. They claim that any such action will have a negative impact on US jobs. The added that the President should not make the same mistake that Al Gore did in Kyoto by committing to something he cannot deliver. And we thought health care reform was tough. Wait until the White House pushes for a climate change bill. That will make the health care reform protests look like a tea party in comparison to the battles that will occur on the Senate and House floor and the various Jerry Springer like town hall meetings throughout the country.
So here is a word of advice to polar bears and nations at sea level, seek hire ground.
The US has returned responded by stating that it is China, whose Co2 emissions will increase dramatically in the upcoming years, that needs to seriously commit to such C02 reductions.
The fact is the both US and China have to step up to the plate. One country, the US, is currently the largest emitter and the other country, China, will be the largest emitter. Until these two countries commit to take serious action to reduce their emissions, the rest of the world will not take action. We are in an international relations suspended state in a rapidly changing environment. It is time for these two "babies" to grow up, get out of the sandbox and start acting like adults and not like children.
Speaking of children, a US Republican "delegation" is showing up to Denmark to protest any real commitment by the President to a global pact to reduce Co2 emissions. They claim that any such action will have a negative impact on US jobs. The added that the President should not make the same mistake that Al Gore did in Kyoto by committing to something he cannot deliver. And we thought health care reform was tough. Wait until the White House pushes for a climate change bill. That will make the health care reform protests look like a tea party in comparison to the battles that will occur on the Senate and House floor and the various Jerry Springer like town hall meetings throughout the country.
So here is a word of advice to polar bears and nations at sea level, seek hire ground.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
This Month's Number: 57%
57%
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press did a recent polling of 1500 adults regarding the issue of whether global warming is caused by man made activities. The result is that only 57% of those polled believe that there is strong scientific evidence that that the Earth is warming due to man's actions. This dropped considerably from 77% in 2006 and 71% in 2008.
What is happening here? There are more sceptics out there that are getting public exposure to "challenge" the scientific evidence. Because of the 24/7 news cycle and the variety of different methods to express your opinion via the Internet and other forms of electronic communication, there is a larger audience that is being exposed to this counter position.
In addition, although this happened after the polling, more than 3000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) were released to the public after their servers were hacked. According to news reports, there is evidence in these documents and e-mails that certain scientists were working together to exclude or "massage" certain data in order to unequivocally reach the conclusion that man is causing global warning. Also, it has been reported that there were efforts to exclude scientists who were critics of this position.
Unfortunately, this new news might push that 57% down to a level where the majority believes that man is not causing global warming. More importantly, the scientific community is now facing an issue of credibility. They already had a hard time convincing people beforehand. Now, they are facing a more sceptic public with a lack of credibility. Good luck. I am going to start working on that Ark.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press did a recent polling of 1500 adults regarding the issue of whether global warming is caused by man made activities. The result is that only 57% of those polled believe that there is strong scientific evidence that that the Earth is warming due to man's actions. This dropped considerably from 77% in 2006 and 71% in 2008.
What is happening here? There are more sceptics out there that are getting public exposure to "challenge" the scientific evidence. Because of the 24/7 news cycle and the variety of different methods to express your opinion via the Internet and other forms of electronic communication, there is a larger audience that is being exposed to this counter position.
In addition, although this happened after the polling, more than 3000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) were released to the public after their servers were hacked. According to news reports, there is evidence in these documents and e-mails that certain scientists were working together to exclude or "massage" certain data in order to unequivocally reach the conclusion that man is causing global warning. Also, it has been reported that there were efforts to exclude scientists who were critics of this position.
Unfortunately, this new news might push that 57% down to a level where the majority believes that man is not causing global warming. More importantly, the scientific community is now facing an issue of credibility. They already had a hard time convincing people beforehand. Now, they are facing a more sceptic public with a lack of credibility. Good luck. I am going to start working on that Ark.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Buffett Betting on Coal?
Most of us would agree that Warren Buffett's stature as an investor reaches level of Godlike stature in which many people call him the Oracle of Omaha. His company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N), is paying $26 billion to buy out railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNI.N), the company's biggest ever investment. Burlington Northern Santa Fe is a leading transporter of coal. According to MarketWatch, this company's coal shipments accounted for roughly 25 percent of the firm's total revenue in Q3 2009. In fact, Burlington Northern had shipped 297 million tons of coal last year, which amounts to roughly 10% of the energy supply used to meet country's electrical needs. Its coal shipments are down 6% this year, however, which many believe is due to recession.
It seems odd that Berkshire and Buffett would invest this amount of money in a company that relies on a good portion of its revenue from shipping coal when there is a pending carbon emissions bill in Congress and a push to replace coal with other alternative clean energy solutions, such as solar and wind. Perhaps Buffett believes that coal will still be a significant part of the country's future energy policy or that the pending bill in Congress will not have as great of an impact in reducing coal usage. In addition, investing in a railroad is not a bad investment considering that trains use a significantly less amount of fuel than other forms of transportation.
In fact, Buffet is quoted as saying the following:
BNSF last year ... moved a ton of goods 470 miles on one gallon of diesel. It releases far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere. It saves enormously on energy consumption and ... it diminishes highway congestion. Rails last year moved 40 percent, more than 40 percent, over the country. They moved more than all those trucks, just the four big railroads. It's a very effective way of moving goods. I basically believe this country will prosper and you'll have more people moving more goods 10 and 20 and 30 years from now, and the rails should benefit.
It should be noted that Berkshire has invested in the energy company, MidAmerican Energy, which has received approval in Iowa to build wind farms with a total 1,001 megawatts of generating capacity. Like any shrewd investor, you need to hedge your bets. I am leaning toward Congress and public pressure to pass a carbon emissions bill that will restrict coal usage; however, betting against Buffett is never a good strategy even if you will be betting against the future survival of the planet.
It seems odd that Berkshire and Buffett would invest this amount of money in a company that relies on a good portion of its revenue from shipping coal when there is a pending carbon emissions bill in Congress and a push to replace coal with other alternative clean energy solutions, such as solar and wind. Perhaps Buffett believes that coal will still be a significant part of the country's future energy policy or that the pending bill in Congress will not have as great of an impact in reducing coal usage. In addition, investing in a railroad is not a bad investment considering that trains use a significantly less amount of fuel than other forms of transportation.
In fact, Buffet is quoted as saying the following:
BNSF last year ... moved a ton of goods 470 miles on one gallon of diesel. It releases far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere. It saves enormously on energy consumption and ... it diminishes highway congestion. Rails last year moved 40 percent, more than 40 percent, over the country. They moved more than all those trucks, just the four big railroads. It's a very effective way of moving goods. I basically believe this country will prosper and you'll have more people moving more goods 10 and 20 and 30 years from now, and the rails should benefit.
It should be noted that Berkshire has invested in the energy company, MidAmerican Energy, which has received approval in Iowa to build wind farms with a total 1,001 megawatts of generating capacity. Like any shrewd investor, you need to hedge your bets. I am leaning toward Congress and public pressure to pass a carbon emissions bill that will restrict coal usage; however, betting against Buffett is never a good strategy even if you will be betting against the future survival of the planet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
