Pengakuan Fans Tentang Bowo Artis Tik Tok: Ganteng dan Manis

This post is a part of a series on Farm Bill 2018 Recently, some fellow data geeks and I spent (quite a lot of) time ranking all 50 states on the health and sustainability of their food systems, from soil to spoon. We went through the trouble for a few reasons. First, as you may have heard in bits and pieces, the state of our farms, our food supply, and our dietary health is not good—globally, nationally, regionally, and likely even in your neighborhood. As all these things are interrelated, we wanted to dig into the data to better understand what’s going on. Second, when it comes to food systems, we believe that the United States can do better. And, since innovative solutions are already popping up across the country, highlighting these as models may be key to building a healthy, sustainable, and just world. Finally—call us crazy—but we just love data and (yes) food systems. What’s the fuss about the food system? Before explaining what we did, let me refresh your memory about some of the most worrisome food system trends. Globally, you likely know that with population growth, climate change, and 11 percent of the world facing hunger, pressures on food supplies and natural resources are intense. And although there’s growing dialogue around transformative solutions to these intertwined challenges, the United States isn’t exactly leading the way. In the past year, we as a country fell squarely in the “also ran” category in a Food Sustainability Index; the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that our public agricultural R&D funding has been losing ground; and we withdrew from the Paris Agreement, which addresses the growing threat of climate change (with serious implications for agriculture, and maybe also the nutritional quality of our food). But you don’t have to look beyond our borders to see signs of trouble. US farms are disappearing, rural communities are struggling, policy debates are putting farmers and eaters under stress, the food system includes some of the worst employers in the country, the Gulf of Mexico dead zone continues to be huge, and so on. Clearly, we need to seek solutions, but where to begin? The not-so-secret ingredients in our scorecard With an eye toward opportunities, we set off to capture and crunch the numbers to provide a snapshot of the US food system. To this end, we delved into data dealing with different pieces of the problem, including farming practices, labor conditions, water quality, public health, and more. We explored data sources such as the USDA, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Census Bureau. While we can’t possibly claim to have uncovered everything, we searched until we felt we had a critical mass of information representing food systems from coast to coast. With data for 68 indicators, we looked for patterns and potential (read more about our methods). We aimed to standardize data to compare states with both similarities and differences (natural resources, geographies, histories, cultures, populations, etc.). Finally, we grouped data into categories representing core aspects of the food system, and we synthesized these to get a sense of which states are leading the way. The report? A mixed bag All in all, our analysis revealed both strengths and weakness of US food systems, distributed all across the country. To learn more and see where your state falls in the rankings—with maps, charts, and stories—you should check out our interactive scorecard. Here, I’ll just offer a flavor for our findings: Action abounds: On the plus side, we found that different states rank better on different aspects of food systems, meaning that all states have a role to play in leading the way to a better future. From Alaska (with a smaller ecosystem footprint from its farms) to Wyoming (with farm production supporting relatively healthy diets), and California (boasting stronger farmer-to-eater infrastructure) to Maryland (a role model for conservation agriculture), states from sea to sea show strengths. Bright spots: In more good news, we discovered brilliant bright spots, even in states ranking lower in some aspects of our food system scorecard. For example, the Chillinois Young Farmers Coalition is devoted to improving the outlook of farming in Illinois, and Practical Farmers of Iowa has had a big hand in the recent surge of cover crop adoption—and associated conservation benefits—throughout that state. Costly consequences: While our focus was on opportunities, our analysis also exposed some of the dangerous consequences of our current conditions, from climate change contributions to water quality challenges to health outcomes and inequities. It’s also important to note that we ranked states against one another, not against some hypothetical ideal, so even top-ranking states have lots of room for improvement. Data limitations: In several cases, the ideal data we were seeking wasn’t available, because it either simply didn’t exist, or was difficult to access at the scales we needed. To really get a holistic understanding of the food system—one that measures needs and progress—we need more public, accessible, and transparent data. Fighting for food systems that fare better If we want a food system that we can all be proud of—one that is healthy and equitable for farmers, laborers, eaters, and the environment—we have a ways to go. Fortunately, however, our new analysis revealed a lot of bright spots worth building on. With farm bill season in full force, there’s no better time to protect and build up the programs and investments that help make positive change possible. The draft House farm bill, which failed to pass last month, likely would have had a negative impact on food systems across the country due to its utter failure to invest in healthy food access. However, just last week, Senate leaders released their proposal for a bipartisan farm bill, which defends and even boosts many critical initiatives, such as those that support nutrition, regional economies, beginning farmers, and sustainable agriculture research. While it’s clear there’s a lot of work ahead, investments like these can give us confidence that we’re heading in the right direction—so raise your voice and urge your senators to pass a farm bill that brings us one step closer to a food system, from farm to fork, that we can be proud of. Despite decades of extraction and use, the estimated size of the US natural gas resource has steadily risen since the 1990s, largely buoyed by the increased feasibility of extracting gas from unconventional deposits. Unconventional natural gas, which includes shale gas, tight gas, coal bed methane, and methane hydrates, has been more difficult and costly to exploit than conventional deposits, until recently. Natural Gas 101 How Natural Gas Is Formed Shale Gas and Other Unconventional Sources of Natural Gas Natural Gas Flaring, Processing, and Transportation Uses of Natural Gas Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas The Future of Natural Gas Such sources could help close the growing gap between domestic production and consumption in the United States, but they present greater environmental challenges in their production. The Energy Information Administration currently estimates the US unconventional gas resource base to be 2,203 trillion cubic feet. Of that, 167 trillion cubic feet are considered proven reserves—recoverable under current economic and operational conditions

Bookmark and Share Burning fossil fuels is a major driver of climate change with more than two billion tons of carbon dioxide released annually, leading to increased frequency of natural disasters and health concerns. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources is a key strategy to mitigate this harm. Biological approaches to generate clean, green energy from renewable sources offer great promise for sustainable fuel production, but first- and second-generation biofuel crops compete for farmland, which limits their potential. By contrast, photosynthetic microorganisms, including algae and cyanobacteria, offer great promise as third-generation biofuel agents without the drawbacks of today’s biofuels. We are excited to announce that the Sitther Biofuel Research Group at Morgan State University has developed a technology to generate a cost-effective biofuel using a model cyanobacterium. The team, consisting of graduate students Dr. Behnam Tabatabai and Ms. Somayeh Gharaie Fathabad, led by Dr. Viji Sitther, has developed strategies to reduce fossil fuel overuse. With a short life cycle, greenhouse gas fixation ability, and high lipid production capacity, we use cyanobacteria as an efficient biofuel platform. Carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuel and industrial emissions can be captured and used by these organisms efficiently. As with other algae-based fuels, we expect a 68% reduction in total carbon dioxide emissions as these organisms absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Our research group has engineered salt tolerance in a cyanobacterium (Fremyella diplosiphon) which produces oil (lipids) in its cells. The team’s innovation has been successful and the technology is now patented. With limited precious fresh water for agriculture and human needs, we will make use of naturally abundant sea water for biofuel production. The organism is now able to grow in 35 g/L salt, the salinity of sea water. With sea water containing 70 different nutrients to support its growth and using the sun’s energy, the technology will be cost-effective while minimizing fresh water input into the cultivation system. Targeting large-scale commercialization, the team is now progressing to make the biofuel even more cost-effective. Our goal is to enhance cellular oil content using a novel technique based on cDNA overexpression, in addition to salt tolerance. Fuel produced using this technology will be environment-friendly and will make full use of Maryland’s location, with its access to the Chesapeake Bay and Eastern Seaboard. For background information about cyanobacteria as a biofuel technology, please visit David Babson’s blog on algae. Viji Sitther is an Associate Professor at the department of Biology at Morgan State University. She was a graduate research faculty at the Fort Valley State University prior to joining Morgan. Behnam Tabatabai is a recent PhD graduate and Somayeh Gharaie Fathabad is a doctoral candidate in the Bio-environmental Sciences. Science Network Voices gives Equation readers access to the depth of expertise and broad perspective on current issues that our Science Network members bring to UCS. The views expressed in Science Network posts are those of the author alone.

It was just 6 weeks ago I last posted on how Pruitt’s EPA Undermines Cellulosic Biofuels and Transparency in Government, and I hoped to shift my attention to other topics. But in late September, the EPA Administrator Pruitt stunned the biofuels world by releasing a rulemaking document (called a Notice of Data Availability or NODA) suggesting he planned to cut more deeply into the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 2018 targets for advanced biofuels and biodiesel than had been previously indicated. The NODA linked the changes to tariffs recently imposed on imports on soy-based biodiesel from Argentina and palm oil biodiesel from Indonesia, but citations in the NODA make it plain that this request comes directly from the oil refiners. There are also rumors that EPA may count ethanol that is already being exported toward compliance with the standard, which would also reduce the obligations for refineries to blend ethanol or other biofuels into the fuel they sell. Overall, these changes upend the basic understanding of the goals and requirements of the RFS and seem intended primarily to reduce costs for refineries. UCS does not support the approach the NODA suggests. This might seem odd, since we have been arguing against the increased use of both corn ethanol and vegetable oil based biodiesel for many years. But while there are plenty of problems with food-based biofuels, ignoring the law and considering only how to reduce costs for oil refiners is not the way to fix them. UCS has opposed discretionary enlargement of biodiesel mandates beyond statutory levels Some parts of the RFS offer more benefits than others. Cellulosic biofuels can expand biofuel production with greater climate benefits and lower environmental costs than food-based biofuels like corn ethanol and vegetable oil biodiesel. But cellulosic biofuels have not scaled up nearly as fast as the RFS envisioned, which left the EPA to decide whether to backfill the shortfall of cellulosic biofuels with other biofuels, especially biodiesel. Since 2012 we have argued that the EPA should not make discretionary enlargements to the advanced biofuel mandate to replace the shortfall of cellulosic fuels without careful consideration of potential unintended consequences. Even without a discretionary enlargement, the minimum statutory levels of advanced biofuels that Congress specified in the RFS are ambitious, and are drawing heavily on available sources of vegetable oil and waste oils (called feedstocks) to make biodiesel and renewable diesel, which, as Scott Irwin and Darrel Good at FarmDocDaily have explained, have for several years been provided the marginal gallon of biofuel to meet the mandates for conventional and advanced biofuel under the RFS. Analysis we commissioned in 2015 and more recent analysis from the International Council on Clean Transportation suggest there are not sufficient feedstocks to support higher levels of production. As I have explained in previous posts and a technical paper, the indirect effect of large expansion of biodiesel is to expand demand for palm oil, which has environmental harms that outweigh the benefits of offsetting diesel use in the U.S. But we don’t support Pruitt’s effort to cut mandates below statutory levels It might seem logical that if expanding mandates is a bad idea, then cutting them must be a good idea. One can certainly make a logical argument that cutting the RFS advanced biofuel mandate will reduce demand for vegetable oil which could result in lower overall demand for palm oil and hence reduce deforestation in Southeast Asia. But there are two big problems with this approach. First, what Pruitt is proposing is clearly inconsistent with the law. Despite repeated claims that he will follow the law, the administrator’s actions are subverting the basic goal of the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is to expand the market for biofuels. Until Congress updates it, the Renewable Fuel Standard is the law, and UCS’ input to the EPA has always focused on how EPA can maximize climate benefits consistent with the law. We explained why exceeding the minimum statutory levels for food-based biofuels would have unintended consequences, but have not argued that EPA should go below these levels because this is clearly inconsistent with the law. When corn prices spiked back in 2012, we supported a temporary RFS waiver, which was both consistent with the waiver provisions of the law and supported by the circumstances. But today we are not facing a crisis in grain, vegetable oil or fuel markets. Jonathan Coppess and Scott Irwin at FarmDocDaily have evaluated legal and economic grounds to waive the standard, and found no compelling case. Rather, we have a crisis in leadership – in the White House and at the EPA, where Administrator Pruitt is hostile to the basic goals of the agency he leads. In that context, Pruitt’s proposed actions seem less like an opportunity to reduce the harms of food-based biofuels than a clear subversion of the basic goals of the law in the service of oil industry profits. Second, political games are risky, and in the present context, climate advocates have a lot more to lose than to gain. President Trump made repeated promises to protect ethanol, which stands in stark contrast to his position on protecting the United States from climate change. Pruitt has been not very subtly hinting at a deal whereby the Trump administration promotes ethanol exports and treats ethanol favorably in upcoming fuel economy standards in exchange for their acquiescence to weakening the RFS. Trading the RFS for loopholes in fuel economy standards would be a bad deal for the future of the biofuels industry and a terrible deal for the environment. A previous loophole added to fuel economy regulations to promote ethanol sales was a failure, which ultimately did much more to increase gasoline use by making cars less efficient than to expand ethanol use. A long-term future for the biofuels industry depends on avoiding counterproductive outcomes and helping to cut oil use, and Pruitt is clearly not headed in this direction. While there is some similarity between UCS’s specific guidance on biodiesel targets and Pruitt’s latest pivot on the RFS, we strongly object to his approach to cellulosic biofuels, his narrow vision for the RFS that focuses solely on current fuel prices, and the direction Pruitt is taking the EPA. Blowing up current biofuels policy is not much of a plan Some who support climate policy espouse the idea that the RFS is a failed policy, and that it is mostly just a giveaway to agricultural interests, so letting it collapse it not much of a loss. I disagree. The RFS is certainly shaped by the political power struggle between the oil industry and the biofuels industry/agriculture, but it also includes important environmental protections. For example, the RFS requires that future biofuel expansion comes from advanced fuels that cut emissions at least 50% compared to gasoline. But with the environmental goals of the policy sidelined by the hostile takeover of the EPA by Administrator Pruitt, the current battle comes down to a stark choice between working with the oil industry to undermine the basic structure of the RFS, or keeping that framework intact until we have an opportunity to meaningfully improve it New laws generally build upon existing legal frameworks, and, if it survives, the RFS is likely to be the foundation on which future fuels policies are built. If the RFS dies under the knife of the Pruitt EPA, the concessions the Trump administration offers the ethanol industry will not include the environmental protections in the RFS, however imperfect. Moreover, the RFS and state fuel policies support one another, and if the RFS is weakened it will make the California and Oregon clean fuel policies more challenging and expensive. UCS is not lending our support to Pruitt’s lawless approach to rewriting our vehicle and fuel policies. Instead we will defend existing laws and build upon them once we have an administrator who understands that the core mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the environment rather than doing the bidding of the oil industry and other polluters.

On June 13th, the Union of Concerned Scientists worked with the California 100% Clean Energy Coalition to bring more than 100 people to Sacramento to lobby in support of Senate Bill 100 (De León) and California’s transition away from fossil fuels. SB 100 would accelerate the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 60% by 2030 and require that the remaining 40% of the electricity mix come from RPS-eligible resources or zero-carbon resources by 2045. Last year, SB 100 passed the California State Senate, but stalled in the Assembly. A day after lobby day, the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy scheduled SB 100 for a hearing on July 3rd! Meeting 100% of California’s electricity needs with zero-carbon resources is a bold goal, but achieving it is within reach. In 2016 California received about 25% of its electricity from eligible renewables. Another 19% came from a combination of nuclear and large hydropower, which are zero-carbon resources that would be eligible under SB 100. Statewide we are already on track to exceed the current RPS requirement of 50% renewables by 2030. California has led the nation in the transition from coal to clean energy resources and demonstrated that a cleaner electricity system need not come at the price of a growing economy. We have the technology to run a flexible and efficient grid with even more renewables, and the prices for energy storage are coming down. The time is right to double down on this clean energy momentum. Climate change is the biggest threat to the health and economic stability of Californians. With more extreme weather events threatening the livelihoods of frontline communities, it is time to pass legislation that will prevent further damage to these communities. Cleaning up our electricity grid will also provide a blueprint for significant cuts in global warming emissions. Recently, some fellow data geeks and I spent (quite a lot of) time ranking all 50 states on the health and sustainability of their food systems, from soil to spoon. We went through the trouble for a few reasons. First, as you may have heard in bits and pieces, the state of our farms, our food supply, and our dietary health is not good—globally, nationally, regionally, and likely even in your neighborhood. As all these things are interrelated, we wanted to dig into the data to better understand what’s going on. Second, when it comes to food systems, we believe that the United States can do better. And, since innovative solutions are already popping up across the country, highlighting these as models may be key to building a healthy, sustainable, and just world. Finally—call us crazy—but we just love data and (yes) food systems. What’s the fuss about the food system? Before explaining what we did, let me refresh your memory about some of the most worrisome food system trends. Globally, you likely know that with population growth, climate change, and 11 percent of the world facing hunger, pressures on food supplies and natural resources are intense. And although there’s growing dialogue around transformative solutions to these intertwined challenges, the United States isn’t exactly leading the way. In the past year, we as a country fell squarely in the “also ran” category in a Food Sustainability Index; the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that our public agricultural R&D funding has been losing ground; and we withdrew from the Paris Agreement, which addresses the growing threat of climate change (with serious implications for agriculture, and maybe also the nutritional quality of our food). But you don’t have to look beyond our borders to see signs of trouble. US farms are disappearing, rural communities are struggling, policy debates are putting farmers and eaters under stress, the food system includes some of the worst employers in the country, the Gulf of Mexico dead zone continues to be huge, and so on. Clearly, we need to seek solutions, but where to begin? The not-so-secret ingredients in our scorecard With an eye toward opportunities, we set off to capture and crunch the numbers to provide a snapshot of the US food system. To this end, we delved into data dealing with different pieces of the problem, including farming practices, labor conditions, water quality, public health, and more. We explored data sources such as the USDA, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Census Bureau. While we can’t possibly claim to have uncovered everything, we searched until we felt we had a critical mass of information representing food systems from coast to coast. With data for 68 indicators, we looked for patterns and potential (read more about our methods). We aimed to standardize data to compare states with both similarities and differences (natural resources, geographies, histories, cultures, populations, etc.). Finally, we grouped data into categories representing core aspects of the food system, and we synthesized these to get a sense of which states are leading the way. The report? A mixed bag All in all, our analysis revealed both strengths and weakness of US food systems, distributed all across the country. To learn more and see where your state falls in the rankings—with maps, charts, and stories—you should check out our interactive scorecard. Here, I’ll just offer a flavor for our findings: Action abounds: On the plus side, we found that different states rank better on different aspects of food systems, meaning that all states have a role to play in leading the way to a better future. From Alaska (with a smaller ecosystem footprint from its farms) to Wyoming (with farm production supporting relatively healthy diets), and California (boasting stronger farmer-to-eater infrastructure) to Maryland (a role model for conservation agriculture), states from sea to sea show strengths. Bright spots: In more good news, we discovered brilliant bright spots, even in states ranking lower in some aspects of our food system scorecard. For example, the Chillinois Young Farmers Coalition is devoted to improving the outlook of farming in Illinois, and Practical Farmers of Iowa has had a big hand in the recent surge of cover crop adoption—and associated conservation benefits—throughout that state. Costly consequences: While our focus was on opportunities, our analysis also exposed some of the dangerous consequences of our current conditions, from climate change contributions to water quality challenges to health outcomes and inequities. It’s also important to note that we ranked states against one another, not against some hypothetical ideal, so even top-ranking states have lots of room for improvement. Data limitations: In several cases, the ideal data we were seeking wasn’t available, because it either simply didn’t exist, or was difficult to access at the scales we needed. To really get a holistic understanding of the food system—one that measures needs and progress—we need more public, accessible, and transparent data. Fighting for food systems that fare better If we want a food system that we can all be proud of—one that is healthy and equitable for farmers, laborers, eaters, and the environment—we have a ways to go. Fortunately, however, our new analysis revealed a lot of bright spots worth building on. With farm bill season in full force, there’s no better time to protect and build up the programs and investments that help make positive change possible. The draft House farm bill, which failed to pass last month, likely would have had a negative impact on food systems across the country due to its utter failure to invest in healthy food access. However, just last week, Senate leaders released their proposal for a bipartisan farm bill, which defends and even boosts many critical initiatives, such as those that support nutrition, regional economies, beginning farmers, and sustainable agriculture research. While it’s clear there’s a lot of work ahead, investments like these can give us confidence that we’re heading in the right direction—so raise your voice and urge your senators to pass a farm bill that brings us one step closer to a food system, from farm to fork, that we can be proud of.