Hello Readers,
I am traveling this week, so I don't have the opportunity to do a proper post. However, I thought it was important to note the minor progress made at the end of the Durban conference.
The New York Times reported:
"Then, in an early-morning huddle on Sunday on the floor of the conference, the American team came up with the language that finally persuaded India to accept the legal character of any future agreement, simply by rearranging a few words."
...
"The delegates agreed only to begin negotiations with a deadline of 2015 to produce a new agreement to take effect in 2020. There is no certainty about what will be in such an agreement, and no confidence that the United States Senate will ratify it. But those are problems for another day."
Check out the information on the articles: Climate Talks in Durban Yield Limited Agreement and U.S. Envoy Relieved by Climate Talks’ Outcome.
I'll try to catch up with more information prior to the end of the year.
~Sean Diamond
Friday, December 16, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Movie Review: A Crude Awakening
Hello Readers,
Earlier this week, I watched A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash movie directed by Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormack. This movie, which was released in 2006 (the middle of the Bush administration), is as much a horror movie as it is a documentary.
Through a series of intertwining interviews, which are scored with a background soundtrack that would not be out of place in a slasher movie or an episode of the X-Files (similar to the background track of the trailer below), A Crude Awakening offers a prophecy of the collapse of the modern oil-based society.
A Crude Awakening is a mixed bag for environmentalists. It will both inform and frighten the audience. I did not notice statements (opinions aside) that are overtly factually incorrect; however, the tone of the movie overpowers the information. It may be good as a factual refresher for seasoned environmentalists, but I would not recommend this movie as a way to start a discussion on peak oil.
While the movie describes in detail the implications and likelihood of peak oil, it offers no sense of purpose or motivation to solve the issue. In fact, any solutions that may have been mentioned will be lost in the mosh-pit of despair that is A Crude Awakening.
The tagline of the movie says it all: "We're running out [of oil], and we don't have a plan." If you do show this movie, I would definitely follow up with a debriefing session or by handing out business cards of therapists.
Best of Luck,
Sean Diamond
Earlier this week, I watched A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash movie directed by Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormack. This movie, which was released in 2006 (the middle of the Bush administration), is as much a horror movie as it is a documentary.
Through a series of intertwining interviews, which are scored with a background soundtrack that would not be out of place in a slasher movie or an episode of the X-Files (similar to the background track of the trailer below), A Crude Awakening offers a prophecy of the collapse of the modern oil-based society.
A Crude Awakening is a mixed bag for environmentalists. It will both inform and frighten the audience. I did not notice statements (opinions aside) that are overtly factually incorrect; however, the tone of the movie overpowers the information. It may be good as a factual refresher for seasoned environmentalists, but I would not recommend this movie as a way to start a discussion on peak oil.
While the movie describes in detail the implications and likelihood of peak oil, it offers no sense of purpose or motivation to solve the issue. In fact, any solutions that may have been mentioned will be lost in the mosh-pit of despair that is A Crude Awakening.
The tagline of the movie says it all: "We're running out [of oil], and we don't have a plan." If you do show this movie, I would definitely follow up with a debriefing session or by handing out business cards of therapists.
Best of Luck,
Sean Diamond
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Pennsylvania Solar Jobs put in perspective
Hello Readers,
The initial committee hearing about the Pennsylvania Solar Jobs Bill (HB 1580) was canceled today. Theoretically, it will be rescheduled; however, it is very likely that the bill will not be discussed in committee prior to the end of the year. This is extremely unfortunate, because the longer the bill is delayed the more solar jobs will leave the state (whether to the unemployment line or to other states).
Of course, there has been virtually no media attention drawn to the floundering of this bill and the Pennsylvania solar industry. And why should there be? Everyone knows it is a fledgling industry, right? It doesn't even employ that many people, does it?
In fact, it does! Or rather it did before the PA SREC market crash went unaddressed for an entire year. In 2010, the National Solar Jobs Census ranked Pennsylvania as the number two employer of solar industry professionals in the country. The best estimate was that approximately 6,700 people were directly employed in the solar industry in Pennsylvania during 2010 (before the SREC market was allowed to crash). To put this in perspective, The US EIA estimates that there were approximately 8,000 people employed in coal mining in Pennsylvania in 2009.
In 2010, there were nearly as many solar industry employees in Pennsylvania (one of the top three coal states in the country) as there were coal miners!
Yet there has been no legislative action to correct the job losses that are being caused almost entirely due to a legislative issue. As a result, the 2011 National Solar Jobs Census is estimating that there are now only about 4,700 solar industry jobs in Pennsylvania: a year-on-year decrease of 2000 jobs. (Even though, the country as a whole added 7,000 solar industry jobs.)
Pennsylvania is losing out on good jobs, because the legislature is failing to act. If 2000 coal mining jobs could be saved through legislative action that involved no taxpayer revenue, how quickly would such legislation pass (or at least be brought to the floor)?
Frustratedly yours,
Sean Diamond
The initial committee hearing about the Pennsylvania Solar Jobs Bill (HB 1580) was canceled today. Theoretically, it will be rescheduled; however, it is very likely that the bill will not be discussed in committee prior to the end of the year. This is extremely unfortunate, because the longer the bill is delayed the more solar jobs will leave the state (whether to the unemployment line or to other states).
Of course, there has been virtually no media attention drawn to the floundering of this bill and the Pennsylvania solar industry. And why should there be? Everyone knows it is a fledgling industry, right? It doesn't even employ that many people, does it?
In fact, it does! Or rather it did before the PA SREC market crash went unaddressed for an entire year. In 2010, the National Solar Jobs Census ranked Pennsylvania as the number two employer of solar industry professionals in the country. The best estimate was that approximately 6,700 people were directly employed in the solar industry in Pennsylvania during 2010 (before the SREC market was allowed to crash). To put this in perspective, The US EIA estimates that there were approximately 8,000 people employed in coal mining in Pennsylvania in 2009.
In 2010, there were nearly as many solar industry employees in Pennsylvania (one of the top three coal states in the country) as there were coal miners!
Yet there has been no legislative action to correct the job losses that are being caused almost entirely due to a legislative issue. As a result, the 2011 National Solar Jobs Census is estimating that there are now only about 4,700 solar industry jobs in Pennsylvania: a year-on-year decrease of 2000 jobs. (Even though, the country as a whole added 7,000 solar industry jobs.)
Pennsylvania is losing out on good jobs, because the legislature is failing to act. If 2000 coal mining jobs could be saved through legislative action that involved no taxpayer revenue, how quickly would such legislation pass (or at least be brought to the floor)?
Frustratedly yours,
Sean Diamond
Monday, December 5, 2011
Movie Review: Forks Over Knives
Hello Readers,
Yesterday, I watched the documentary Forks Over Knives written and directed by Lee Fulkerson. The trailer for the movie (embedded below) can also be found on the movie's website.
As you can gather from the trailer, the documentary focuses on the connection between dietary choices and medical conditions (including: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes). The backbone of Forks Over Knives is two extended interviews with doctors T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., which is crosscut with other food and medical experts and the personal stories of people (including the director) who have seen the benefits of a 'plant-based' diet.
Dr. Campbell's research included analyzing a broad sampling medical cases in a variety of counties in mainland China, which is published in a book that he co-authored with his son: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Throughout the movie, Dr. Campbell describes the correlations that he discovered between a diet of animal-based foods (e.g. meat, dairy, eggs) and medical conditions (especially different types of cancer).
Dr. Esselstyn's research involves much more depth than breadth. His study followed roughly 20 individuals with heart disease and related conditions for 20 years. He required his patients/subjects to follow dietary restrictions such as reducing their intake of animal-based foods, and he closely monitored their diet, overall health, and medical conditions. Dr. Esselstyn works at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, has published a large number of academic articles (many of which can be found through Google Scholar), and maintains a website about his recommendations: http://www.heartattackproof.com/.
In addition to the primary thrust of the documentary, Forks Over Knives sprinkles in some non-health-related benefits of and potential barriers to promoting plant-based diets in America. Among the tangential issues that the documentary mentions (in some cases advocatively) are the connection between climate change and meat production and the stereo-type that veganism is non-masculine.
Overall, this documentary has a very convincing message that a plant-based diet can improve a person's health. However, it does very little to offer potential criticisms of the findings of the interviewees. From a preliminary search, it appears that there has been little-to-no direct criticism of Dr. Esselstyn's findings or suggestions; however, it is evident that the results of Dr. Campbell's research have been met with some criticism.
For a little bit of balance, here are some criticisms that are articulate and well referenced:
I recommend Forks Over Knives for people trying to start a conversation about healthy eating. It also offers some helpful tidbits for vegans and vegetarians attempting to explain their dietary choices to friends and family members. This is not a movie for kids as it focuses a lot on its middle-aged cast; however, it might be good for older teenagers and twenty-somethings that are interested in continuing to feel young and healthy for decades to come.
Yesterday, I watched the documentary Forks Over Knives written and directed by Lee Fulkerson. The trailer for the movie (embedded below) can also be found on the movie's website.
As you can gather from the trailer, the documentary focuses on the connection between dietary choices and medical conditions (including: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes). The backbone of Forks Over Knives is two extended interviews with doctors T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., which is crosscut with other food and medical experts and the personal stories of people (including the director) who have seen the benefits of a 'plant-based' diet.
Dr. Campbell's research included analyzing a broad sampling medical cases in a variety of counties in mainland China, which is published in a book that he co-authored with his son: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Throughout the movie, Dr. Campbell describes the correlations that he discovered between a diet of animal-based foods (e.g. meat, dairy, eggs) and medical conditions (especially different types of cancer).
Dr. Esselstyn's research involves much more depth than breadth. His study followed roughly 20 individuals with heart disease and related conditions for 20 years. He required his patients/subjects to follow dietary restrictions such as reducing their intake of animal-based foods, and he closely monitored their diet, overall health, and medical conditions. Dr. Esselstyn works at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, has published a large number of academic articles (many of which can be found through Google Scholar), and maintains a website about his recommendations: http://www.heartattackproof.com/.
In addition to the primary thrust of the documentary, Forks Over Knives sprinkles in some non-health-related benefits of and potential barriers to promoting plant-based diets in America. Among the tangential issues that the documentary mentions (in some cases advocatively) are the connection between climate change and meat production and the stereo-type that veganism is non-masculine.
Overall, this documentary has a very convincing message that a plant-based diet can improve a person's health. However, it does very little to offer potential criticisms of the findings of the interviewees. From a preliminary search, it appears that there has been little-to-no direct criticism of Dr. Esselstyn's findings or suggestions; however, it is evident that the results of Dr. Campbell's research have been met with some criticism.
For a little bit of balance, here are some criticisms that are articulate and well referenced:
- 'The Truth About the China Study' from cholestoral-and-health.com
- 'The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response' from rawfoodsos.com
I recommend Forks Over Knives for people trying to start a conversation about healthy eating. It also offers some helpful tidbits for vegans and vegetarians attempting to explain their dietary choices to friends and family members. This is not a movie for kids as it focuses a lot on its middle-aged cast; however, it might be good for older teenagers and twenty-somethings that are interested in continuing to feel young and healthy for decades to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)