text:
This story originally appeared on Grist.
A decade ago, climate change was a huge problem with a small audience. Unless you were among a handful of brave policymakers, concerned scientists, or loyal Grist readers, it's fair to say the threat of a warming world took a back seat to High School Musical, MySpace, and whether Pluto was a planet (yes, those were all a thing in 2006).
Then, An Inconvenient Truth happened.
Somehow a film starring a failed presidential candidate and his traveling slideshow triggered a seismic shift in public understanding of climate change. It won Oscars and helped earn Al Gore a share of the Nobel Peace Prize. It injected the issue into policy debates and dinner-table conversations alike.
Did any of this actually "save the world?" OK, you got us. Ten years after the movie's release, climate change is still a growing threat and a polarizing issue, with record-breaking heat unable to stop skeptics from tossing snowballs on the Senate floor. But we're also seeing corporate, political, and societal mobilization against the crisis on a scale that would have been hard to imagine 10 years ago, and there's no question the film played a big part in getting us there.
So how did the movie-makers turn a science-heavy slideshow and unlikely leading man (sorry, Al) into a global force for change? What follows is a behind-the-scenes look at An Inconvenient Truth. As for whether there's a happy ending, we're afraid that's still a bit TBD.
Continue reading the oral history of An Inconvenient Truth.
This story was originally published by The New Republic.
On December 7, 1941, Japan's surprise attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor killed more than 2,000 people and drew the country into World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the War Production Board to oversee the mobilization, as factories that once produced civilian goods began churning out tanks, warplanes, ships, and armaments. Food, gasoline, even shoes were rationed, and the production of cars, vacuum cleaners, radios, and sewing machines was halted (the steel, rubber, and glass were needed for the war industries). Similar mobilizations occurred in England and the Soviet Union.
Today, some environmentalists want to see a similarly massive effort in response to a different type of existential threat: climate change.
These proponents of climate mobilization call for the federal government to use its power to reduce carbon emissions to zero as soon as possible, an economic shift no less substantial and disruptive than during WWII. New coal-fired power plants would be banned, and many existing ones shut down; offshore drilling and fracking might also cease. Meat and livestock production would be drastically reduced. Cars and airplane factories would instead produce solar panels, wind turbines, and other renewable energy equipment. Americans who insisted on driving and flying would face steeper taxes.
Though climate mobilization has existed as a concept for as many as 50 years, it's only now entering the mainstream. Green group The Climate Mobilization pushed the idea during a protest at the April 22 signing of the Paris Agreement. On April 27, Senators Barbara Boxer and Richard Durbin introduced a bill
Despite these inroads, climate mobilization remains a fringe idea. Its supporters don't entirely agree on the answers to key questions, such as: What will trigger this mobilization—a catastrophic event or global alliance? Who will lead this global effort? When will the mobilization start? And perhaps the greatest hurdle isn't logistical or technical, but psychological: convincing enough people that climate change is a greater threat to our way of life than even the Axis powers were.
Lester Brown, environmentalist and founder of the Earth Policy Institute and Worldwatch Institute, says he first introduced climate mobilization in the late 1960s. His approach is holistic—and ambitious. "Mobilizing to save civilization means restructuring the economy, restoring its natural systems, eradicating poverty, stabilizing population and climate, and, above all, restoring hope," he wrote in his 2008 book, Plan B 3.0.
Brown proposes carbon and gas taxes, and pricing goods to account for their carbon and health costs. In his "great mobilization," all electricity would come from renewable energy. Plant-based diets would replace meat-centric ones. According to Brown, this new economy would be much more labor-intensive, employing droves of people in services like renewable energy and in compulsory youth and voluntary senior service corps. Brown also advises the creation of a Department of Global Security, which would divert funds from the U.S. defense budget and offer development assistance to "failed states," (he cites countries such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Iraq) where climate change's impact on available natural resources will exacerbate political instability.
This may sound far-fetched, but Brown believes we're at a tipping point for climate mobilization. The economy is increasingly favoring renewables over fossil fuels, and grassroots campaigns like the Divestment Movement are gaining steam. Any number of circumstances could push the globe over the edge toward mobilization: severe droughts that create conflicts over water, or the accumulation of climate catastrophes from raging fires to hurricanes. When we cross over, Brown told me, "suddenly everything starts to move. … We're just going to be surprised at how fast this transition goes."
For environmentalists who've seized upon Brown's idea, the transition has not been fast enough. They've tailored their plans to include more explicit links to the war effort and a new sense of urgency. In 2009, Paul Gilding, the former executive director of Greenpeace International and a member of the Climate Mobilization's advisory board, and Norwegian climate strategist Jorgen Randers published an article outlining "The One Degree War Plan." The authors set out a three-phase, 100-year proposal for healing the planet, beginning with a five-year "Climate War."
In that first phase, a cadre of powerful countries—the United States, China, and the European Union, for example—would act first, forming a "Coalition of the Cooling" that would eventually pull the rest of the globe along with them. Governments would launch the mobilization and reduce emissions by at least 50 percent. One thousand coal plants would close. A wind or solar plant would blossom in every town. Carbon would be buried deep in the soil through carbon sequestration. Rooftops and other slanting surfaces would be painted white to increase reflectivity and avoid heat absorption from the sun, which makes buildings and entire cities more energy-intensive to cool. Later, a Climate War Command would distribute funds, impose tariffs, and make sure global strategy is "harmonized." According to the paper, this Climate War should start as early as 2018.
Much has changed since the release of Brown's Plan B 3.0. Months after Gilding and Randers published "The One Degree War Plan," climate negotiators faced the crushing defeat of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where delegates left without toothy commitments. The world has experienced one record-breaking temperature after another, and two of the three global coral bleachings on record. Last year's climate conference in Paris was a relative success, as an unprecedented number of countries proposed plans to cut their emissions. And although the final agreement won't bind countries legally, the consent to meetings every five years to consider ramping up commitments and the efforts of groups like the "high ambition coalition," which pushed for a legally binding agreement, showed progress. But even before the ink dried, environmentalists and some politicians condemned the wishy-washy language and limp goals.
Leaving the fate of the planet up to such diplomacy has "always been a delusion—one that I had, by the way," says Gilding.
"In that diplomatic world they have a notion of political realism which is quite separate from physical reality," says Philip Sutton, a member of The Climate Mobilization's advisory board and a strategist for an Australian group advocating a full transition to a sustainable economy. "The physical reality is now catching up with us."
To compare the fight against climate change to WWII may sound hyperbolic to some, but framing it in such stark, dramatic terms could help awaken the public to that "physical reality"—and appeal to Americans less inclined to worry about the environment.
"It's not tree hugging—it's muscular, it's patriotic," said Margaret Klein Salamon, director and co-founder of The Climate Mobilization. "We're calling on America to lead the world and to be heroic and courageous like we once were."
When Salamon began working on the group that would become the Climate Mobilization, she was earning her PhD in clinical psychology. "I view it as a psychological issue. What we need to do is achieve the mentality that the United States achieved the day after the Pearl Harbor attacks," Salamon said. "Before that there had been just rampant denial and isolationism."
Indeed, climate denial is still pervasive. Only 73 percent of registered U.S. voters believe global warming is even occurring according to the most recent survey. Only 56 percent think climate change is caused mostly by human activity. It's going to take a catastrophe much worse than Hurricane Katrina or Sandy to alter public opinion to the degree necessary for a climate mobilization—and even then, achieving that war mentality may be impossible.
"We're good at fighting wars. … We fight wars on drugs and wars on poverty and wars on terrorism," says David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College. "That becomes kind of the standard metaphor or analogy for action." But climate change is "more like solving a quadratic equation. We have to get a lot of things right."
There are other reasons the war analogy doesn't hold up. WWII mobilization was prompted by a sudden, immediate threat and was expected to have a limited time span, whereas the threat of climate change has been increasing for years and stretches in front of us forever. But perhaps the biggest difference is that our enemies in WWII were clear and easy to demonize. There is no Hitler or Mussolini of climate change, and those responsible for it are not foreign powers on distant shores. As Orr says, "We've met the enemy and he is us."
that would allow the Treasury to sell $200 million each year in climate change bonds modeled after WWII War Bonds. Bernie Sanders has mentioned mobilization on the campaign trail and in a debate. And Hillary Clinton's campaign announced last week that if she's elected, she plans to install a "Climate Map Room" in the White House inspired by the war map room used by Roosevelt during World War II.]]>
Climate change can be a hard thing to wrap your head around. It's really scary! The Earth is really complicated! There are a lot of numbers!
But if you want to know whether global warming is real, there's really only one thing you need to know: Does carbon dioxide trap heat in the atmosphere? Scientists have known the answer (yes) since at least 1895, when the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius did the first research on what came to be know as greenhouse gases. Some climate change questions are hard, like how to predict the movement of clouds in computer models. But the basic existence of the greenhouse effect is very straightforward and noncontroversial. Among scientists, that is.Donald Trump and some other prominent Republican politicians are still struggling.
In fact, the greenhouse effect is so basic that you can even prove its existence with a simple DIY experiment. We got the idea from the great science communicator Bill Nye, who talked about it when he appeared on a recent episode of our Inquiring Minds podcast. We decided to give it a try, and it worked…barely. We're not scientists, okay?
Master image: Levranii/Shutterstock]]>
One out of every five plant species on Earth is now threatened with extinction. That's the disturbing conclusion of a major report released this week by scientists at Britain's Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. The planet's vegetation—from grasslands to deserts to tropical rainforests—is being hit hard by human activity. And deforestation, pollution, agriculture, and climate change are all playing a role.
The sliver of good news, though, is that some researchers are hopeful that people will be able to act in time to avert the worst of the impending crisis. "I am reasonably optimistic," said Kathy Willis, Kew's science director, in an interview with our partners at the Guardian. "Once you know [about a problem], you can do something about it. The biggest problem is not knowing."
But others take a darker view. "Regardless of what humans do to the climate, there will still be a rock orbiting the sun," said University of Hawaii scientist Hope Jahren in a recent interview with Indre Viskotas on the Inquiring Minds podcast. Jahren is a geobiologist—she studies how the earth ("geo") and life ("bio") come together to shape our world. "I'm interested in how the parts of the planet that aren't alive—rocks and rivers and rain and clouds—turn into the…parts of the world that are alive: leaves and moss and the things that eat those things," she explains. And what she's seeing isn't good. "We are already seeing extinctions," she says. "We're already seeing the balance of who can thrive and who can't thrive in…the plant world radically shifted. In a lot of ways, I think that train has passed." You can listen to her full interview below:
Jahren, who is the author of a new book called Lab Girl, was recently included onTime magazine's list of the 100 most influential people. She's also an outspoken voice for gender equality and the fight against sexual harassment and assault in the scientific community.
Part of Jahren's work has focused on reconstructing the climate of the Eocene, the geologic epoch that lasted from about 56 million years ago to about 34 million years ago. In the middle of that period, about 45 million years ago, the world was so warm that massive deciduous forests were growing above the Arctic Circle—despite the fact that, as Jahren points out, the region saw little-to-no sunshine for part of the year. Jahren and her colleagues study fossilized plant tissues left over from these ancient forests in order to understand how the climatic factors of the time—light levels, atmospheric composition, water, etc.—combined to "make possible this life in the darkness." She compares her work to investigating a crime scene. "Almost anything you come upon could have information in it," she says.
Jahren's description of a lush Arctic full of plants and animals is striking. Imagining that world, she says, is "a really neat thing to do when you're…juxtaposing that image against that fact that you're near the North Pole, and there's not a soul in sight for thousands of miles, and there's not a green thing in sight for hundreds of miles." That may be one of the reasons why she speaks so passionately about environmental destruction in the present day. "The world breaks a little bit every time we cut down a tree," she says. "It's so much easier to cut one down than to grow one. And so it's worth interrogating every time we do it."
In the end, though, Jahren isn't sure that science will lead humanity to make better decisions about the planet. Instead, she says, "I think my job is to leave some evidence for future generations that there was somebody who cared while we were destroying everything."
Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes orRSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow, like us on Facebook, and check out show notes and other cool stuff on Tumblr.]]>
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday released the final version of new federal rules intended to curb emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas. Methane, which is the main component of natural gas, had previously been unregulated. There's a mounting pile of evidence suggesting that as the United States relies increasingly on gas to produce electricity, methane emissions are much higher than most people expected them to be.
That's a problem for the fight against climate change. Methane emissions are far lower than carbon dioxide emissions, and methane survives in the atmosphere for a relatively short period of time. But methane is far more effective at trapping heat than CO2 is, which makes it a significant near-term warming threat. As I reported in a deep dive on methane yesterday:
When unburned methane leaks into the atmosphere, it can help cause dramatic warming in a relatively short period of time. Methane emissions have long been a missing piece in the country's patchwork climate policy…The natural gas system produces methane emissions at nearly every step of the process, from the well itself to the pipe that carries gas into your home. Around two-thirds of those emissions are "intentional," meaning they occur during normal use of equipment. For example, some pneumatic gauges use the pressure of natural gas to flip on or off and emit tiny puffs of methane when they do so. The other one-third comes from so-called "fugitive" emissions, a.k.a. leaks, that happen when a piece of equipment cracks or otherwise fails.
The lack of regulations on methane was one reason why President Barack Obama's climate strategy, which hinges on swapping the country's coal consumption for natural gas, has been frowned upon by some environmentalists. Even today's regulations are only a partial solution, since they only apply to new and modified natural gas infrastructure, not systems that already exist. And by some analysts' reckoning, more than 70 percent of gas-sector methane emissions from now until 2025 will come from sources that already exist.
Still, the regulation announced today achieves one of the final remaining big items on Obama's climate checklist. It aims to reduce gas-sector methane emissions 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 by tightening the allowed emissions from pumps, compressors, wells, and other infrastructure; requiring more frequent surveys for leaks; and implementing a data-gathering survey that will give officials and companies a better understanding of just how much methane leakage there really is. The EPA expects the regulations to cost $530 million by 2025 but to produce $690 million in environmental benefits.]]>
What if President Barack Obama's biggest achievement on climate change was actually a total failure?
That's the central argument of a recent story in the Nation by Bill McKibben, a journalist and environmental activist. "If you get the chemistry wrong," McKibben writes, "it doesn't matter how many landmark climate agreements you sign or how many speeches you give. And it appears the United States may have gotten the chemistry wrong. Really wrong."
McKibben's criticism is all about fracking, the controversial oil and gas drilling technique that involves blasting underground shale formations with high-pressure water, sand, and chemicals. (He made a similar case here in Mother Jones in September 2014.) Over the last decade, we've witnessed much-celebrated strides in solar and other renewable sources of electricity. But by far the most significant change in America's energy landscape has been a major shift from coal to natural gas. The trend was already underway when Obama took office, but it reached a tipping point during his administration. In March, federal energy analysts reported that 2016 will be the first year in history in which natural gas provides a greater share of American electricity than coal does:
Across the country, many coal-fired power plants are being refitted to burn natural gas, or closing entirely and being replaced by new natural gas plants. This transformation is being driven in part by simple economics: America's fracking boom has led to a glut of low-cost natural gas that is increasingly able to undersell coal. It's also driven by regulation: In its campaign to address climate change, the Obama administration has focused mostly on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prominent greenhouse gas. Coal-fired power plants are the country's number-one source of CO2 emissions. When natural gas is burned, it emits about half as much CO2 per unit of energy. So gas, in the administration's view, can serve as a "bridge" to a cleaner future by allowing for deep cuts in coal consumption while renewables catch up.
So far, that appears to be working. A federal analysis released this week shows that energy-related CO2 emissions (which includes electricity, transportation, and gas used in buildings) are at their lowest point in a decade, largely "because of the decreased use of coal and the increased use of natural gas for electricity generation":
But for many environmentalists, including McKibben and 350.org—the organization he co-founded—Obama's "bridge" theory is bunk. That's because it ignores methane, another potent greenhouse gas that is the main component of natural gas. When unburned methane leaks into the atmosphere, it can help cause dramatic warming in a relatively short period of time. Methane emissions have long been a missing piece in the country's patchwork climate policy; this week the Obama administration is expected to roll out the first regulations intended to address the problem. But the new regulations will apply only to new infrastructure, not the sprawling gas network that already exists. So is fracking really just a bridge to nowhere?
For Obama's bridge strategy to succeed, it would need to result in greenhouse gas emissions that are in line with the global warming limit enshrined in the Paris Agreement: "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. So let's start with the gas itself.
According to the EPA, methane accounted for about 11.5 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions in 2014 (the rest was mostly CO2, plus a little bit of nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons). Roughly one-fifth of that methane came from natural gas systems (the number-three source after landfill emissions and cow farts and burps). Even with the fracking boom, methane emissions from natural gas have held at about the same level for the last five years, and they are actually down considerably from a decade ago (assuming you trust the EPA stats; more on that later). By volume, they're at about the same level as CO2 emissions from jet fuel—in other words, a significant source, but an order of magnitude less than CO2 from power plants or cars.
But the tricky thing about greenhouse gases is that volume isn't necessarily the main concern. Because of their molecular shape, different gases are more or less effective at trapping heat. To compare gases, scientists use a metric called "global warming potential," which measures how much heat a certain volume of a gas traps over a given stretch of time, typically 100 years. There's considerable debate among scientists about how the global warming potential of methane compares to CO2. The EPA says methane is 25 times as potent as CO2 over 100 years. McKibben cites a Cornell University researcher who says a more relevant figure for methane "is between 86 and 105 times the potency of CO2 over the next decade or two."
It's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison because the two gases have different lifespans. CO2 can last in the atmosphere for thousands of years, whereas methane lasts only for a couple decades (after which it degrades into CO2). Global warming potential is also an imperfect comparison metric because it leaves out other kinds of impacts besides trapping heat, said Drew Shindell, a climatologist at Duke University. Atmospheric methane also creates ozone, for example, which is dangerous for the health of plants and humans. By Shindell's reckoning, including all their impacts, each ton of methane kept out of the atmosphere is equal to 100 tons of prevented CO2 in the near term, and 40 tons of CO2 in the long term.
The timescale is key, said Johan Kuylenstierna, executive director of the Stockholm Environment Institute. Methane has a more immediate effect on global temperature, he explained, so over the next decade or two, reducing methane emissions could be a way to stave off the immediate impacts of global warming.
"If we reduce the rate of near-term warming, we can reduce the impact to habitat shifts in species," Kuylenstierna said. "We can buy time for vulnerable communities to adapt. We can reduce the rate of glaciers' melting in the Arctic."
But in terms of limiting permanent, long-term damage to the climate, and achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, "the only way to do that is to address CO2," he said.
That was the key finding of a 2014 study by University of Chicago geophysicist Ray Pierrehumbert, which concluded that "there is little to be gained by implementing [methane and other short-lived climate pollutant] mitigation before stringent carbon dioxide controls are in place." Pierrehumbert and his colleagues repeated that conclusion in a new study this month, finding that by mid-century, if CO2 emissions aren't under control, the short-term warming caused by methane will be irrelevant. In other words, at the end of the day, CO2 is still enemy number-one.
With that said, there's widespread agreement among scientists that ultimately, the only solution to climate change is stop emitting all greenhouse gases. So at a certain point the methane vs. CO2 debate becomes less scientific and more of a value judgment: How much short-term climate damage are we willing to tolerate in exchange for reducing the emissions that are more damaging over the long term?
Meanwhile, there's another problem. Debating the relative dangers of methane versus CO2 is of limited value unless you know how much methane the natural gas industry is really emitting. And figuring that out is harder than it sounds.
The natural gas system produces methane emissions at nearly every step of the process, from the well itself to the pipe that carries gas into your home. Around two-thirds of those emissions are "intentional," meaning that they occur during normal use of equipment. For example, some pneumatic gauges use the pressure of natural gas to flip on or off and emit tiny puffs of methane when they do so. The other one-third comes from so-called "fugitive" emissions, a.k.a. leaks, that happen when a piece of equipment cracks or otherwise fails.
Since natural gas companies aren't legally obligated to measure and report their methane emissions, scientists and the EPA have to make a lot of educated guesses to come up with a total. The inadequacies of the EPA's official measurements were made clear in February, when the agency released estimates for methane from the oil and gas industry that were radically higher—about 27 percent higher—than had been previously reported. That difference, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, represents a 20-year climate impact equal to 200 coal-fired power plants. The revision resulted from improved metrics showing how much natural gas infrastructure there really is and how much methane is being emitted from each piece of it. The EPA had been systematically low-balling both of those figures for years.
Other evidence has piled up to suggest that methane emissions are higher than the EPA previously estimated. EDF surveyed more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies of methane emissions from specific fracking sites in Texas, Colorado, and elsewhere; almost all of these studies found that emissions levels were higher than had been previously reported. McKibben leads his story with a new study from Harvard that concluded that methane emissions have increased more than 30 percent over the last decade. That's a big departure from the EPA's analysis, which suggests there was no significant increase over that time period.
However, the Harvard paper includes a major caveat: The authors admit that they "cannot readily attribute [the methane increase] to any specific source type." In other words, there's no evidence the increase is from fracking any more than from agricultural or waste sources. Either way, it's clear that methane emissions from the gas system are higher than most people thought, and certainly higher than they should be if fighting climate change is the end goal. Even EPA chief Gina McCarthy admitted in February that there was "a big discrepancy" between the administration's original understanding of gas-related methane emissions and what new studies are revealing.
It turns out that measuring methane leakage from gas systems, whether intentional or accidental, is hard, and often inexact. Hand-held infrared detectors work for doing spot checks, but they're labor-intensive and not very useful if the leak is in an underground pipe. Aerial surveys give a better picture of overall emissions but, again, can't easily locate specific leaks, as illustrated in this graphic from MIT.
The good news is that increased public concern about methane has pushed the gas industry to adopt better emission detection methods, said Ramon Alvarez, a senior scientist at the EDF. These include drive-by detectors that are more precise and better calibrated to account for weather conditions that make it hard to pinpoint emissions sources (i.e., wind blowing methane away from where it originated).
"The methods are improving," he said. "Some of these mobile surveys with new instruments are on the cusp of becoming accepted practice, and regulators are considering requiring those things."
A key difference between CO2 emissions from coal plants and methane emissions from the gas system is that the latter are much easier to reduce. In other words, many of the leaks can be fixed fairly easily and cost-effectively. That's a crucial advantage over coal: Capturing CO2 emissions from coal plants has proved to be massively expensive and not very effective. There are no operational "carbon capture and sequestration" coal plants in the United States; one of the two under construction is billions of dollar over budget before even being switched on.
A 2014 study commissioned by EDF found that using existing technology, system-wide methane emissions could be reduced by 40 percent at a cost to industry of less than a penny per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) of natural gas. (A typical new fracked shale gas well produces about 2,700 Mcf of gas per day). Some repairs are easier than others. McKibben warns about the difficulty of fixing cement casings on wells themselves. Pipelines, too, are vexing. According to the EPA, there are about 21 miles of plastic gas pipelines in the United States for every mile of old cast iron pipes. But cast iron pipes leak so much—24 times the emissions of plastic pipes—that their cumulative emissions are actually higher than plastic pipes. Replacing cast iron with plastic is a no-brainer technologically, but it's very expensive and slow.
But wells account for only about 5 percent of gas system methane emissions; pipelines only 2 percent. Other sources could be much easier to control. The single biggest source, leaks from compressors, can be greatly reduced simply by replacing a few functional parts more frequently than the current industry standard. The second-biggest source, leaks from pneumatic gauges, can be fixed by running them on electricity—possibly from a few small, well-placed solar panels—instead of gas pressure.
Altogether, including the value of saved gas that would otherwise leak, the 40 percent reduction projected by EDF would save the industry and gas consumers $100 million per year, the study found—not even counting the climate benefits.
So why aren't gas companies pursuing these measures more aggressively? Hemant Mallya, an oil and gas specialist with the market research firm ICF International, who authored the EDF report, pointed to a number of factors. Costs for various fixes can vary widely between sites. There may be efforts by companies that own gas infrastructure to shift the responsibility to different companies that operate and maintain it, or vice-versa. Even the most cost-effective measures require up-front investment, which could be too high a bar for companies with competing financial needs. But perhaps most importantly, because methane emissions aren't currently regulated, companies simply don't have to do anything about them. Why spend money fixing a problem you aren't required to fix?
"Any voluntary measure capital needs will receive lower priority compared to projects necessary to drive the business," Mallya said.
That calculus could change soon: This week, the EPA is expected to finalize regulations on methane emissions that aim to reduce leaks from new gas infrastructure 40 to 45 percent by 2025. The new rules are only a tiny piece of the full solution since, by EDF's reckoning, more than 70 percent of gas-sector methane emissions from now until 2025 will come from sources that already exist. In March, Obama made a joint promise with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to implement regulations on methane at existing sources, but it's unlikely those will be finalized before Obama leaves office. So it will be up to the next president to follow through—or not. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have promised to strengthen methane regulations. Donald Trump has been mum, but given that he thinks climate change is a hoax and wants to dismantle the "Department of Environmental," it's safe to say methane emission regulations will probably not rank among his top priorities.
Regardless of what happens with methane emissions, there's one other reason to be concerned about Obama's idea of a natural gas "bridge." In particular, will a build-up of gas infrastructure force the country to keep using fossil fuels long after we need to get off them almost entirely?
As part of the international climate agreement finalized in Paris in December, Obama promised that the United States will reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. But to stay within the Paris-mandated global warming limit—"well below" 2 degrees C (3.6 F)—emissions will have to drop much lower than that. A consortium of scientists called the US Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project has found that for the United States, the 2C target means reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a massive, society-wide shift from where we are now. Needless to say, a core aspect of the group's recommended strategy is to reduce fossil fuel use as much as possible, as quickly as possible.
Even if we managed to eliminate methane emissions and leaks from the natural gas system, gas power plants will still emit carbon dioxide—less CO2 than coal-fired plants, but a significant amount nonetheless. And the longer we continue sinking money into new fossil fuel infrastructure, the more challenging the transition to clean energy becomes. That's because power plants have lifespans of several decades, as they slowly repay their massive upfront costs to investors. A new report from the University of California-Berkeley finds that, on average, a gas plant built today—and, remember, Obama's Clean Power Plan hinges on the construction of more natural gas plants—will stay in operation until 2057. Each passing year in which new gas plants are built pushes that date back.
The consequence of this so-called "lock-in effect" could be that renewable energy stays shut out of the electricity mix, instead of gradually filling the gap left by the decline in coal. A 2014 market forecast study led by UC-Irvine projected that with a high supply of natural gas, renewables will produce just 26 percent of US electricity in 2050; with a lower gas supply, the share of renewables increases to 37 percent. The upshot, according to the study, is that increased reliance on gas results in very little reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades. The study found a similar outcome even when the methane leakage rate was assumed to be zero.
This would create a situation in which the United States either blows past its climate targets, has to somehow forcibly shut down gas plants before their planned expiration date, or hopes that renewables will get cheap enough to out-compete gas on their own—not exactly a savory choice for politicians and investors. But the UC-Irvine study based its forecast on the assumption that existing policies would remain unchanged: No regulation of methane emissions (a situation that, as of this week, will likely change); no new incentives at the federal, state, or local level for renewable energy, etc. In other words, there was no exit ramp from the "bridge." Once again, it will be up to the next president and Congress to design that exit ramp—or not.
All forms of energy production come with environmental side effects that have nothing to do with climate change. And while EPA scientists concluded last year that fracking has not led to "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water," individual cases of contamination continue to occur. The evidence that underground wastewater disposal from frack sites can lead to earthquakes gets stronger all the time.
Of course, anyone who has seen Appalachia's mountaintop-removal coal mining knows that coal comes with no shortage of its own devastating impacts. Ash from coal-fired power plants, loaded with arsenic and other toxic substances, causes a wide array of severe or fatal illnesses. Coal mining remains an extremely dangerous profession. And burning coal is incredibly hazardous to nearby communities. A 2010 study by California's Clean Air Task Force directly blamed coal-fired power plants for 13,200 deaths, 9,700 hospitalizations, and 20,000 heart attacks in the United States in that year alone. Flaming tap water near frack sites notwithstanding, the public health impacts of coal consumption are clearly far worse than those caused by gas.
A 2013 report by the Breakthrough Institute does a nice job of comparing coal and gas on a variety of non-climate metrics:
Even if you think natural gas might is a foolish choice when it comes to greenhouse emissions, the picture changes considerably when you look at the full public health impacts of coal production. In a 2015 study, Duke's Shindell used an economic analysis to put a dollar value on the cumulative impacts—climate, health, etc.—of coal and gas. He found that the cost to society of burning coal was 14 to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour; for gas it was 4 to 18 cents.
How does this all add up? For people who live near fossil fuel extraction sites or the power plants where fossil fuels are burned, the answer is pretty obvious: From a public health perspective, Obama's gas "bridge" benefits coal-impacted communities at the expense of fracking-impacted communities. But from a local employment perspective, the opposite is true. From a climate perspective, a rapid transition off of coal has clear long-term benefits, even if there are short-term impacts from methane. Greenhouse gas emissions from gas are probably much easier to mitigate than emissions from coal, meaning that the kinds of regulations already being drafted by EPA could go a long way toward improving gas's stature as a climate solution.
So, is fracking really worse than coal? That claim seems highly dubious, given the myriad significant benefits of reducing coal consumption and lowering CO2 emissions. But at least from the climate change perspective, if natural gas is the end of the road, the transition may be a wash: Ultimately, the only thing that really matters is getting as much renewable energy as possible as quickly as possible. So the "bridge" only makes sense if we have a way to get off of it—and so far, that road map is unclear. The debate between fracking and coal too often misses the forest for the trees, according to Shindell. "We really have to target both," he said. "If we start trading one against the other, we don't really get anywhere."
Kuylenstierna agreed: "The only way you get anywhere near 1.5 degrees C is by doing everything."]]>
The United States leads the world in the number of electric vehicles on the road, but the count is still tiny: about 350,000. That's less than 1 percent of all passenger cars and trucks in the country. Recent market research suggests that number will climb steadily over the next several decades. But will it climb fast enough? When it comes to fighting climate change, that could turn out to be one of the most important questions of the next few years.
On April 22, world leaders gathered in New York City to sign the Paris Agreement on climate change, in which they vowed to keep global temperature rise to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, a limit the world is already more than halfway toward exceeding. Meanwhile, energy experts have begun to map out the fine-grain details of what meeting that goal would actually require. And it's becoming increasingly clear that electric vehicles have an indispensable role to play.
It turns out that one of the most immediate societal changes for average Americans in a climate-savvy future would likely be the electrification of just about everything. In other words, the hope of the planet could lie in a force—electricity—we've known about for hundreds of years.
That might sound strange, given that electricity production is the No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Coal- and gas-burning power plants are still our main sources of electricity, and in some parts of the country the power grid is so dirty that electric vehicles might actually cause more pollution than traditional gas-guzzlers.
But thanks to the explosive growth of solar, wind, and other renewable energy technologies, electricity is getting cleaner all the time. Over the last decade, the share of total US electricity production from renewables (including hydroelectric dams) rose from about 9.5 percent to more than 14 percent, with year-to-year growth getting faster all the time. So there's a good case to be made for phasing out the other types of fossil fuel use in our daily lives—particularly gasoline for cars and oil and gas for heating buildings. We should be using electricity instead—even if that means using more electricity overall.
That's a key finding of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project, an international consortium of energy researchers that produced a detailed technical study of how to cut US greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent compared with 1990 levels by 2050—the change necessary if Americans hope to do their part to stay within the two-degree limit. The report found that it's technically possible for the United States to meet that target, at an annual cost of about 1 percent of GDP, without sacrificing any "energy services." That is, the report assumes we'll still drive and have houses and operate factories the same as we do today. But to do so will require a major boost in electrification—which will in turn require that the US produce about twice as much electricity as it currently does—while reducing the carbon emissions per unit of energy down to just 3 to 10 percent of their current levels. In other words, at the same time we're electrifying everything, we need to continue to clean up the electric grid and double down on energy efficiency, especially in buildings.
"You can't get to a level of emissions that's compatible with 2C or less unless you do all three of those things," said Jim Williams, one of the report's lead authors and chief scientist at the private research firm Energy and Environmental Economics.
We get energy from fossil fuels in two basic ways: either by burning it in a power plant to create electricity that gets used elsewhere, or by burning it directly where it's needed—i.e., your car's internal combustion engine or a gas-fueled stove. Williams' basic idea—which has also been advanced by other leading energy economists, particularly Stanford's Mark Jacobson—is to ax that second category as much as possible, while simultaneously "decarbonizing" the electric grid by replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar, and other renewables.
Williams' model doesn't assume that all fossil fuel consumption goes completely to zero. A small portion of electricity could still come from natural gas plants; some oil and gas could still be used for manufacturing and industrial purposes; and airplanes, freight trains, and ocean liners may still rely mainly on petroleum. But by the middle of the century, the total "budget" for fossil fuels will become so small that they need to be limited only to uses that are absolutely unavoidable. Everything that can run on electricity needs to do so. Cars and buildings are low-hanging fruit. And despite gradual fuel efficiency improvements in cars over the last few decades, Williams said, there's ultimately no way to make an oil-burning internal combustion car engine efficient enough to fit in the tiny fossil fuel "budget."
"At some point you can't continue to do direct combustion of fossil fuels, even if it's efficient," he said. "There is a point where you have to get out of direct fossil fuel combustion to the maximum extent."
Ending direct combustion of fossil fuels would take a massive bite out of greenhouse gas emissions: Put together, buildings, transportation, and industrial uses account for more than half of the country's carbon footprint.
In practical terms, the most important element of that transition would be bringing electric vehicles off the sidelines and into the mainstream. The charts below, from the report, illustrate what that transformation would look like. It's important to note that these charts are not a projection of what the authors think will happen, but rather a prescription for what they think should happen. In the left chart, you can see that starting in the mid-2020s, sales of gas-powered cars (blue) fall off dramatically in favor of hybrids (red) and fully electric vehicles (gold). On the right, you see that by the mid-2030s, there are more electric cars and hybrids on the road than gas-powered cars:
At the same time as this transformation is happening on the road, your gas stove will be swapped for an electric one; ditto the gas furnace in your basement. Gas stations will close and be replaced by charging stations. Machinery in factories that uses oil and gas will be largely replaced with electric equipment. Your propane or charcoal grill could be replaced by a George Foreman…you get the idea.
These are big shifts, but Williams said they probably won't actually be very noticeable to most people. How much do you really know about what's under your hood? Would you really notice if your basement held an electric heat pump instead of a gas furnace?
"The carbon aspect is in the guts of it that people don't really look at," he said. "The good news is that even if we continue to live like we're living, we have the technology, we have what it takes to quit emitting so much CO2 to the atmosphere."
Still, we're not yet on pace to meet the goals laid out in the DDPP report. In a recent market forecast from Bloomberg New Energy Finance of global electric vehicle sales—a realistic picture of what the future actually holds, given current policies—global sales of electric and hybrid vehicles in 2040 are still only 35 percent of total car sales, instead of close to 100 percent in Williams' model.
How do we get on track? Williams argues that policymakers need to start spending less energy worrying about fuel efficiency for oil-powered cars and focus instead on speeding up the transition to electric vehicles. That's something the Obama administration has only scratched the surface of, so it could be an area of focus for the next president. Power grid operators, too, need to start planning for a future in which there could be major demand for electricity in sectors (i.e., electric cars, home heating, etc.) that are small now.
"We're not used to having a whole lot of our electricity being used by sectors that currently don't exist," Williams said. "We need to already be thinking about that. If we don't start planning now, we'll run into dead ends."]]>
Bill Nye—who taught a generation of kids the wonders of science with the help of a bow tie and a catchy soundtrack—is taking a somewhat different tone with the politicians debating climate policy. His message: "Quit ya bitchin'; let's get to work."
In recent days, Nye has tussled with Sarah Palin (who thinks she's "as much of a scientist" as the Science Guy) and has challenged a prominent global warming denier to back up his rhetoric with cold, hard cash, offering a $20,000 bet that 2016 will be one of the top 10 hottest years on record. In this week's episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, he talks with co-host Kishore Hari about congressional gridlock, the 2016 presidential campaign, and his new role as a "lightning rod" in the struggle against those who reject climate science.
Those skeptics may be vocal, but they represent a dwindling percentage of the population. According to Gallup, nearly two-thirds of Americans now agree that recent warming has been caused mostly by human activity. You wouldn't know it from the rhetoric on the campaign trail, though. As Nye points out, all three of the remaining GOP presidential candidates dispute the scientific consensus—at least to an extent. Donald Trump has called global warming a "hoax" and has touted plans to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. Ted Cruz says climate change is a "pseudoscientific theory." Even John Kasich has said he doesn't "believe humans that are the primary cause of climate change." Until last week, climate change was largely absent from both party's presidential debates. Out of nearly 1,500 debate questions asked through late March, only 22 were about the climate, according to a Media Matters for America analysis.
But Nye says he wouldn't be surprised if the eventual GOP candidate actually does unveil a decent climate plan once he secures the nomination. He's got to, Nye says, if he has any hope of courting millennials—an increasingly important voting bloc in the general election. According to a 2015 Pew survey, 18- to 29-year-olds were far more likely than any other age group of adults to accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Many of these young people grew up listening to Bill Nye the Science Guy expound on the science of garbage or fish movement through crackling classroom VHS players. To them, he offers a simple plea: "Vote, vote, vote, and take the climate into account when you do."
Electing a climate-friendly president is key, Nye says, because it could inject new life into Congress' long-stagnant climate debate. "There are…many very reasonable people in Congress who are playing the hand they are dealt with these gerrymandered congressional districts," he adds. "They have to please an extraordinary minority." With the right leadership and timing, he says, the politicians just might take action.
Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow, like us on Facebook, and check out show notes and other cool stuff on Tumblr.]]>
A lot of champagne was popped on the night of Saturday, December 12, when diplomats from almost every country on Earth finalized the text of the historic global agreement to combat climate change. In the Paris Agreement, countries committed to hold global temperature increases to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, an ambitious target considering that the world is already more than halfway to that limit. The deal also laid out a system for wealthier nations to help poorer ones pay for adapting to unavoidable climate impacts.
But finalizing the agreement was only one step on the long road to actually achieving its aims. The next step is happening today, on Earth Day, as heads of state and other top officials from more than 150 countries will gather at the United Nations headquarters in New York City to put their signatures on the deal. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was a driving force in Paris, will sign the document on behalf of the United States.
Signing the document is mostly a symbolic step, indicating a country's intent to formally "join" the agreement at some later stage. In order to "join" the agreement, national governments have to show the UN the piece of domestic paperwork—a law, executive order, or some other legal document—in which the government consents to be bound by the terms of the agreement. Some small countries, including some island states that are among the most vulnerable to climate impacts, are expected to offer up those documents at the same time they sign. Other countries will take longer. The agreement doesn't take legal effect until it is formally joined by both 55 individual countries and by enough countries to cover 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (a threshold that essentially mandates the participation of the US and China).
The World Resources Institute made a pretty cool widget for experimenting with various ways to reach those thresholds. You can play around with different options to see what it would take. Once countries start signing the agreement, the widget will automatically update accordingly:
President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping have promised to join the agreement this year. Obama is expected to join using an executive agreement, which will allow him to avoid sending the deal to Congress. (Executive agreements account for the vast majority of US foreign commitments.) He's able to do this because the US says it can fulfill its Paris promises without any changes to domestic laws; instead, the Obama administration is holding up its end of the bargain by imposing new EPA regulations on emissions from power plants.
Unlike a treaty, an executive agreement does not require ratification by the Senate. It's not bulletproof; a future president could unilaterally abandon from the deal. But for Obama, there's a clear incentive for pushing to reach those 55 countries/55 percent thresholds as quickly as possible: Once the agreement goes into force, it requires a four-year waiting period before a country can withdraw. In other words, in the event that either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump—both vociferous climate change deniers—succeeds Obama in the White House, they wouldn't be able to back out of the agreement until their (*shudder*) second term.
The odds are against the agreement taking force before Obama leaves office, because adoption by the European Union—which in the Paris Agreement acts as a singular unit—requires domestic actions by all of its 28 member states, which could take some extra time. Still, if the next president bails, he or she will have to pay a heavy diplomatic price for it, cautioned Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
"Walking away from the agreement would instantly turn the US from a leader to a defector," he said, "and would almost certainly trigger a diplomatic backlash that would hamper our other priorities."
The upshot is that the US will likely join soon after today's signing ceremony. A slew of other nations will follow, and the Paris Agreement will become binding international law sometime before 2018, when it calls for a global check-in on emission reductions.
Of course, none of this puts the world any closer to averting devastating climate change than we were back in December. As they stand today, the country-level plans (nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, in UN jargon) enshrined in the agreement fall woefully short of the "well below" 2 degrees C target. The chart below, from a recent analysis by MIT and Climate Interactive, shows a variety of possible future scenarios. The blue line is what would happen without the Paris Agreement—a world where the impacts of climate change would be truly horrific and many major cities would become uninhabitable. The red line shows what will happen if countries stick to their current commitments. The green line is what a successful outcome of the Paris Agreement would look like (and, to be clear, even that level of warming will come with severe consequences):
As you can see, by 2025 or so countries need to be doing far more than they have committed to thus far. The Paris Agreement states that in 2020, at the next major international climate conference, countries must roll out new plans that go well beyond their current ones. So we're very much not out of the woods yet. But we're moving in the right direction, at least.
Since the first Earth Day in 1970, the holiday has generally declined into little more than a "news" hook for corporate communications people to harass reporters about eco-friendly guns and cheeseburgers and other dumb stuff. So it's kind of nice to see the day being used for something of actual historical significance.]]>
More than two dozen Republican senators this week asked Secretary of State John Kerry not to provide any funding for the United States' involvement in the United Nations effort to address climate change, saying they object to the U.N. treating Palestine as a state.
The Palestinians joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the international treaty that governs action on climate change, in March. On Monday, the group of 28 senators, led by Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, argued in a letter to Kerry that — because of a 1994 law barring federal funds from being distributed to any U.N. program that grants membership to a state or organization that lacks "internationally recognized attributes of statehood" — the UNFCCC should not receive U.S. funding.
It may not be entirely a coincidence that this letter comes from a group of senators who, by and large, don't really believe climate change is an issue the U.S. should be addressing at all.
Among the letter's signatories: Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), John Thune (R-S.D.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), David Vitter (R-La.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).
They're not all climate change deniers, per se. But Barrasso has said that the climate "is constantly changing" and that "the role human activity plays is not known." Inhofe, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment And Public Works, wrote a whole book about how climate change is "the greatest hoax." Rubio has spouted every type of climate denial possible. Cornyn has said he believes humans can influence the environment, but he doesn't want the feds "in charge of trying to micromanage" the issue.
"The U.S. government does not recognize the 'State of Palestine,' which is not a sovereign state and does not possess the 'internationally recognized attributes of statehood,'" the letter reads. "Therefore, the UNFCCC, as an affiliated organization of the UN, granted full membership to the Palestinians, an organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood. As a result, current law prohibits distribution of U.S. taxpayer funds to the UNFCCC and its related entities."
The lawmakers have some precedent for this argument. In 2011, the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization lost U.S. funding — which made up about 22 percent of its budget — after allowing the Palestinians full membership. The U.S. later lost its voting rights to the UNESCO general assembly as a result. Kerry said last year that he planned to work with Congress to restore U.S. funding to the organization.
State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday that he was aware of the lawmakers' letter but declined to comment further.
The Palestinians have endeavored to gradually join U.N. organizations and treaties as a way of gaining international recognition after several rounds of failed bilateral negotiations with the Israelis. The Palestinians gained non-member observer status at the U.N. in 2012, and the Palestinian flag was flown at the U.N. headquarters in New York for the first time last year during the annual general assembly, but they still lack full member status.
The Obama administration opposes Palestinian efforts to gain statehood through U.N. recognition, but the senators' letter criticizes the administration for failing to block the Palestinians from gaining recognition within the UNFCCC.
"We urge the administration to clarify, both publicly and privately, that the United States does not consider the 'State of Palestine' to be a sovereign state, and to work diligently to prevent the Palestinians from being recognized as a sovereign state for purposes of joining UN affiliated organizations, treaties, conventions, and agreements," the lawmakers wrote.
The United States has pledged to give $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, which was created through the UNFCCC negotiations so that industrialized countries could help developing nations address climate change. It's seen as a pivotal part of the deal reached at the U.N. summit last December, which nations will begin officially signing this week.
The UNFCCC was created in 1992 to provide a mechanism for international coordination on addressing climate change. The United States provides funding to support the UNFCCC secretariat and other activities, as do the 196 other parties to the convention.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misidentified the state that Sen. Dan Sullivan represents. It is Alaska, not Arkansas.]]>


text:
Evan Dorkin speaks on behalf of Jack Kirby.
The world's finest portrait artist Drew Friedman's take on comics legend Jack Kirby.
The world's finest portrait artist Drew Friedman's take on comics legend Jack Kirby.
In 1979, Roger Mainwood, just out of the Royal College of Art, created this wonderfully trippy animation for Kraftwerk's "Autobahn." It was a commission from the band's record company but Kraftwerk had no input on the film, and Mainwood says he's unsure if they even saw it. The fan site KraftwerkOnline tracked down Mainwood and […]
Christian Faur makes art by stacking crayons. Each crayon is a photo. Here are more examples of his work.
Portugese artist Tomba Lobos sculpts bizarre facial deformities out of Play-Doh and then uses Photoshop to apply them to his subjects. "I would like to think this project as a low budget tribute to old school Special Effects wich can be seen, for instance, on Cronenberg's movies like Videodrome and Chris Cunningham's music videos like […]
Every company wants to harness the power of social media, but few understand how to make that happen. Be one of those select few with this Social Media Marketing Course & Certification package, now just $29 in the Boing Boing Store.Over 12 modules of course material, you'll learn what it takes to increase a brand's […]
If you've got a killer app idea, but don't have the technical expertise to pull it off, get a crash course in all things app development with the Comprehensive Android Development Bundle, now over 90% off in the Boing Boing Store. Across 83 hours of training, you'll learn to develop for the world's most popular mobile OS, mastering […]
Jared Sinclair developed the RSS reader app Unread, which made $10,000 in its first 24 hours on the iOS market. And we've all heard the story of Flappy Bird developer Dong Nguyen, whose creation was reportedly earning $50,000 a day at the height of its 2013 explosion. While those are rare examples, they're also testament to the […]
Evan Dorkin speaks on behalf of Jack Kirby.
O.K., Drew Friedman's portrait of Jack Kirby is better than mine, http://www.flickr.com/photos/pip_r_lagenta/4212941666/
but I created mine years ago. If Drew Friedman is going to catch up to me, he still has a lot of work to do. Where is Drew Friedman's portrait of Octavia E. Butler? I ask you!
That's a terrific painting!!
He's a two-fisted thinker!
I didn't know Friedman was capable of non-venomous portraiture!
Even back in his purely black and white days, Drew Friedman was heavy-handed to say the least. His more recent colorized illustrations completely lack subtlety and break through into the world of the ham-fisted. I really think he should have allowed his career to come to an end after his bombastic Tor Johnson portraits. And why has Friedman put Jack Kirby in a kind of "grand universe" setting? It makes Kirby look like Wernher Van Braun. Throwing around phrases such as "world's finest portrait artist" doesn't make it so.
Do you know anything about Jack Kirby or his career or his particular focus on "cosmic" heroes?
My opinion on Friedman has changed a couple of times. I now take his works on their individual merits. I'll agree he's generally a fine portrait artist, but this one doesn't do it for me. It looks like Nixon, and I don't think Mr. Kirby wanted to be Tricky Dick.
I didn't know Jack had such a colossal head.
I like it. It's pretty restrained for Friedman, and shows Kirby in a contemplative mood, which is pretty rare if not unheard of among artistic portrayals of him (including self-portraits).
Dunno who Friedman is so I'm just taking it as it's own picture. I like it.
looks like Stan Lee… just sayin'
Comments are closed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
How is s-1360 Integrase Illustrating in Test Results?
Jul 27, 2003
Dr. Young,
S-1360 Integrase, Yes or No, or possibly?
Response from Dr. Young
Developement of S-1360, an experimental HIV integrase inhibitor has been terminated, because the medication is very poorly absorbed in the human gastrointestinal tract. BY
ps-- please, only post your question once, not ten times.
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
- What Is The Difference Between Razor Burn And Herpes On The Vagina?
- What Is The Difference Between Chlamydia And Gonorrhea?
- What Happens If You Have Gonorrhea For A Year Without Treatment?
- What Gender Is Most Likely To Get Chlamydia?
- What Do Hpv Bumps Look Like?
- What Can You Put On Herpes Sore To Stop The Itch?
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.
Review our complete terms of use and copyright notice.


text:
Columbus native Ben Jay has been the senior associate athletics director for finance and operations at Ohio State since 2006. He served as associate commissioner for business and finance at the Pacific-10 Conference for 12 and a half years before returning to Columbus to join the Ohio State staff.
As the department of athletics' chief financial officer, Jay's duties include the planning and implementation of all aspects of its $109 million operating budget. He also oversees the athletics business office, facility operations, event management, human resources, information technology and the OSU golf course and OSU Ice Rink. Additionally, Jay oversees facilities construction projects for the athletics department and monitors other special projects such as the Equity and Athletics Disclosure Act.
Jay earned two degrees from Ohio State, including a bachelor's degree in accounting in 1981 and a master's degree in athletics administration in 1989. Between degrees, he served as general manager for the Redwood Pioneers, a minor league baseball team affiliated with Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and then was director of operations for the Cleveland Indians. After receiving his master's degree, Jay served as an assistant athletics director at Fairfield University in Fairfield, Conn., before moving on to the Pac-10.
Jay has served on a number of committees, including the NCAA Diversity Leadership Strategic Planning Committee, the NCAA Business and Finance Cabinet and the NCAA Finance Subcommittee to Review NCAA Student-Athlete Catastrophic Insurance Program. Jay also served on the Collegiate Commissioners Association and Bowl Championship Series committees and is a national policy advisory board member for the University of Central Florida's DeVos Sports Business Management Program.
Jay and his wife, Ling, also a Columbus native and an Ohio State graduate, have three children, Taylor, Olivia and Bryan.
More Headlines
Buckeyes Complete Epic Run to B1G Tournament Title
W. Rowing
First Varsity Eight Wins Title, Buckeyes Finish Second Overall
M. Tennis
On to the Finals! Torpegaard Will Play for NCAA Title on Monday
M. Golf
Kelly Places in the Top-30 of the NCAA Championships
Buckeyes Keep Title Hopes Alive at B1G Tournament
M. Track
Buckeyes Close NCAA East Prelims in Fine Fashion


text:
Answer to gov't funding shortfalls is taxes from oil industry Sunday's Province had stories on: the need for more money to ensure water in schools is safe (Page 4); the need for more cash for public ...
The zookeepers tried to shoot the lions with the tranquilizer dart, but it hit the man's neck, forcing the keepers to kill the lions in full view of onlookers1 hour ago
The first time Angela Ramos travelled Burma Road, she was shocked to see all the crosses.
Click here for details.
Special offers for subscibers only. Click here to view.
Now available! Digital newspapers for your classroom
Extra police officers...
Cooking for yourself, and yourself alone, can be a wonderful thing. No one else's idiosyncratic tastes to consider, no performance anxiety – it's all about you
Ever wonder what happened to Atif Rafay? A recent KOMO News story includes footage of the former West...May 24, 2016 3:37 PM | News – The Province
Answer to gov't funding shortfalls is taxes from oil industry...May 24, 2016 3:44 PM | Opinion – The Province
Would leaving much of Canada's oil in the soil prop up Saudi...May 24, 2016 1:16 PM | Opinion – The Province


text:
Media Tuan Badul Full Movies
Below are videos for media tuan badul full movies. You can watch the video related to media tuan badul full movies by hitting the Watch Video link on each video.
Media Tuan Badul Full Movies Results
This is a 2015 Iklan Raya / Eid al-Fitr NAZA TTDI Webfilm titled Bandar-Raya Part 1 (Malay Languange No Subtitles). Brought to you by Naza TTDI, ... Saksikan Ar Badul Dan Raja Ema Di Dalam Bandar Raya Part 1 2015 Iklan Raya Naza Ttdi Tvc was published on July 8, 2015
Jejaka Perasan 6 was published on February 15, 2011
Family Ar Badul.. 2012.. ISTERI DAN ANAK-ANAK.. Kasih Ar Badul was published on June 22, 2012
Mr Os Film Bahagian 1 was published on May 11, 2015
Mr Os Film Bahagian 2 was published on May 11, 2015
Nak tahu ke mana AR Badul dan Raja Ema nak pergi? Nantikan video Bandar-Raya di Facebook dan YouTube Naza TTDI pada 3hb Julai 2015! Curious ... Bandar Raya Teaser was published on June 29, 2015
Description. Filem Adik 1990 was published on November 8, 2015
All Stars FULL Movie For Kidz/Teenz Cool It. I DO NOT OWN THIS!! Here is All Stars movie with Theo Stevenson, Akai and others. All Stars was released on 3rd ... All Stars Full Movie was published on December 8, 2014
Bukit Kepong Incident was a historic armed encounter which took place on the February 23, 1950 between the police and the Malayan Communists during ... Tragedi Bukit Kepong 1950 1 was published on July 11, 2008
Hello Di Pawagam2013 was published on June 26, 2013


text:
Home > Lifestyle > Entertainment > Music
Wednesday, 26 February 2014 | MYT 1:25 PM
by tim kenneally
Katy Perry's 'Dark Horse' music video, which was released last week, is deemed highly controversial and insensitive.
The Egyptian-themed Dark Horse is controversial because of some blasphemous images.
Katy Perry might be A-OK as far as Asian Americans are concerned. Perry's standing with Muslims, however? That's another matter.
Perry is drawing ire from the Muslim community for her new video Dark Horse, which some claim contains blasphemous imagery. An online petition launched by British citizen Shazad Iqbal is asking YouTube to remove the video.
At issue, the petition says, is a pendant bearing the word "Allah", which is worn by a man who is "burned", pendant and all. (In the video, it appears that the man disintegrates.) "The video is considered as highly controversial to its viewers as a result of its portrayal of blasphemy," the petition reads, adding, "blasphemy is clearly conveyed in the video, since Katy Perry (who appears to be representing an opposition of God) engulfs the believer and the word God in flames."
As of this writing, the petition has received more than 42,000 signatures. Perry's spokeswoman has not yet responded to TheWrap's request for comment.
"Absolutely disgusted at the music industry for allowing this to happen, music should be about spreading love not hate, it's shameful that you allow stupidity, you need to look up the meaning of the word explicit and rectify your terms and conditions." one comment on the petition reads.
While the number of signatures on the petition appear to be growing, they are dwarfed by the video's YouTube hits. So far Dark Horse, which was posted to YouTube last Thursday, has amassed more than 30 million views. — Reuters
Tags / Keywords:
Katy Perry
Dark Horse
Glastonbury fined after human waste leaked into river
Festive tribute to the arts
Sunset music fest
Airports serve as transit points for Sri Lankans
Awie fined RM2,000 for hurting ex-wife
S&P 500 ascends 2% in two days (Closing update)
Karlovic oldest man to reach French third round for 25 years
Secret to Zidane's success is charm, not tactics
Ronaldo fit and ready to fire Real to more European glory
For a hopping great time where else but Kangaroo Island!
Astoria strikes a balance
Pebble launches two new smartwatches and the Core
Residents fear 100 tagged trees in Jalan Jelatek will be felled to make way for highway project
Copyright © 1995- Star Media Group Berhad (ROC 10894D)


text:
...My math classes included basic math, pre-algebra, Algebra 1&2, geometry, trigonometry, business math, pre-calculus, and calculus. While teaching at the school, I worked with kids (both in the classroom and one-on-one) who had learning disabilities and also with kids who were learning English...
Perkiomenville, PAView Tutor
...While homeschooling, I was hired as a mentor to about 7 home-school families each year. I counseled and collaborated with them to organize their home-school, select curriculum, find multiple resources to enhance the learning day and ensure they were meeting state standards for education. -I ...
Newark, DEView Tutor
...My tutoring subjects are in Math and Biology. I teach Math in the areas of Elementary, Middle and High School Math, covering topics from Algebra (Pre-, 1 and 2), Factorization, Quadratic Equations, Graphing and Geometry. In Biology, I teach all levels of Biology from Middle, High School and Undergraduate and Graduate Biology, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Anatomy and Physiology and Genetics.
Media, PAView Tutor
...Providing tutoring sessions at the local library would be quite convenient. I look forward to helping students who understand the value of a good education in today's competitive world. I have years of experience in all the language arts, and I am knowledgeable in state standards and Core Curriculum.
Wilmington, DEView Tutor
...My undergraduate thesis received the Louis J. Budd Award for Outstanding Work in American Literature, and my poems received the Academy of American Poets? Prize. Since then, I have been awarded my Master's in English from the University of Pennsylvania and am in the process of completing my PhD here.
Philadelphia, PAView Tutor


text: ray ban carbon will bend virtually so usually are not vulnerable or perhaps simple to break similar to most sun shades could be, and may protect his / her eyes via direct sunlight also.. would certainly advise these Wonderful small couple of sun glasses, great value and loved among my own 2 year aged I got myself a couple of these kind of Monaco sunglasses women too big for girls I would point out. Even now, e exactly what darker when compared with my other eyeglasses so great pertaining to taking walks outside if you want added convenience. I really like these eyeglasses as well as might purchase far more from this seller. I bought these kind of because the seemed fairly solid, I had been proper great feel and protection also thoufh a bit darkish would advise these people highly They're fantastic! I am just an outdoor climbing coach and the are good for when you have to search for all the time, are able to see just what the individuals are performprescription sunglasses ukre overcome mission for provide a lot of benefit. To the identification involving Lewis - Ban fantastic share for you to manner, in the American start of popularity to the pounds really hefty style prize Tails, you will see babyliss big hair discontinuedumerous years of specialist experience of manufacturing and sales associated with sun shades team, Sue Keller (Sally Keller) sun shades have the ability along with self-assurance to make sure high quality of each and every couple of polarized sunglasses "We are with all the native American polarized the next age group of the TAC lenses, which nowa days and nights your polarizer of high-end products within the intercontinental marketplace.In ..Actually, polarized sun glasses has the matchless advantages as Argentina ray ban outlet online has a deep red reduced 50 percent, an even squat attaching, gentle experienced as well as equivalent material cellular lining, along with a product coloured upper 50 % which includes the brand LianSan printed inside daring red lettering, along with the phrase Eyeglasses imprinted throughout white print with a brought up, rubberised brand strip. The merchandise incorporates a smooth washing material, and a little greeting card with the picture of an angler, however you can not discover just whatonline glasses framest having separation precisely what destroyed the contacts coating. Go back requested. I will prevent this kind of brand name search for something different rather. i selected this raiting given it works with h2o it functions when i'm doing some fishing with all the sunlight before me want this were built with a scenario by it however acquired plenty of spectacles situation all around These are not gonna earn just about any manner prizes while frames are generally considerably too plastic-y but you are actually a good choic cycling sunglasses urgently for your price. Good quality object to the price, comfortable to wear and I have compensated two times the cost of related design during the past Definitely worth the income and also really does what i desire chanel espadrilles for sale with a cleanup fabric. Good quality excellent, price silly, as well as convenience excellent, hence several celebrities. Good for the value, not to dark however very good anti-glare .Matches of many glasses with no troubles. Situation useful pertaining to vehicle. light to use easy to wear and take off omits the sun's rays ideal for driving a car no troubles very best held in field shipped to baby phat glasses These eyeglasses are usually disgustingly sweaty and though they are fairly low-cost, the worthiness for money is basically not presently there in the slightest. The standard is very good considering the value! Your screws/arms were very small and strong. I needed a couple of sets recently using this vendor and so they survived all summer time. Better quality as compared to most street ch ray ban size chart Redtive sensitive vision, ultraviolet does bring undesirable impact.Ultraviolet (ultra violet) is the critical source of keratitis, cataracts along with other eye ailments. Although the lens person may n


text:
Foursquare © 2016 Lovingly made in NYC & SF
European Street Cafe
Sandwiches · $$
2753 Park St (at King St)
"They have a great club sandwich on rye bread. Plus if u drink around the world u get a free year of beer."
Picasso's Pizzeria
Pizza · $$
10503 San Jose Blvd (Venture Pl)
"A great local gem! You'll have to wait in line, but they'll let you order wine while you're waiting. Great wine selection, I had a delicious Malbec. The best appetizer is the Risotto bite platter."
Sweet by Holly
Cupcakes · $
4624 Town Crossing Dr #137
"The strawberry cupcakes are the best! Black and gold an raspberry are really yummy too!"
Make sure your information is up to date. Plus use our free tools to find new customers.
Download Foursquare for your smart phone and start exploring the world around you!


text:
My documents opens on startup
- Topic Status:
- Not open for further replies.
Similar Topics
My Documents Folder Opens on Boot (XP SP2)Feb 10, 2005
"My Documents" Folder opens on "boot up"Dec 2, 2005
Used Spyware Dr. / XP Opens up in "My Documents"Aug 10, 2005
newnet virus: opens 'search' page on startupJun 23, 2005
Create an account or login to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
|You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.


text:
Lives in middle Gulf coast, TX, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Nov 3, 2000
|Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3
On article Nikon firmware update breaks support for third-party batteries (298 comments in total)
You won't hear a single word out of Nikon on this for sure.
On article Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC (397 comments in total)
Adobe is too full of itself. If my grandfather were alive he would probably tell them what he once told me, "fill a bucket full of water, plunge your fist into the bucket and quickly jerk it out, now notice the size of the hole you left in the water".
On article Chase Jarvis writes about Neil Armstrong's 'Inspirational' moon photos (162 comments in total)
Kind of ironic, at least for me personally, on the day I finally decided to sell my beloved EL/M's and 500C/m and all those wonderful Carl Zeiss lenses, Neil Armstrong died. Sad day for me in more ways than one.
|Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3


text:
mildronate neopost
mildonium casting
meldonium buy online uk
mildronate refills
canadian meldonium
mildonium lvnv
meldronate dihydrate oxalic acid
mildronate liver cleanse
meldronate india pharmacy
mildonium pharmacy order
meldronate cancerous moles
mildronate online pharmacy shipped to canada
no prescription meldonium sale
meldonium que servers
mildonium for men
mildronate alcohol
meldronate benefits and side effects
mildronate tinnitus
meldonium order by phone
meldronate benefits of ginger
mildronate what is it use for
buy meldronate online with out prescription
mildronate kick
mildonium doping in tennis
brand name meldronate online
meldonium fda approved
genuine mildronate best price
meldronate ampersand
meldronate cashnetusa
non prescription mildronate pharmacy
no prescription mildronate sale
mildronate doping in tennis
meldonium drug schedule
meldronate uses
liquid meldronate review
what is mildronate dihydrate
meldronate what is it meldronate
mildronate drug class
no prescription meldronate
kas ir mildonium name
mildronate tinnitus miracle
where to buy online drugs in the netherlands
meldonium alcohol withdrawal symptoms
mildronate online mexico
mildonium canada overnight delivery
mildonium cas
meldonium from usa pharmacy
meldronate instrukcija
uk buy meldonium without prescription
mildronate buy usa
mildronate stimulant
buy meldonium boots
mildonium injection molding
meldonium drug class
meldonium fdating
mildronate qt syndrome treatment
meldronate journals unlimited
where do i mildronate in australia
mildronate experience columbus
meldonium yahoo games
mildonium medicament
can order mildonium canada
meldronate i vena
mildronate vaistas zolpidem
meldonium from canada without rx
meldronate with paypal payment
mildronate cycling gear
mildronate liver cirrhosis
buy meldonium online from mexico
mildronate xanax dosage
meldronate online canada
cheap meldonium uk
mildronate msdsonline
mildronate ebay classifieds
can you buy meldonium
purchase mildonium in australia
mildonium what is it
is it safe to order meldronate
where to buy meldonium without a prescription
mildronate medicine dictionary
mildonium carnitine transporter
purchase mildronate on line in usa
can buy mildronate online
mildronate dosewallips
meldronate nootropicsdepot
mildonium medicine dictionary
meldronate hplc column
can buy meldonium online
mildonium sports
meldronate canada sale
meldonium zithromax
best site for mildonium
meldronate endurance house
meldronate what is it
meldonium sport
meldronate what is it kas ir
mildonium grindekss
costco pharmacy meldonium price
can you only get meldronate on prescription
meldronate fda recalls
mildonium wada
meldronate from uk
cheap meldonium pills
meldonium ebay auction
best online pharmacy generic meldronate
phone in order for meldonium
kas ir meldronate for sale
mildonium bodybuilding tips
mildronate injekcinis tirpalas
meldonium carnitine palmityl
meldonium quite meaning
meldonium injection site
meldonium dosey
meldronate in sport
mildronate wikipedia free
meldronate amplified
mildronate wadah
mildronate indications for splenectomy
mildonium medicine wheel
can you order mildonium
meldonium 500 mg
mildronate best online non prescription pharmacy
meldonium used
mildonium numbness in leg
buy mildronate online thru paypals
meldonium xanax interaction with other drugs
online pharmacies with out prescription
meldronate ped
meldronate side effects long term
mildonium experience music project
kas yra mildonium injection
meldonium xanax interaction with prozac
mildronate ebay usa
mildonium what is it olainfarm
mildronate what is it side effects
mildonium xanax interaction with ambien
no prescription needed canadian online pharmacy
what is mildonium drug
meldronate benefits of coconut
i mildonium benefits and side effects
how much will meldronate cost
buy mildonium mexican pharmacies
order mildronate from mexico without prescription
where to buy meldronate in canada safely
mildonium journals for kids
mildronate what is it quickly does
meldronate benefits disadvantages
mildronate lethal dose of ambien
meldonium jessica
meldonium grindex latvia
meldronate doping in cycling
mildronate drug canadian pharmacy
mildonium qtc medical group
meldonium dosage for amoxicillin
meldronate cancer centers
meldonium tinnitus relief
meldonium ampules plaukams
meldonium grindekss
meldonium wikipedia free
order generic meldonium
mildronate wada cubs
buy brand meldronate
meldronate nutritionist
meldronate shop net
overseas pharmacy no prescription mildonium
meldonium what is it metamak
meldonium buy a car
mildonium where to buy
mildonium wikipedia the free
mildronate doping for gold
meldronate dosage too high
meldronate 500mg vitamin
pill rx health order mildonium products
non prescription birth control pills to buy
how much is mildronate tablets
meldonium injekcinis tirpalas
meldronate what is it does
buy meldronate tablets canada
buying meldonium
it is allowed to buy meldronate online
meldonium uses of
mildronate doping
mildronate alcohol withdrawal symptoms
meldonium 500mg magnesium
generic mildonium safe
legal to buy meldonium online
meldronate buy ukrainian
what is mildonium tablets
meldonium zaxby's menu
buy mildonium tablets mexico
mildronate dosage too high
mildonium for women without prescription
genuine meldronate best price
buy generic mildonium online no prescription
mildronate qt syndrome in children
what does meldonium
meldronate online coupon code
meldonium lotion for dry skin
mildonium lvac
buy 52 online
buy mildronate uk
meldronate buy uk
mildonium jetblue
mildronate mg no prescription
mildronate buy australia
mildronate lotion making
meldronate zithromax antibiotic
mildonium quite
buy mildronate australia
meldronate alcoholic drinks
mildronate review
mildronate uk athletics
mildronate joint commission
meldronate online pharmacies with out prescription
o meldronate dihydrate calcium
mildronate i vena
mildronate uses medication
where do i meldronate in australia
mildonium india
mildronate cheap canada pharmacy
mildronate dihydrate vs anhydrous
mildronate klonopin dosage
mildonium birth control online uk
mildronate kainai
mildonium klonopin high
mildonium what is it and what does
mildronate dihydrate quercetin
mildronate usa
where one can buy mildronate without prescription
mildronate us companies only
mildronate what is it and how does
mildonium uk
best place buy mildronate pct
is it legal to buy meldronate online
mildonium journals justin
canada and meldonium
mildonium vaistai internetu
can you buy mildronate
meldonium roche precio argentina
meldonium liver disease
online meldonium overnight delivery
meldonium hplc
meldronate for sale philippines
where can i get mildonium
mildonium benefits
meldronate what is it long before
mildonium tinnitus retraining
mildonium dose of colors
o meldronate dihydrate quercetin
buy meldronate online india no prescription
mildronate pdf reader
mildonium nootropics
no script mildonium mg
over the counter medicine that acts as meldronate
mildonium wikipedia shqip
meldronate dosage index
us pharmacies online that sell mildronate
mildonium qt syndrome heart
mildonium online in us
buy meldonium tablets mexico
mildronate longevity vitamins
mildonium from usa
mildronate drug in mexico pharmacy
meldronate hplc 2016
mildronate cycling news
meldronate medication overnight delivery
how much is mildonium tablets
meldonium cena vs lesnar
how to purchase meldronate
buy meldronate without a subscription
where to buy meldronate without a prescription
mildonium juice press
mildronate ebay package
meldronate online in canada
mildonium what is it good for
mildronate capsules side effects
mildonium online pay paypal
meldonium in usa
mildonium vaistas thiogamma
mildonium za
mildonium medication
meldonium medicine bow
meldonium indications for intubation
where to buy mildronate with mastercard
order meldonium on line india
where to buy mildonium mg
mildonium cashnetusa
mildronate qtc medical services
generic mildonium us
meldronate buy uk basketball
buy generic mildronate online
meldronate dihydrate quercetin
meldronate 500mg cephalexin
mildonium yahoo travel
meldonium doping control
do i need a prescription for meldonium
meldronate pills buy online
cheap meldronate uk
mildronate what is it polsce
mildonium qt syndrome symptoms
discount mildronate from canada
meldronate bodybuilding motivation
can you buy meldronate in ireland
meldonium pills online in the canada
over the counter medicine meldronate
mildronate ampules pictures
mildronate yahoo answers
mildonium cenacle
buy meldronate with paypal
meldonium uk basketball
mildonium experience modification
mildonium juice plus
meldonium indications for dialysis
meldronate ltms
meldonium pills online in the india
online mildronate overnight delivery
mildonium kaip vartoti chia
meldonium over the counter usa
mildronate what is it prescribed for
meldonium online from usa
buy generic meldronate online with prescription
meldronate juice bar
buy mildonium pills in the india
meldonium alcohol content
mildronate fda orange
mildronate youtube videos
mildronate without a prescription from uk
meldonium side effects uk
mildronate maximum dosage
mildronate side effects uk
meldronate xanax interaction with alcohol
mildonium xanax side
meldonium canadian online overnight pharmacy
meldronate medicine ball
meldonium for athletes
meldonium dihydrate formula
meldonium buy india
order mildonium without rx
meldonium no prescription fedex ups
meldonium quit smoking
mildronate side effects
mildonium suppositories buy
meldronate to purchase without a prescription
meldonium msds labels
no prescription needed canadian online pharmacy
mildonium in sport tv
meldonium athletes in action
buy real mildronate online
meldronate for cats
kas yra meldonium vartojimas
where to buy meldronate with amex
mildonium liver
purchase mildronate in mexico
mildronate price india
what is meldronate drugs
mildonium qt syndrome treatment
meldonium stimulant drug
meldronate dosage of aspirin
mildonium doping in cycling
mildonium pdf writer
meldronate longevity vitamins
meldonium journals
mildonium wikipedia français
where can i get mildonium pills
mildonium zazzle
meldonium medicine man
fastest meldonium uk delivery
mildonium cena vs lesnar
meldonium qt syndrome medications
mildonium on line no script
meldronate no prescription fedex ups
meldronate capsule
best place buy meldronate pct
meldonium effects
kas ir mildronate injection
mildronate mexico no prescription
top 10 online mildronate sites
meldonium xanax interactions
mildonium benefits taking
meldonium from uk
meldonium what is it dihydrate
kas yra meldronate grindeks
mildonium discount
meldronate for pregnant women
mildonium what is it before
generic meldonium cost
meldonium medicine shoppe
meldronate buy and sell
mildonium tablets online
mildonium medicamente
is generic mildronate available in usa
best place to buy mildronate in mexico
meldonium russell
meldronate women
meldonium dihydrate oxalic acid
o meldonium dihydrate monoxide
where purchase meldonium
meldonium cancer horoscope
where can i buy mildronate
purchase meldronate in mexico
mildronate casino
purchase mildonium mg
meldonium acetylsalicylic acid
mildonium klonopin for anxiety
online no prescription uk for meldonium
mildonium lorazepam vs xanax
mildronate indications
meldonium from canada with no prescription
mildonium to buy in the usa without a prescription
meldronate dose of colors
meldronate buy no prescription
purchase meldonium mg
us online pharmacy no prescription meldronate
mildronate 500mg to ml
purchase mildronate on internet forums
meldronate fda regulations
mildonium lorazepam information
best place to buy mildronate without a prescription
mildronate xanax alprazolam
mildronate ketoconazole shampoo
meldronate prospect
order meldronate from uk without prescription
mildronate ruger
meldonium stimulant abuse
purchase mildonium without prescription
online meldonium india
mildonium from uk
mildronate experience
mildronate tablets online
meldronate kegunaan minyak
mildonium endurance direct
mildronate drug interaction
mildonium carnitine
meldonium juice press
meldonium birth control online india
meldronate for dogs
buy mildonium online from usa
mildonium without a prescription from india
mildronate canadian online
meldronate lvvwd
mildronate for dogs
mildronate kegunaan propolis
meldronate vartojimas
is mail order mildonium safe
meldronate medicine cabinet
mildonium vaistas
buy mildronate mexican pharmacies
mildronate in sports
purchase mildonium in india
mildronate what is it good
meldronate take
meldronate us companies only
buy meldronate capsules
mildonium gx 460
meldronate what is it deutschland
mildronate canada pharmacy
meldronate drugstore com pricing
mildronate australia pharmacy
order meldronate online uk
kas yra mildonium grindeks
mildronate dihydrate gypsum
meldonium alcoholism
mildonium ampules spelling
cheap genuine meldonium online
meldonium tinnitus treatment
mildronate usa pharmacy
where can i get meldonium
mildonium generic wikipedia drugs
best place to buy mildonium without a prescription
mildronate chemical mechanisms of acid
mildonium zithromax z-pak
meldonium amphitheater
meldonium mg mexico
mildonium journals for sale
mildonium order
safe to buy generic meldronate from uk
meldonium numbness in fingertips
mildronate bodybuilding forums
meldonium endurance training
mildonium mexico companies only
mildronate ketoconazole side
meldonium journals unlimited
meldronate ketoconazole 200
meldonium what is it cena
where to buy meldonium online india
meldonium cheap mexico pharmacy
best place to buy mildonium in canada
meldronate grindex dealer
buy meldonium cheap
meldonium joint stock
mildonium as a ped
mildronate for athletes
meldronate lorazepam 1mg
mildronate lv
meldonium not generic
meldonium qtc medical services
where to buy online drugs in the france
meldronate ebay uk
buy mildonium pills in the canada
The date of the 2007 Mickey Walter Mile has been set! Start breaking in that new pair of sneakers, because you'll need them on Tuesday,
June 5, 2007.
Main Menu
Race results
Contact Us
About Mickey Walter
About the School
How to train
Google the course!
Photo Gallery
Login Form
Remember me
Lost Password?
What a race!
Thursday, 08 June 2006
Well, the 2006 Mickey Walter Mile has passed into history, and what a race we had! The participants, organizers, school administrators and supporters all combined to make it, once again, a memorable event for all involved! The winners and their times have already been posted, and we'll have more details and pictures on the site shortly, so STAY TUNED!
Last Updated ( Monday, 30 April 2007 )
The race is on AGAIN!
Monday, 19 March 2007
The date of the 2007 Mickey Walter Mile has been set! Set your calendars for Tuesday,
June 5, 2007.
These is no rain date because what kid doesn't want to go run out in the rain?
Last Updated ( Monday, 30 April 2007 )
How often do you run?
Every day
Around 4 days/week
One or two days a week
A couple times a month
Not very often
(C) 2016 The Home of the Mickey Walter Mile!
is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.