Stricter emissions & corporate fuel economy (CAFE) regulations established by the previous administration, seen as too cumbersome, may not be funded. From last month:
In a March 21 budget document posted online by the Washington Post, the Trump administration proposed eliminating $48 million in federal funding for EPA vehicle and fuel testing and certification.
It represents a 99 percent federal cut to the vehicle testing budget and would require “pretty much shutting down the testing lab,” said Margo Oge, who headed the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality under President Barack Obama. (Reuters)
Some argue the regulatory goals are attainable while others say they’re hurting manufacturing jobs. Today’s unscientific poll seeks to find out reader views on the issue.
First off let me quote NASA to explain some terms:
Weather vs. climate
Weather refers to atmospheric conditions that occur locally over short periods of time—from minutes to hours or days. Familiar examples include rain, snow, clouds, winds, floods or thunderstorms. Remember, weather is local and short-term.
Climate, on the other hand, refers to the long-term regional or even global average of temperature, humidity and rainfall patterns over seasons, years or decades. Remember, climate is global and long-term.
Global warming
Global warming refers to the upward temperature trend across the entire Earth since the early 20th century, and most notably since the late 1970s, due to the increase in fossil fuel emissions since the industrial revolution. Worldwide since 1880, the average surface temperature has gone up by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), relative to the mid-20th-century baseline (of 1951-1980).
Climate change
Climate change refers to a broad range of global phenomena created predominantly by burning fossil fuels, which add heat-trapping gases to Earth’s atmosphere. These phenomena include the increased temperature trends described by global warming, but also encompass changes such as sea level rise; ice mass loss in Greenland, Antarctica, the Arctic and mountain glaciers worldwide; shifts in flower/plant blooming; and extreme weather events.
The science behind climate change is clear, the facts are overwhelming…there is no such thing as alternate facts.
Last year, global warming reached record high temperatures — and if that news feels like déjà vu, you’re not going crazy.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just released its annual State of the Climate report, which says it’s the hottest it has been since scientists started tracking global temperatures in 1880.
Human activity is causing the planet to heat up, melting ice, raising ocean levels. Thankfully, most of you realize the situation the world is in isn’t a hoax.
Q: Agree or disagree: ‘Climate Change’ is a hoax.
Strongly agree 5 [3.38%]
Agree 5 [3.38%]
Somewhat agree 1 [0.68%]
Neither agree or disagree 3 [2.03%]
Somewhat disagree 0 [0%]
Disagree 6 [4.05%]
Strongly disagree 127 [85.81%]
Unsure/No Answer 1 [0.68%]
As you can see from the non-scientific results above, few think it is a hoax.
Click image to view this 2013 tweet on Twitter.
Click here to see a top 10 list of Trump’s climate denying tweets and here to see climate deniers in the Trump administration.
Thankfully we still have Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate.
Last week scientists announced 2016 was the warmest year on record:
Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016, trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014. It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row. (New York Times)
Not everyone is convinced — some call global warming/climate change a “hoax”. We’re either risking irreversible change or wasting time & money on a non-issue.
Today’s poll seeks to find out where readers are on this debate.
She and the City of Maplewood are in opposite corners on the issue of her garden. I see both sides. Yes, the Monarch butterfly is critical — we need them pollenating. Like most things, there’s a right way and a wrong way. First, the results from the non-scientific Sunday Poll:
Q: Finish this statement: Monarch Butterfly Gardens in residential neighborhoods…
…are ok if it’s not allowed to grow wild 9 [24.32%]
TIE 8 [21.62%]
…are more important than local “weed” laws
…are a wonderful change from boring lawns
TIE 5 [13.51%]
…are great if the yard is large enough to have shorter natives around tall milkweed
Other:
Fine if they are kept out of the PROW
Are maintained and in the backyard.
should be encouraged, and perhaps rewarded.
shorter natives plus annual flowers like zinnias, which monarchs love
Irrelevant and belong in rural areas
…are a nuisance 2 [5.41%]
Like many of you, I’m bored with manicured lawns — I much prefer a front-yard garden that produces fruits &/or vegetables or provides habitat for birds, butterflies, etc. Ferguson
However, as I’ve experienced with previous yards, getting the non-lawn garden to look like a planned & cared-for outcome is very tough.
The controversial butterfly garden on Cambridge Ave on August 13th
Though I’d admire Hezel for her effort to create an environment for the Monarch butterfly, she’s ignored some basic rules of good garden design.
There’s no physical barrier between the neighbors lawn and her garden. This makes it impossible to keep the grass out.
The tall plant is milkweed — a must for the Monarch butterfly. There are numerous varieties of milkweed, some aren’t as tall as the common variety. I don’t know the variety she has but my guess is it’s the tallest, not the shortest. There are tall ornamental grasses that look great when contrasted with shorter plants — but you wouldn’t fill your entire yard with pampas grass, for example.
The massing of the plants just doesn’t work. I tried to find examples of good butterfly gardens with milkweed but I had no luck. They must exist, but the people I contacted were unable to point me to any. There are great gardens with natives, but not specific Monarch butterfly gardens.
I think Hezel needs to start over, creating a barrier to the North to keep grass our of her garden. Donate the tall milkweed, and get shorter varieties.
Recently a butterfly garden in the inner-ring suburb of Maplewood has been in the news:
Alice Helzer has lived in her historic Maplewood home for more than 35 years and for several years has decided to let the plants in her garden grow. She enjoys growing milkweed because it is a natural habitat for the monarch butterfly.
The City of Maplewood has determined that the plants are weeds and says Helzer is in violation of an ordinance that reads in part: The owner, lessee, renter, head of a household or person having control of any lot or tract of land, or any part thereof, shall not allow or maintain on any such lot or tract of land or any part thereof any growth of grass or weeds to a height of 12 inches or over. (KMOV)
I’ve seen her garden and have my opinions, but first I want to know what you think.
Like always, today’s poll is open until 8pm. The answers are in a random order, you’re free to supply your own.
Error: (#10) To use 'Page Public Content Access', your use of this endpoint must be reviewed and approved by Facebook. To submit this 'Page Public Content Access' feature for review please read our documentation on reviewable features: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/apps/review. Type: OAuthException Code: 10 Please refer to our Error Message Reference.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
