text:
Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated
New emissions estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency cast doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change.
10:36 a.m.: This post has been corrected.
The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural gas as a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing understanding of the pollution associated with the full "life cycle" of gas production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change.
Advocates for natural gas routinely assert that it produces 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal and is a significant step toward a greener energy future. But those assumptions are based on emissions from the tailpipe or smokestack and don't account for the methane and other pollution emitted when gas is extracted and piped to power plants and other customers.
The EPA's new analysis doubles its previous estimates for the amount of methane gas that leaks from loose pipe fittings and is vented from gas wells, drastically changing the picture of the nation's emissions that the agency painted as recently as April. Calculations for some gas-field emissions jumped by several hundred percent. Methane levels from the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas were 9,000 times higher than previously reported.
When all these emissions are counted, gas may be as little as 25 percent cleaner than coal, or perhaps even less.
Even accounting for the new analysis, natural gas—which also emits less toxic and particulate pollution—offers a significant environmental advantage. But the narrower the margins get, the weaker the political arguments become and the more power utilities flinch at investing billions to switch to a fuel that may someday lose the government's long-term support.
Understanding exactly how much greenhouse gas pollution comes from drilling is especially important, because the Obama administration has signaled that gas production may be an island of common political ground in its never-ending march toward an energy bill. The administration and Congress are seeking not just a steady, independent supply of energy, but a fast and drastic reduction in the greenhouse gases associated with climate change.
Billions of cubic feet of climate-changing greenhouse gases—roughly the equivalent of the annual emissions from 35 million automobiles—seep from loose pipe valves or are vented intentionally from gas production facilities into the atmosphere each year, according to the EPA. Gas drilling emissions alone account for at least one-fifth of human-caused methane in the world's atmosphere, the World Bank estimates, and as more natural gas is drilled, the EPA expects these emissions to increase dramatically.
When scientists evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources over their full lifecycle and incorporate the methane emitted during production, the advantage of natural gas holds true only when it is burned in more modern and efficient plants.
But roughly half of the 1,600 gas-fired power plants in the United States operate at the lowest end of the efficiency spectrum. And even before the EPA sharply revised its data, these plants were only 32 percent cleaner than coal, according to a lifecycle analysis by Paulina Jaramillo, an energy expert and associate professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University.
Now that the EPA has doubled its emissions estimates, the advantages are slimmer still. Based on the new numbers, the median gas-powered plant in the United States is just 40 percent cleaner than coal, according to calculations ProPublica made based on Jaramillo's formulas. Those 800 inefficient plants offer only a 25 percent improvement.
Other scientists say the pollution gap between gas and coal could shrink even more. That's in part because the primary pollutant from natural gas, methane, is far more potent than other greenhouse gases, and scientists are still trying to understand its effect on the climate—and because it continues to be difficult to measure exactly how much methane is being emitted.
In November the EPA announced new greenhouse gas reporting rules for the oil and gas industry. For the first time under the Clean Air Act, the nation's guiding air quality law, thousands of small facilities will have to be counted in the pollution reporting inventory, a change that might also lead to higher measurements.
The natural gas industry, in the meantime, has pressed hard for subsidies and guarantees that would establish gas as an indispensible source of American energy and create a market for the vast new gas reserves discovered in recent years. The industry would like to see new power plants built to run on gas, automobile infrastructure developed to support gas vehicles and a slew of other ambitious plans that would commit the United States to a reliance on gas for decades to come.
But if it turns out that natural gas offers a more modest improvement over coal and oil, as the new EPA data begin to suggest, then billions of dollars of taxpayer and industry investment in new infrastructure, drilling and planning could be spent for limited gain.
"The problem is you build a gas plant for 40 years. That's a long bridge," said James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, one of the nation's largest power companies. Duke generates more than half of its electricity from coal, but Rogers has also been a vocal proponent of cap-and-trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Rogers worries that a blind jump to gas could leave the country dependent on yet another fossil resource, without stemming the rate of climate change.
"What if, with revelations around methane emissions, it turns out to be only a 10 or 20 percent reduction of carbon from coal? If that's true," he said, "gas is not the panacea."
The American Petroleum Institute said in an e-mailed response that federal offshore drilling rules are already cutting down on the emissions tallied by the government. Spokesmen for the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the natural gas lobbying groups Energy in Depth, American Clean Skies Foundation and America's Natural Gas Alliance, which have all been pushing to expand the use of gas, declined to comment on the EPA's new figures and what they mean for the comparison between gas and coal.
But industry groups point out that gas looks attractive compared to the alternatives.
Nuclear energy is less polluting than gas from a climate-changing perspective, but it is costly and viewed skeptically in the United States because of the dangers of disposing of radioactive waste. So-called "clean coal"—including underground carbon sequestration—could work, but the technology has repeatedly stalled, remains unproven, and is at least 15 years away. Renewable sources like wind and solar are being developed rapidly, but the energy is expensive and won't provide a commanding supply of electricity for decades.
Gas, on the other hand, is plentiful, accessible and local.
Methane Is a Potent Climate Gas
Measuring the amount of natural gas that is leaking during drilling is one challenge. Getting a grip on how that gas—which is mostly methane—affects the environment, and what effect it will have on global warming, is another. And on that, some scientists still disagree.
Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, as well as methane, propane and lesser-known gases that also affect climate change. For the purposes of standardization, all these gases are described together using the unit Co2e, or carbon dioxide "equivalent." But because each gas has a different potency, or "warming" effect on the atmosphere, a factor is applied to convert it to an equivalent of carbon dioxide.
Methane, the primary component of natural gas and among the more potent greenhouse gases, has far more of an effect on climate change than carbon dioxide. But determining the factor that should be applied to measure its relative warming affect is still being debated.
To crunch its numbers, the EPA calculated the average concentration of methane in the atmosphere over a 100-year period and determined that over that period methane is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Using that equation, a ton of methane emissions is the equivalent of 21 tons of carbon dioxide.
But some scientists argue that the impact of methane gas should be calculated over a shorter time period, because methane degrades quickly, and because gas drilling releases large quantities of methane into the atmosphere all at once, likely concentrating and amplifying the effect.
Robert Howarth, an environmental biology professor at Cornell University, used research from the United Nations to calculate that if methane's potency were considered over 20 years rather than 100 years, it would be 72 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in terms of its warming potential.
Figured that way, the climate effect of methane from natural gas would quickly outpace the climate effect of carbon dioxide from burning coal. Howarth's research is incomplete and has been criticized because at first he failed to figure in methane emissions from coal mining. But he said that after correcting his error, the emissions from coal barely changed, and the data still showed that the intensity of methane could erase the advantages of using natural gas.
"Even small leakages of natural gas to the atmosphere have very large consequences," Howarth wrote in a March memorandum, which he says is a precursor to a more thorough study that could begin to scientifically answer these questions. "When the total emissions of greenhouse gases are considered … natural gas and coal from mountaintop removal probably have similar releases, and in fact natural gas may be worse in terms of consequences on global warming."
Howarth says his latest calculations show that the type of shale gas drilling taking place in parts of Texas, New York and Pennsylvania leads to particularly high emissions and would likely be just as dirty as coal.
Environmental groups say factual data on how much methane is emitted from gas fields—and what the warming affect of that methane is—should be locked down before major policy decisions are made to shift the nation toward more reliance on gas.
"You can't just assume away some of these sources as de minimus," said Tom Singer, a senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council who focuses on emissions reporting in New Mexico. "You need to get a handle on them before you can make a determination."
Less Pollution Means More Profit
The EPA tracks fugitive and vented methane emissions through a program called Natural Gas STAR and then works to get drilling companies to save money by stanching their leaks and selling the gas they capture for profit. It was a discrepancy in the Gas STAR data that prompted the EPA to sharply revise the government's greenhouse gas statistics late last year.
According to Gas STAR's most recent figures, at least 1.6 percent of all the natural gas produced in the United States each year, about 475 billion cubic feet, is assumed to be leaked or vented during production. But those numbers were reported before the EPA adjusted its greenhouse gas estimates, and they are expected to rise when the new estimates are plugged into the calculation. If companies could capture even the gas leaked in Gas STAR's current estimates, it would be worth $2.1 billion a year at today's prices and would cut the nation's emissions by more than 2 percent right off the bat. Several studies show that maintaining and installing equipment to capture the emissions pays for itself within 24 months.
Gas STAR has seen some success in pushing companies to use these capture tools. The EPA's 2010 greenhouse gas inventory, using 2008 data, shows that even though more gas is being produced from more wells, total emissions from that production have decreased by more than 26 percent since 1990, mostly due to the progress of Gas STAR. But while these figures demonstrate that Gas STAR is effective in lowering the annual rate of emissions, the EPA's new figures essentially move the starting point, and, when recalculated, 2008 emissions are now understood to have been 53 percent higher than emissions in 1990.
That doesn't mean the program isn't working—it is. It simply means that the road to making reductions significant enough to affect the rate of climate change is much longer than expected.
The EPA now reports that emissions from conventional hydraulic fracturing are 35 times higher than the agency had previously estimated. It also reports that emissions from the type of hydraulic fracturing being used in the nation's bountiful new shale gas reserves, like the Marcellus, are almost 9,000 times higher than it had previously calculated, a figure that begins to correspond with Robert Howarth's research at Cornell.
Clean Enough to Count On?
Getting a solid estimate of the total lifecycle emissions from natural gas is critical not only to President Obama's—and Congress'–decisions about the nation's energy and climate strategy, but also to future planning for the nation's utilities.
Even small changes in the lifecycle emissions figures for gas would eventually affect policy and incentives for the utility industry, and ultimately make a big difference in how gas stacks up against its alternatives.
Rogers, the Duke executive, says the country's large promised reserves of natural gas must also hold up for gas to prove beneficial, in terms of both cost and climate. If domestic reserves turn out to be smaller than predicted, or the nation runs out of gas and turns to liquefied gas imported from overseas, then the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas would be almost equal to coal, Jaramillo pointed out in her 2007 lifecycle analysis, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. That's because the additional processing and shipping of liquefied gas would put even more greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere.
"In the 60's we put a needle in one arm—it was called oil," Rogers said. "If the shale gas doesn't play out as predicted, and we build a lot of gas plants in this country, and we don't drill offshore, we're going to be putting the needle in the other arm and it's going to be called gas."
The utilities are in a bind because they have to build new power plants to meet the nation's demand for energy, while anticipating an as-yet-undefined set of federal climate and emissions regulations that they believe are inevitable. Do they build new gas-fired plants, which can cost $2 billion and take three years to bring online? Or do they wait for proven systems that can capture carbon from coal-fired plants and sequester it underground?
If carbon sequestration works, coal-based power emissions could drop by 90 percent, said Nick Akins, president of American Electric Power, the nation's largest electric utility and the number-one emitter of greenhouse gas pollution. That suggests to Akins that natural gas may not be the solution to the nation's energy needs, but rather the transitional fuel that bridges the gap to cleaner technologies.
"Going from a 100 percent CO2 emitter to a 50 percent solution when you could go beyond that is something we need to turn our attention to," said Akins. "If there is a 90 percent solution for coal, and other forms like nuclear, and renewables, then obviously you want to push in that direction as well."
Correction: The article originally misstated that methane, at least 21 times more potent than CO2, is the most potent of greenhouse gases. The article should have stated that it is among the more potent greenhouse gases.
75 comments
"Now that the EPA has doubled its emissions estimates, the advantages are slimmer still. Based on the new numbers, the median gas-powered plant in the United States is just 40 percent cleaner than coal, according to calculations ProPublica made based on Jaramillo's formulas."
So the big story is that switching from coal to natural gas fired generators would only reduce CO2 emissions by 40% rather than 50% like had previously been thought? C'mon ProPublica, I like your work, but this is a non-story.
Methane is not "the most potent of the greenhouse gases". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_potential for a table of GHG CO2eq values, including several that are well above 10,000 times more potent than CO2 over a century.
That nit aside, this is an excellent ProPublica article, and it demonstrates just how complicated our energy and climate choices have become. One can make much the same argument regarding switching from gasoline to CNG for vehicles, where you have a huge infrastructure investment that yields (at best) only a 25% reduction in CO2 emissions.
This helpful article adds to the importance of stanching gas leaks, but doesn't detract from the importance of natural gas as a bridge to a lower-carbon energy mix, to my mind—as long as extraction is done responsibly, of course.
More coming on Dot Earth. The extent of unaccounted leakage was described here in 2009:
A Greenhouse Gas That Is Already a Commodity - http://nyti.ms/f94LAx
Coal mines vent methane gas, too. Does this figure into the above equation? Plus, the mega strip mines on steroids that flatten whole mountains, destroying entire mature forested ecosystems, rob the planet of valuable CO2 absorbing abilities. Not to mention headwater streams that are lost in longwall operations. There is more to be considered than just greenhouse gas emissions at the smoke stacks, in my opinion.
This headline is damaging and these findings are totally IRRELEVANT to our Energy and Climate crises in the short term.
The only important facts, still, are:
1) NatGas is still WAY cleaner than coal or oil;
2) We have a Century's supply of NatGas and/or methane readily available in the US and coastal waters WITHOUT having to resort to fracking;
3) With the millions of cars and trucks PLUS the demand for fertilizers and plastics, which account for 60% of oil imports, NatGas is the only way we can eliminate enormous amounts of CO2 and pollutants in the short term;
4) Conversion of the national fleet and plant will create hundreds of thousands of JOBS NOW;
5) Our money stays in THIS Country - putting a tourniquet on $700B in treasure outflow each year.
6) Conversion to NatGas will save thousands of our troops lives and limbs.
We all know that Solar, Wind, Geo, Fusion, etc. is the direction we need to head. But, we have miles to go before any of that has significant impact on the Energy or Climate crises.
NatGas can begin saving the US enormously within 1 year.
This is another really strong piece from ProPublica. It helped me to frame my thoughts around the overstated advantages of Gas. I really appreciate this reporting.
Unfortunately, the general public still buys this line that Gas is clean. It's even on the buses here in Philadelphia. It's going to take time for the facts to pierce these beliefs. The industry has really won the PR war on this point up to now.
Hey Tom Sherer.
"NatGas is still WAY cleaner than coal or oil"
You have to read the article before commenting!!
What did he miss, bfearn? The article states:
"When all these emissions are counted, gas may be as little as 25 percent cleaner than coal, or perhaps even less. Even accounting for the new analysis, natural gas—which also emits less toxic and particulate pollution—offers a significant environmental advantage."
I agree that natural gas, even with all the faults listed, is still cleaner than coal both for the atmosphere and for the rest of the environment. However, even if the U.S. were to switch totally to gas from coal, the environmental effects will not disappear. The coal will still be mined, it will just be exported as will its CO2 production. Coal export to Asia is actually one of the few bright spots in our trade deficit problem.
On the other hand, there is huge potential for thorium nuclear to be our safest and most economical option for producing electricity, with the lowest total environmental footprint even when radioactive waste storage/disposal and proliferation issues are included in the equation. Yet it remains largely excluded from mainstream discussion due to our acute national allergy to the word nuclear.
1. Never use wiki in terms of a "credited" source.
2. CH4 is a volatile organic compound. One must consider this when deciding to fuel the nation with CH4. Coal miners must work with curtains set up to trap the methane and keep it out of the clean air supply intake. Being that CH4 is readily volatile, do we really want underground pipes running through schools, hospitals, and daycares? Or, being released into the environment when we know CH4 is volatile? (as seen in underground mine explosions)
Tom Sherer is wrong on all counts.
1) The article states "When the total emissions of greenhouse gases are considered … natural gas and coal from mountaintop removal probably have similar releases, and in fact natural gas may be worse in terms of consequences on global warming." Not mentioned, it is surely now more polluting than oil.
2) Fracking is what gas industry is now concentrating on to extract hard to reach shale deposits. If they could get the gas more cheaply without it, they would.
3) It would be better to resort to conservation and avoidance of inorganic fertilizers and plastics if we are serious about affecting climate change.
4) This conversion would be a wasteful boondoggle because gas may not be as plentiful or carbon saving and could run out soon and become too expensive when carbon regulations are passed. Those investments should be made in renewable energy now and not put off or displaced until gas has failed to be a bridge fuel.
5) A large percentage of gas holdings in this country have already been bought up by foreign countries and the profits will go abroad while the pollution effects will be borne at home.
6) Wind and solar would surely save more lives. They don't pollute.
Finally, Sherer is correct, "We all know that Solar, Wind, Geo, Fusion, etc. is the direction we need to head." but incorrect about how far away that is. We can do it all now if we decide to make that our policy. We can expand wind and solar resource use as fast as building gas power plants and infrastructure. Just saying we can't doesn't make it true.
See my 5 minute movie on YouTube: Puppetgas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPtwfHVp624 and check out http://www.DamascusCitizens.org for the facts and what you can do to help.
Who runs CH4 through daycare facilities?
@Andy Revkin: "as long as extraction is done responsibly, of course." In all seriousness: What do you think are the odds of that? How does it square with the record of the gas industry as it now exists? How soon do you expect it will happen? (And on the "how soon" front, how soon do you expect it given that, according to Lustgarten, the rate of progress under Gas STAR has been very slow?)
One other problem common to many commenters here, and to the national conversation on this issue as well: We must distinguish between conventional and unconventional natural gas, mostly from shale. Expansion of domestic production is premised on the availability of the latter, and as Lustgarten's article points out, the EPA recently adjusted the GHG emissions estimates for shale gas by a factor of nearly 9,000. (If you go to the EPA website where these figures originate, you'll see that it's a readjustment from 0.02 tons methane/well completion, to 177 tons/completion.)
Now let's say that Andy Revkin's optimism is well-founded and we recapture or prevent 99% of that methane leakage. We'd still be looking at a very large increase over previous estimates (from 0.02 to 1.77 tons, or 88.5 times greater), and one that greatly reduces or even eliminates the GHG advantage of gas over coal. And here in the real world, where that near-total elimination of emissions is not even on the horizon, ramped-up shale gas production looks more like climate catastrophe than panacea.
At a minimum, these numbers would seem to counsel for much greater caution than shale gas proponents have shown thus far. Wouldn't it be wiser to make reliable determinations as to the actual greenhouse impact before investing billions (not to mention creating all the other devastation that shale production brings in its wake)?
this tells you nothing ahahah
The article lists "Methane" as one of the potential pollutants for natural gas… DOH, Natural Gas IS mostly methane. It, and several other gases (including propane, butane and ethane), are burned during the combustion cycle of natural gas.
Good grief!
Please pay attention. It's not about burning methane, it's about leaking unburned methane, which makes it a pollutant.
It is a fossil fuel, like any other, and on a molecur level releases the same substances into the enviroment.
Mr. Lustgarten's article is very carefully stated. It is my belief that Prof. Howarth's conclusions are nearly correct, and most important. The combination of the pollution from the shale gas extraction process, combined with the infrastructure leakage in general, including the gas fired electric plants themselves, places the shale gas very close to the existing impact of coal and oil.
The estimates I have read concerning the cost of switching coal burning plants to gas, ranges near to $700 Billion. When one combines this cost, with the current, huge, subsidies gas companies are given, the investment in shale gas extraction will be immense, and the benefits, if any, will be small.
Then, there is the question of "bridge fuel", vs. "replacement fuel", or "additional fuel". The Pickens Plan requests gas tax subsidies through 2028. Industry says there is over 100 years of shale gas supply. The bottom line, is that it is all speculation at this point. What sane society invests its future on rampant speculation?
A Marshall type plan must be put in place which would fund sustainable, renewable energy sources. That infrastructure must be built, and supported with subsidies, not shale gas. This is all just a scheme by the energy companies to continue their business as usual, except we now have the exceptionally polluting unconventional plays, in stead of the comparatively easy, "low hanging fruit" carbon energy sources of the second half of the 20th century.
That didn't work! It brought us to our current sorry state of affairs. Why would the more polluting, unconventional plays be a solution?
Invest in the future, not in the pockets of the industry's past.
Someone complained about using Wikipedia for a source. OK, how about the IPCC report?
(And for the record, I used Wikipedia because I knew the values in question but wanted a source people could link to, and the IPCC site can be a pain in the neck to navigate for specific facts.)
I am the director of communications for the American Gas Association (AGA). AGA represents 195 local energy utilities that deliver clean natural gas to homes and businesses throughout the United States.
Not sure if you have seen the new EPA report on emissions related to natural gas, but for those who are not familiar with the data under discussion the conclusion is misleading.
First and foremost, though, kudos to the EPA for looking at upstream emissions for comparing natural gas to other options. The problem, however, is that the actual data used is limited and may even inflate methane emissions by several orders of magnitude.
The EPA and everyone else in the industry has been using "emission factors" developed long ago to estimate how much methane leaks from production wells, pipeline valves and the like. It's common knowledge that these emission factors were based on very limited field testing performed nearly 20 years ago, and that they are seriously in need of updating and refinement. The EPA even addresses this issue of outdated data in its November 2010 Technical Support document. However, without any support to back up the claim, the EPA then claims that emissions today may be higher than they were 20 years ago.
Not only is such a statement wholly unsupported by any data, it's actually in opposition to recent findings. EPA's Natural Gas STAR program managers, fully aware of the problem with outdated information information, took steps about four years ago to launch a joint research project with energy industry trade groups to do new, more extensive field testing on modern natural gas systems to see what is really going on and to develop updated emission factors.
That work has already resulted in some new emission factors for natural gas distribution and transmission equipment, and other work is continuing this year and next. The work so far shows that methane emissions are declining as natural gas systems become tighter as the result of new technology, equipment and procedures.
And let's not forget that even using the old inflated emission factors, EPA estimates that natural gas is more efficient and lower emitting than other options.
Strange how they only discuss fossil fuels, as if gas or coal were our only choices.
Biobutanol produced from algae has the following benefits:
1. Inexpensive to produce.
2. Can be produced with solar panels, which means the energy footprint is almost negligible.
3. Can be produced on rooftops, so no farm land is necessary.
4. Can be quickly produced continuously, so no expensive storage is necessary.
5. Both the fuel and the waste products are 100% biodegradable, so no toxic waste or environmental damage.
6. Carbon neutral.
7. Zero pollution when burned.
This is the future, the immediate future. Coal, natural gas, oil, and of course, nuclear power cannot compete with algae produced biobutanol, either economically, or environmentally !
If natural gas reduces our dependency on being at the mercy of OPEC, we should adopt it for all motor vehicles.
This is a classic case of manufacturing uncertainty.
The precautionary policy inferences to draw from this research is a go slow - or moratorium- on fracking.
It supports an even more accelerated rate of closing both gas and coal power plants and a massive investment in wind, solar, and other non-carbon renewables.
But instead of precaution, the coal power people will exploit this uncertainty to buy 5-10 more years for any decisions on coal (e.g. plant closings or retrofits).
@ Chris Hogan. I appreciate your comment, but you provide no basis for the assertion that "The problem, however, is that the actual data used is limited and may even inflate methane emissions by several orders of magnitude."
I have read the EPA report and what it says is that emissions from oil & gas operations are, in several instances, wildly underestimated such that emissions estimates from this sector are actually double what has previously been reported in EPA's U.S. GHG Inventory. And that the emissions factors used by EPA for its U.S. GHG Inventory are outdated, a product of the fact that those emissions factors were premised on limited, old data. For example, for well completions, EPA has been using an emissions factor of 3 Mcf per well drilled based on studies completed in the mid-90's for, if I remember right, a single field. But EPA's newest report—based on more recent, and geographically diverse fields—concludes that a more appropriate emissions factor is 9,175 Mcf per well. That's not a typo.
Put simply, the more we understand about natural gas, the less "clean" it appears to be. And, fundamentally, despite the propaganda, natural gas is a dirty fossil fuel.
This is not to say that natural gas may not have a limited role as a "bridge" fuel to transition us to a clean energy economy reliant on real efficiency and renewables, primarily wind and solar. But, as the articles' solid research demonstrates, there's an enormous difference between a 100 year natural gas "bridge" and a shorter, 10-20 year "bridge" used to firm up renewables in the near term.
Let's agree, at the least, on two things. First, that any climate and energy policies that invest in natural gas must be based on substantiated, informed data. But, second, that the uncertainties involved in natural gas do not obviate the immediate need to reduce methane emissions—reductions that help safeguard the climate, produce more royalties for our cash-strapped governments, more money for natural gas companies, more energy for consumers, and improve the efficacy of natural gas as a potential climate transition tool.
On that latter point, industry is notoriously averse to government oversight. But there are serious structural barriers that have prevented the full deployment of GHG reduction measures in the gas patch—barriers that are, in part, due to lax government oversight and the failure of our government and economy to put a price on GHG pollution. Let's hope our decision-makers take these factors into account when evaluating and constructing wiser, saner climate and energy policies over the course of the next decade.
And let us not be so callous to forget that the production of natural gas has very real consequences to the lands, waters, and communities that will increasingly feel the stress of a deteriorating climate. There are very real lands, waters, and communities whose existence, right now, is sacrificed to the ever-hungry beast that is our fossil fuel economy.
Erik Schlenker-Goodrich
Director, Climate and Energy Program
Western Environmental Law Center
Hate to gang up on Tom Sherer, BUT, Natural gas pursuits will not save life and limb of ANY U.S. soldiers. They are over there because our multinational energy corporations want absolute control over ALL the worlds fossil energy. Economic hitmen and Jackals failed, so force of war is the final solution, they will not be told NO. At home agendas, don't alter the foreign conquest one whit. I must disagree somewhat with Allan Rubin on the foreign purchase of our energy sources. Our multinationals are doing a tradeoff,.... including foreign participation in order to garner bigger end games, ie: The hostile takeover of Rio Tinto International by BHP BILLITON, as reported in the London Finacial Times.June 6 2008. In order to get around regulators they had to find a way to dispose of Rio's iron ore assets in Australia. With China controlling the steel industry, they had to negotiate deals on that front. The EU, Australia, Asia and U.S. were all players in the Regulatory clearance that was a precondition of BHP's bid. A BHP/RIO TINTO (flagship of the Rothschilds) merger is staggering. According to EPA records, BHP BILLITON, as of 1991, was already claiming the distinction of being the worlds largest diversified extraction company in the world. According to Marius Kloppers, chief exec of BHP BILLITON,This deal is characterized as, "not 1 + 1 = 3 but, 2+1=5. Many deals are cut in back rooms, but one can be sure the U.S. corporations have the upper hand. The money does go offshore…...to avoid accountability, and for financing even bigger and better secret ops.
To Mr. Revkin:
It would be bad enough to put up with the many dangers associated with shale gas extraction if the fuel being produced were truly "green" and if that fuel were an actual long-term answer to our nation's energy problems. To put our health, water, air, homes, forests, and farmland at risk for a short-term "bridge" fuel that may not present any significant greenhouse-gas advantage over other fossil fuels is utterly absurd….and immoral.
The money that would have to be spent to extract significant amounts of shale gas, build the accompanying infrastructure, and attempt to remedy all of the accompanying damage to the environment and human health would be much better spent on energy conservation and renewable energy sources, both of which offer real, long-term solutions to our problems.
Please do not imagine that shale gas wells are sited out in a field somewhere far from water sources and homes. I have recently been talking with someone in PA who is very upset because a shale gas well is planned for a site just a few hundred feet from her door—this is not an uncommon occurrence.
With all due respect, if you think shale gas is the answer, then I would encourage you to take up full-time residence in a shale gas extraction region: I am sure you will be able to find someone currently living on the gas field who would be very happy to sell you their house. In fact, you may be able to purchase a house for very little indeed, provided you don't mind relying on bottled water.
In this calculation of shale gas has the driving around of trucks to bring the hydrofracking fluid to the well been included? One hydrofracking of a shale gas well requires up to 5 million gallons of water and a truck hold about 6,000 gallons so that amounts to about 500 truck trips one way - from possibly far away. Wells are fracked more than once.
Has the energy to build the holding tanks with heavy equipment, the plateform, the gravel mines dug to produce the sand used in the hydrofracking, - and the plastic that is used to coat the sand , the pumping of the fluid , the building of all the roads—
all that requires belching out of carbon dioxide… it matters not that this comes from gasoline or diesel, the CO2 that is belched out is part of processing the natural gas.
Also, Calvin Tillman, mayor of Dish Texas has reported that industry was reluctant to capture fugitive gases because it would only pay after 3 years and he recommends that industry needs to be regulated to do this process. The industry could be influenced by the fact that these errant gases are not visible to the public unless one visualized the compressors and processors with infrared - then the gas is evident according to Mr Tillman who has experienced this in his home town with growing air pollution, especially unhealthy if it contains hydrogen sulfide that causes asthma in children.
Should the greenhouse gases caused by treating the illnesses and hospitalization caused by pollution also be factored?
The carbon dioxide is 380 ppm now and we could be reaching the tipping point above 400 ppm and in Australia with the flooding—people are starting to think that climate change is moving forward—so we need to make the right moves soon—including oldfashioned conservation and simply scaling back on any use of energy and even population control of humans and not plan for more than 20 years of an obviously polluting process.
For those who still argue that we are using up the fossil fuel from OPEC—I think it is more like getting it from Canada and we are actually exporting the shalegas now.
In the future when we have wind and solar, we really will need the natural gas as a true bridge energy because you cannot shut nuclear on and off or a electric plant on/off but a gas can be controlled with a spigot when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. However, if we use up the gas now to export it, we will not have it for that real bridge later.
Lastly, we are constantly talking about not producing a deficit for our children—why are we so eager to pump out the shale gas now—it can only be done once. Maybe we should do it only slowly and learn from our mistakes.
There is little doubt that the hype about hydrofracking and natural gas as a bridge fuel is a well planned effort by Big Oil to remain dominant and to discourage the investment of time and money that will be required to implement a true alternative to fossil fuel.
I am NOT talking about unreliable, weak and diffuse wind or solar - there is a good reason why BP, Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil spend so much of their advertising budget TALKING about those alternatives. None of them threaten their cash flow from selling oil, natural gas and coal. (By the way, natural gas comes out of essentially the same wells drilled and owned by the same companies as other forms of petroleum do.)
The real alternative to burning hydrocarbons for heat is to fission uranium, thorium and plutonium.
Those people who say that nuclear fission does not reduce oil dependence need to understand a few things about the energy market. Before nuclear, the US produced about 17% of its electricity by burning oil. That portion is approaching zero today, but ONLY because fission captured 20% of the market in about 20 years. France, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan were also strongly dependent upon oil for electrical power until they built their current nuclear fleets. Today, the UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are working feverishly to build the infrastructure that they need to replace oil and gas in electrical power plants with nuclear fission.
The US has a fleet of aircraft carriers and a fleet of submarines that consume no oil at all for propulsion or electricity - 40 years ago, the US Navy was the world's single largest customer for the oil industry. There is no technical reason why nuclear fission cannot replace oil as the propulsion source for commercial shipping - it has a 50 year track record of success in ship propulsion.
According to the Energy Information Agency, the US still burns about a 3.8 billion gallons per year of heating oil; I live in an all electric home, so I know from direct personal experience that electricity can replace oil in heating. (http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=heating_oil_use)
The US locomotive fleet burns another 3.8 billion galls of oil per year, but we have known how to run wires to trains for more than 100 years. (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2004/html/table_04_17.html)
Fission is obviously a direct competitor with burning natural gas in electric power plants. It is not just a little bit less polluting; the best available studies indicate that the TOTAL lifecycle emissions from a nuclear power plant amount to about 7-13 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour compared to 600 grams for natural gas, 850 grams for oil and about 1000 grams for coal. Nuclear fission is essentially tied with wind turbines, but fission plants can run as many as 8760 hours per year at full power. (17 of the 100 nuclear plants in the US produced 100% or more of their rated power for 2010.)
When I hear anyone talk about gas as a bridge to a renewable utopia, I suspect I am listening to a natural gas salesman who knows full well that the utopia does not exist. I suspect the speaker of working to maintain the customer base of fossil fuel addicts by not letting them understand that there is a real alternative to burning hydrocarbons for heat.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
What is missing from this and most other discussions is the cause and effect relationship of the various greenhouse gases and the global warming/climate change issues. We really don't know if cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions with appreciably change the climate. There is just too much assumption and conjecture in the science. However, we do not that methane, coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, etc. are all finite. Consumption of resources that don't renew as quickly as we consume them is a path designed to cause a calamity just as continued growth of the demand for all these resources is doomed to result in a calamity. At some time we have to recognize we are finite and the faster we consume the quicker we reach calamity.
A timely invitation on Feb 4, 2011 can also be seen on line AFTER Feb 4:
bringing together faculty, students, and practitioners whose work centers on, or involves systems
Date: Friday, February 4, 2011
Time: 12:15 p.m.
Location: 253 Rhodes Hall
Speaker: Mark Z. Jacobson
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
Title: Powering the World with Wind, Water, and Sun
Abstract: This talk discusses a plan to power 100% of the worlds energy for all purposes from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) within the next 20-40 years. The study starts by reviewing and ranking major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, resource availability, reliability, wildlife, and catastrophic risk. It then evaluates a scenario for powering the world on the energy options determined to be the best while considering future energy demand, the number of each device required, land and ocean areas required, materials required, the ability of WWS resources to match demand, transmission requirements, costs, and policies needed. The study concludes that powering the world with existing wind, water, and solar technologies, which are found to be the best when all factors are considered, is technically feasible but politically challenging. Relevant papers can be found at http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html .
Bio: Jacobson is Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University. He is also a Courtesy Professor of Energy Resources Engineering, Senior Fellow of the Woods Institute for the Environment, and Senior Fellow of the Precourt Institute for Energy. He received a B.S. in Civil Engineering with distinction, an A.B. in Economics with distinction, and an M.S. in Environmental Engineering from Stanford University, in 1988. He received an M.S. in Atmospheric Sciences in 1991 and a PhD in Atmospheric Sciences in 1994 from UCLA and has been on the faculty at Stanford since 1994. His work relates to the development and application of numerical models to understand better the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution and the analysis of renewable energy resources.
Can't make it in person? View online at: http://cornellmediasite.cit.cornell.edu/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=6bcc90d6b220433889f9d45aa4b29d721d .
Lecture links may not be active until just before the beginning of the lecture.
Someone needs to catch up. Al Gore has finally admitted the whole Global Warming scenario was nothing but a big ruse. Of course this comes after he's made his millions from the rhetoric he spewed out for decades.
Tom B, Please stop lying about Al Gore. He never said that because it is simply not true.
Credible climate scientists around the world came to consensus years ago, and they agree that Global Warming is real and is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests.
Global Warming is real. Here is the undeniable proof:
Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record…
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998…
...on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.
A convincing arguement for global warming is the Keeping Curve—look it up in Wiki
David Keeling a scientist tested the atmospheric CO2 level ever since around 1960 and later was replaced by his son doing this now for decades.
The curve of CO2 in the atmosphere waves around with tiny waves during each season but the overall trend is always UP UP and AWAY!!!!
This upward curve took off with industrialization in the late 19th century—
Earth was in balance: animals exhale CO2 and plants use or sequester CO2 as a building block as they use chlorophyl to convert the sun's energy rays into cellulose, wood, sugar,food for animals, as well as fossil fuel like oil and gas and coal all of them were plants and animals who ate plants and/or animals at one time.
Trouble is anthropomorphic—due to the influence of mankind who invented combustion machine: the machine belches out CO2 but the machine does not do what a ordinary blade of grass does: convert the suns energy along with CO2 into a energy fuel. The machines have tipped the balance on the planet because the humans love machines- flying in jets gets humans around so slick and now we even fly around the food we eat etc.and we use machines to dig up the topsoil and stop the plants from living as we like mahogany tables more than mahogany wood in the rain forest.
So that is why the Keeling curve is on the upswing due to machines and Dr Hanson of the Goddard Space center predicts we will be getting into weird feedback systems to be unable to scale back the global warming that has taken off with the CO2 blanket around the globe.
Others say that sun spots cause global warming—no- that trend is all over the map and not on a steady rise as is quite clear—we now have animals and plants and also machines tipping the balance in only one direction: more CO2 .
Scientists are not debating the conclusions— oil and gas companies are the climate change deniers because they want to rake in profits from fossil fuels. Like the tobacco industry was trying to persuade the folks that cigarettes do not cause cancer and trying to hide scientific facts from the public for years.
thank you for this discussion.
The Cornell researchers ignore the methane desorption that occurs when coal is interrupted from its home in the ground. Methane is released every time coal is disturbed:
-initial mining disruption
-loading on to trains
-vibrations occurring during transport
-unloading from trains
-conveying to on-site storage
-conveying to the furnace
Herbert and Marion Sandler (the owners of ProPublica) appear to be willing to fund any bogus controversy with that undermines the development of shale gas. Their mouthpiece (Lustgarten) seems content to float "could be" or "might be" controversies – even when the facts don't support his thesis.
The real controversy is -why would a family that made billions destroying America's economy feel compelled to undermine shale gas development? Is it to support overseas LNG (see Soros Papua New Guinea)? Is it to help Russian interests maintain pipeline dominance over Western Europe?
Is it really a surprise that Cornell (not exactly an institution known for petroleum engineering)researchers are trying to undermine private industry in their bucolic paradise while local farm owners are being slaughtered (figuratively) by New York's oppressive property and income taxes?
A less sensational, but more accurate title might be "Pipeline infrastructure needs to be updated to keep pace with modern natural gas production".
C'mon propublica - you can do better than this.
For those of you who still support the mad dash for natural gas in this country, I suggest that you buy property that has a gas well on it, drink and bathe in the contaminated water and breath the toxic fumes created by hydraulic fracturing. Oh, that's right, it's o.k. as long as its not in YOUR backyard, right?
Why aren't we all demanding renewable energy development instead of allowing our government to continue to subsidize the oil and gas industry and pollute our lives? I'm sick to death of profits before people in this country.
Where can we read the article's source material?
why are the asphalt roads near asylum, pa and near the susquehanna river being pummeled into gravel roads by heavy water trucks?
talk about an unexpected unpleasant bumpy ride.
Pro Publica received the Pulitzer prize in 2010 for investigative journalism and many other prizes including some given to Abrahm Lustgarten right here http://www.propublica.org/awards
Al Gore was a devoted politician for many years and received the Nobel prize and I doubt that he get motivated to just plain rack up profits like some industry hacks might….
Cornell and Stanford are renowned.
To oppose global warming and natural gas by attacking these people and institutions—- these folks must be out of gas( no pun intended) and can't think of anything else but ad hominid attacks
Informative article!
These types of articles are useful, but they avoid the real issues. It is not about cleaner or less clean energy sources. It is about how we need to immediately change our lifestyles and infrastructure to greatly reduce energy consumption, as soon as possible. Take a look at a book such as What We Leave Behind, by Derrick Jensen. This book looks at the larger issues that articles such as this one will never deal with.
@Karl Stevens:
Feel free to conserve as much as you like. However, keep your judgements about the way that the rest of us choose to live to yourself. As long as we are careful about the kind of electricity that we use and work hard to choose sources that have a minimal effect on the environment, I prefer to use the model once famously proposed by Jay Leno in his Doritos commercials.
"Use all you want. We'll make more."
It is austerity that kept my parents living in a Depression for a decade. Lack of markets and sales because everyone got really good at not using anything they did not need led to an awful lot of suffering, ill health and poverty. I, for one, see no reason to go there again.
We have an amazing source of reliable heat that produces no waste that has to be dumped into the environment. We keep it all closely controlled and monitored, stored in a safe place for the use of future generations.
The main reason that you have been taught to fear the use of that fission power is that it would severely disrupt the profitability of selling coal, natural gas and oil.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
If I belived man could shift the earth's climate, I'd be really worried.
Just because there is an apparent correlation between variables, that does not imply a cause-and-effect conclusion.
I suggest you go live in the Australian outback and leave this country alone.
@Frank Trades:
Why are you skeptical about the ability of 6 billion people dumping 30 billion tons of stuff into the atmosphere every year for decades to make some alterations in the climate?
Have you never seen the impact that humans can make on the air we breathe when you fly into the East Coast from the Atlantic Ocean or into China from the Pacific?
Are you listening to the hydrocarbon industry?
I commend this carefully researched ProPublica article about natural gas, but wonder why the author (and editor) did not extend the same care to what he said about nuclear (fission, not 50-years-to-commercial-application fusion). It's jarring in such an otherwise cogent presentation, based on facts, and nothing but facts.
Here is the sentence:
"Nuclear energy is less polluting than gas from a climate-changing perspective, but it is costly and viewed skeptically in the United States because of the dangers of disposing of radioactive waste. "
"Costly": Compared to what, per unit of energy produced?
"Dangers": Which dangers, and how do they compare to the risks of alternatives?
"Radioactive Waste": Not waste at all but an important energy resource for the future, which can meanwhile be safely isolated and stored.
Oh yeah, and "viewed skeptically": Who views it skeptically, please, especially if it's put on a level playing field with the alternatives?
- is the climate change perspective the most critical urgent issue? Some warn that climate change beyond 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is uncharted territory leading to mass extinction of species and a life on earth that we cannot imagine and due to the feedback mechanism pouring out more instability and no methods to stop it once it is in full swing. That is why planning on massive fossil fuel into the future is unacceptable and it has nothing to do with it being cheap or not cheap.
Under these circumstances, nuclear might be grabbed as an option- nuclear waste is not imminent but the lag time for nuclear is also decades.
Maybe we better include lifestyle in the discussion -
Main point about lifestyle it is NOT about how dreadful conservation is—quite the opposite—it is fun, stimulating and affirmative of life—that is what we need to get across—but too often the Media ( and corporations) is sold out to buy crap and sell ignorant programing and mute the communities themselves getting to know each other and organizing…. call up the FCC and change the great tool—the TV.
@Rod Adams: Have an open mind. Read the book What We Leave Behind. It's among the most powerful of books that deal with value systems, denial, ego, hubris, technoworship, and the refusal of overconsuming people to scale back their killing of the earth so that all creatures, including humans, will better flourish.
The author here fails to distinguish between energy and capacity value when discussing wind energy. Capacity value is basically electrical energy x the ability to produce it in steady streams or in response to changes in demand. Wind, as it is sold into grids, offers little of either feature.
WRT gas, wind energy relies on gas capacity entanglement. For a wind energy facility that produces 30% of its nameplate rating over time, 70% of its rating must come from gas, coal or hydro capacity if all of the wind energy is to be consumed and used to replace capacity resources like coal. For various reasons, gas is the logical choice in most of the US as wind's codependent assistant.
GAS PLANTS BURN LESS EFFICIENTLY WHEN ENTANGLED WITH WIND ENERGY. Working through the numbers, then, in comparing a "gas only" substitute for coal or a "gas+wind+transmission" substitute for coal, the net savings from wind dwindle, and costs per unit of emission avoidance "necessarily skyrocket."
@Karl Stevens - I have an open and inquiring mind. However, after about 40 years of reading at least one book per week (ever since the 4th grade), I am pretty sure that one book will not change my way of thinking or my observations of reality.
I have a pretty fair amount of experience with a large number of people. I am pretty sure that your source is not terribly reliable.
Commenting on this story is closed.
Fracking: Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat
The promise of abundant natural gas is colliding with fears about water contamination.
The Story So Far
The country's push to find clean domestic energy has zeroed in on natural gas, but cases of water contamination have raised serious questions about the primary drilling method being used. Vast deposits of natural gas, large enough to supply the country for decades, have brought a drilling boom stretching across 31 states. The drilling technique being used, called hydraulic fracturing, shoots water, sand and toxic chemicals into the ground to break up rock and release the gas.


text:
Related Links
- White Ferns World Cup schedule & results »
- ICC Womens World Cup history »
- White Ferns profiles »
- Player stats and Points table »
- Send the White Ferns a message of support »
Related news
She was predicted to be the star of the women's cricket World Cup and Suzie Bates didn't disappoint today as New Zealand rumbled into Sunday's final against England.
Bates smashed 168 off 105 balls -- a New Zealand record and third-highest one-day international innings of all time -- as the White Ferns crushed Pakistan by 223 runs in the Super Six match at Drummoyne Oval to book their fourth World Cup final appearance.
Records tumbled at the tree-lined inner city oval as Bates and captain Haidee Tiffen added 262 for the second wicket, New Zealand's highest ODI stand for any wicket and just six short of the world record held by England pair Sarah Taylor and Caroline Atkins.
Tiffen scored a more sedate 100 off 128 balls to finally notch her first ODI century in her 116th match.
It boosted New Zealand to 373 for seven off their 50 overs, 82 short of their 1997 record total against the same opponents.
Pakistan dug in for 48.1 overs before the White Ferns dismissed them for 150, spinner Lucy Doolan leading the way with three for 30.
Still just 21, Otago allrounder Bates has packed plenty into an international sporting career which included a Beijing Olympics appearance for the Tall Ferns basketballers.
Tiffen had tipped Bates -- who holds the New Zealand domestic one-day record score of 183 not out -- as a potential tournament star but she started slowly with just 58 runs from four innings.
Fortunes started to turn when Bates guided New Zealand to a crucial five-wicket win over India with 47 not out on Tuesday, then she cut loose today for her second ODI century with a series of powerful drives through and over the field.
Nineteen fours and six sixes later, Bates passed Karen le Comber's New Zealand ODI record of 135 not out (against Ireland in 1996). Her first half-century took 49 balls, her second 32 and her third just 19.
"We got off to a good start and the wicket was the best we've played on this tournament. Haidee kept me ticking along and I seemed to be seeing the ball like it was a lot bigger than it was," Bates said.
"I didn't know about too many records. I knew my own highest score (122 against India) and that was about it. I was told to hit sixes and keep my head still, so that was easy to concentrate on.
"It's a huge honour and to do it (New Zealand record) at the World Cup is pretty special. I really enjoyed the day."
Her only blemish was on 122 when Nain Abidi dropped a tracer bullet at square leg. But with a double-century in her sights, Bates was caught on the long-on boundary.
Bates said the India innings boosted her flagging confidence as New Zealand eye an England rematch at North Sydney Oval.
England -- who suffered their first defeat against Australia today -- beat the White Ferns by 31 runs in their previous meeting, with captain Charlotte Edwards dominating.
"We've all been looking forward to (England) and we just wanted to get this game out of the way," Bates said.
"We lost to them but the girls are really up for a huge challenge. If we can build partnerships and put on big runs I think we have the bowling attack to finish it off."
Coach Gary Stead hailed Bates' "special innings" but admitted it was difficult to take much out of today's walkover.
It would at least ensure confidence was high after back-to-back wins.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A MOTHER and daughter from Aston Fields are having their heads shaved to raise money for Cancer Research UK.
13-year-old Lily Fullelove, came up with the idea after watching several of her relatives going through chemotherapy, and her mum Cherie, was so impressed with the suggestion that she immediately volunteered to join in and have her locks cut off too.
Cherie Fullelove said: "Lily is a very mature, thoughtful, 13-year-old. She's not one bit worried about what people think. She wants to make a difference because we are all affected by cancer."
The two initially set themselves a £200 fundraising target, but they've already managed to raise more than £560 for the charity, with Karen Flint and Danielle Pratt from Hair Art in Bromsgrove volunteering to help them out by cutting their hair.
Lily said: "Everywhere I look someone has been touched by cancer. Cancer is the worst thing I can think of and no one should have to go through it. My own family has been affected, but every little bit donated to research can help to save us all."
Not content with their fundraising efforts, Lily and her mum have also decided to donate their hair to the Little Princess Trust, which provides wigs made from real hair to children going through cancer treatment.
Lily added: "My hair is very thick so I would like to put it to good use by donating it to The Little Princess Trust."
Karen Marshall, assistant manager of the Cancer Research UK shop on Bromsgrove High Street, said: "We'd like to thank Lily and her mum for taking on this brave challenge for Cancer Research UK.
"The charity receives no government funding for its work so we rely entirely on the support of volunteers like Lily and Cherie to help us beat cancer sooner."


text:
"Game changer" is a term you hear often when people talk about how technology has changed their industry.
I recently sat next to a woman at a chamber of commerce awards luncheon and exchanged business cards with her. Her card featured a caricature of her riding a fountain pen similar to a witch riding a broom.

 She owned a specialty shop that carried office and stationary products, greeting cards, high-quality pens, and writing supplies. In addition, she sold a number of desk items and office products that could be engraved and personalized. Located in the back corner of a retail shopping plaza, her business was struggling and in danger of closing down. She advertised in the Yellow Pages, distributed flyers to local businesses, and even ran ads in the local newspapers, but she admitted to having a difficult time competing with the large office supply stores. She had all but given up hope.

 I asked a few questions and suggested to her that perhaps some of the practices of successful salespeople could help her grow her business. She stood there staring at me in disgust, as if I had just blurted out something obscene to my kid after he missed a goal during his third-grade soccer match.

 Finally, she broke the silence and said, "I'm already a very good salesperson, and if a customer comes into my store, I'm going to sell them something every time. My problem is getting them to come into the store! I don't see how a salesperson can teach me how to get customers to come in."

 I told her about a woman I knew, Michelle Martinez, who owned a flower shop in Orlando called Michelle's Flower Shop. Michelle told me that in the area of town where she was located, it seemed like a florist operated on every street corner. She always advertised in the Yellow Pages, the local newspaper, and even on the radio when she could afford it. Unfortunately, her shop was losing money and she wasn't sure how much longer she could survive. She had not paid herself a salary in almost a year but still struggled to pay the rent and keep her account current with her suppliers. After more than two years in business, Michelle made the decision to close her shop.

 One day at lunch, she told a friend of hers who sold real estate about her decision to close shop. Her friend gave her some profound advice. "Michelle, you're trying to compete with all the other florists in town for the same customers and in the same exact way. Before you close your business, try picking a specific group of customers as your target. Once you've done that, rebrand yourself to provide what they want, and promote your business where you can find them."

 Michelle thought it over and realized her friend was right. Just like her competitors, Michelle depended on the big flower days—Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, Secretary's Day, Dan Norman's birthday… She advertised in exactly the same way as everyone else to draw people into the shop for anniversaries, weddings, proms, and funerals, as well as on those frequent occasions when guys do wrong by their wives or girlfriends and need to make up for it.

 Michelle decided to take her friend's advice and focus on a specific group of potential customers, rebrand her business, and go where those customers could be found. She picked her favorite type of event (weddings) for her focus and rebranded her shop as The Wedding Specialists. She changed her business cards and Website to reflect this specialty. She made a list of all the "touch points" where brides planning their weddings might go. She then focused her energy on making face-to-face sales calls to bridal shops, formalwear stores, jewelers, wedding planners, caterers, churches, and event-planning companies. Finally, she visited the meeting planners at hotels and restaurants that specialized in large banquets.

 Michelle handed out stacks of oversized business cards at every location she visited, asking them if they could please give them to their bride-to-be customers. The front of the card read "Michelle's Flowers—The Wedding Specialists." It pictured a bridal bouquet, the store address with very clear directions (across from TGI Friday's) and her Website address. Printed on the back of the card was the following message for the bride, "When the wedding is over, give this card to your husband. He'll get a 2 percent discount on all of the flowers he buys for you. (…until he loses the card.)"

 Michelle began to network at chamber of commerce meetings and business events and even joined a business lead exchange group. The last time we spoke, her business was doing very well and she was considering expanding.

 Her success had little to do with simply persuading people to buy her products. Certainly she was making sales calls, but she wasn't selling flowers from the back of her car or trying to convince people to come to her shop and buy flowers right away. She picked a segment of the market, branded her business for that segment, focused on where prospects could be found, and took action to pull the targeted segment into her shop. Michelle's Flowers represents a great example of putting the best practices of successful salespeople to work in a nontraditional way to grow a retail business.

 Dan Norman is a sales performance expert, a professional speaker, a columnist and the author of "Top Ten Selling—The Lumberjack Chronicles." He has hired and developed thousands of sales representatives and hundreds of sales managers. For more information, visit www.toptenselling.com or call 407.566.9741.


text:
I need a very simple for. Three of the selections pass values to a gateway, and I need the forth to redirect to a special page.
I can't change the name of the form or the gateways won't accept the submission.
Anyone? Thanks...
You're welcome - good luck with your site!
YEAH! Thanks a lot man.
Everything is working. With your help, and the place I copied the original from, I kinda made my first working script.
I don't know if this link will show up, but here it is if you want to see it:
text motif dot com / reports dot html
Thanks a lot Ankerstjerne. That was a life-saver.
That's a classic Javascript rounding error. Fortunately, it has an easy fix:
round(0.025 * 3 * this.value * 100) / 100
You might also encounter problems with numbers being interpreted as strings if you do addition, which is easily solved by dividing by one.
Sorry, messed up the example:
Math.round(0.025 * 3 * this.value * 100) / 100
The semicolon doens't make any difference (but it's generally not a bad idea to add it).
It's almost finished.
Run into one small snag, and hope you might be able to help
.03*(2*this.value) - This works fine.
.025*(3*this.value) - This does not!
Does anyone know why JS won't calculate to the third decimal?
It actually does work. If I multiple .025*(5*this.value) and give this.value through the form it multiplies it correctly.
The only problem is I can't pass 37.50000000000001 to paypal!
What kind of error are you getting?
I can't pass that on to paypal!
<INPUT type="text" id="Editbox1" style="position:absolute;left:104px;top:6px;width:67px;font-family:Courier;font-size:17px;z-index:3; height: 1em; background-color:#FFFFFF;" size="8" name="quantity1" value="" wrap
val = this.value;
I tacked that on like this and the calculator stopped working:
this.form.amount.value=round(.025* 3 * this.value * 100) / 100;
I'm still pretty new to JS, and I'm not sure what I did wrong in the above.
Did you mean to leave the semi-colon off the end in your example? I have a semi-colon at the end of the line.
Sure, here's the code. By gateway I mean the other three options have dollar amount values that are passed on to a payment gateway (paypal, moneybookers, etc). The last option I need to redirect.
<FORM action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"> <INPUT type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_s-xclick"> <INPUT type="hidden" name="hosted_button_id" value="VMMCF6CUGBPAN"> <INPUT type="hidden" name="URL" value="2 Articles">2 Articles
 <SELECT name="URL" onChange="window.location.href= this.form.URL.options[this.form.URL.selectedIndex].value"> <OPTION value="250" selected="selected">500 Words</OPTION> <OPTION value="500">750 Words</OPTION> <OPTION value="1000">1000 Words</OPTION> <OPTION value="project.html">1000+ Words</OPTION> </SELECT> <INPUT type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">

 <INPUT type="image" src="[https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_buynowCC_LG.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!"> </FORM>
(I'm not sure why the code window is side scrolling like that.)
What's happening is that the onChange is trying to direct people to page with the number value on the first three options. I would like to form to do absolutely nothing unless two things happen:
1) The forth selection is chosen = redirect2) The second or third direction is chosen = do nothing: wait for used to press submit button.
The thing is, I can't use javascript that asks me to change the name of the form. The payment gateway won't work if I change that value.
I hope I'm being clear. And thanks.
What do you mean by 'pass values to a gateway'?
What do you mean by 'redirect to a special page'?
It sounds like you have some code already. Can we see it?
ok. I'll tinker with that. I thought about putting a simple notice below the form telling people is they need more than 1000 words or so to use a custom quote page.
That might be easier. I guess I trying to be suave! :rolleyes:


text:
For an immersion in a marine science or technology internship, apply to the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University Summer Internship Program. Open to qualified undergraduate and graduate students, the 10-week program is designed to provide hands-on experience in a research environment in areas that include:
Internationally known for its research in marine science and biomedicine, aquaculture, and ocean engineering, Harbor Branch-FAU is located between Vero Beach and Fort Pierce, Florida, on the Indian River Lagoon, one of the most biodiverse estuaries in the United States. Nearby habitats include seagrass beds, mangrove forests, salt marshes, mud and sand flats, beaches, rock ledges, and nearshore reefs.
Harbor Branch-FAU faculty members are leaders in their fields. You will be learning from, and studying with, the best.
Undergraduate Interns: Open to students currently enrolled in a full-time program who have completed at least the equivalent of two years of college and are seeking a four-year degree.
Graduate Interns: Open to currently enrolled graduate students and graduating seniors who have been accepted and are pre-registered for a graduate program.
All applicants must be at least 18 years of age and in good academic standing as evidenced by submission of a current official transcript. Students who are not U.S. citizens must have a current visa with authorization to receive stipends or be on an educational visa. All other applicants must have a social security number.
Applications are due by March 1. Awards will be announced April 1. The 2017 Summer Intern Program begins May 30 and continues through August 4.
The major portion of the funding for this program is provided through the generosity of the Link Foundation. The Gertrude Skelly Foundation provides major support for interns in marine biomedical research.
CLICK HERE to download a complete Internship Brochure and Application in PDF format.
CLICK HERE to download a list of Potential Mentors for Summer Interns in PDF format.


text:
NetWellness is a global, community service providing quality, unbiased health information from our partner university faculty. NetWellness is commercial-free and does not accept advertising.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Pulmonary Fibrosis
I was Diagnosed with Eosinophilic Granuloma
I was just diagnosed with eosinophilic granuloma and possibly pulmonary fibrosis.
The first Pulmonologist at Deborah did not know about my disease. I just saw another Pulmonologist and he told me to quit smoking and see if I am better in three months. How come they can`t tell me if I have pulmonary fibrosis? They suspect it.
I am 35 and I have smoked heavily since in my mom's womb. I started smoking at 15 and was a two pack a day smoker. I had pneumothorax and then a lung biopsy. Do you know an expert in this disease (eos)?
Eosinophilic granuloma is one term used for the disease Langerhan's cell histiocytosis. This is a condition when a cell called the Langerhan's cell, proliferate and build up in the lung. In most situations, Langerhan's cell histiocytosis is due to cigarette smoking and it appears that there is a substance in cigarette smoke that turns on the Langerhan's cells to multiply.
Although most patients have pure lung involvement, in some cases, the Langerhan's cells can build up in other parts of the body causing damage to other organs. In early stages, the disease can often be controlled simply by stopping smoking. In more advanced cases, the lungs can become scarred, even to the point of requiring lung transplant.
For patients who do not improve with smoking cessation, sometimes chemotherapy medications are tried but they often do not work.
To find an expert in this condition, a good place to start is a medical center that has a specialized interstitial lung disease clinic or program.
James N Allen, Jr, MD
Clinical Professor of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine
College of Medicine
The Ohio State University


text:
SPACE on Ryder Farm Opens Applications for 2013 Season; Deadline 3/1
SPACE on Ryder Farm, a not-for-profit artist residency program housed on a working organic farm in Brewster, NY, announces it is now accepting applications for its 2013 season. Visit SPACE's website for more information at www.spaceonryderfarm.com/visit.
SPACE's mission is to support artists by providing a workshop space singular in its ability to reinvigorate the artist's spirit and their work. In just two seasons' time SPACE has hosted over 200 artists, fostering new work from the nation's most exciting artists including: Adam Rapp (Red Light Winter, finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 2006); Young Jean Lee (The Shipment, 2 time Obie Award winner); director Davis McCallum (Bright New Boise); playwrights Molly Smith Metzler (Elemeno Pea), Bekah Brunstetter (Be a Good Little Widow, Oorah!), Mat Smart (Samuel J. and K.), Nick Jones (The Coward), Joshua Harmon (Bad Jews), Erika Sheffer (Russian Transport), Santino Fontana (Brighton Beach Memoirs, Drama Desk Award); theatre companies Ars Nova, Naked Angels, and Woodshed Collective.
From June through September, SPACE hosts up to 10 residents at a time for up to week long stays. Residencies culminate in informal showings based on the needs of each group or individual. Priority in SPACE's selection process is given to groups or individuals who articulate a clear and distinct vision for how they will use their time at Ryder Farm. Applications for the 2013 season are due at midnight on March 1st.
For more information about SPACE on Ryder Farm, visit www.spaceonryderfarm.com.


text:
From the Baroque era to the 20th century, these 18 trios are arranged in a wide variety of styles. Written to be played by any combination of three instruments, this versatile collection provides not only
This exceptional collection of popular church hymns contains flexible trio settings that can be played with any combination of three instruments - woodwind, brass, or strings - or double the parts to create
Orchestrate Your Inbox
What are your interests? Fine-tune your email so you receive only what's important to you.
Thank you! Please check your inbox. We've sent an email with a link to update your preferences.
Pepper Music eClubs
Everything you need for the upcoming season and special recommendations from our editors! Each club is sent monthly (unless otherwise noted).
General Music
Music Library
Cued In - The Pepper Blog
A weekly digest of insightful articles, helpful resources, and interviews with leading composers and arrangers
Subscribe to Cued In
Thanks, you're almost done! Please check your inbox and click the link to complete your subscription.


text:
Beginning a months-long look at what went wrong on Election Day 2012, the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee was told Tuesday that five Florida counties under performed in the general election.
Broward, Lee, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and St. Lucie counties were singled out for scrutiny over long lines at the precincts, late vote counts, uncounted votes and other problems.
"Sixty two of the 67 counties performed very well," Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner told the committee.
More early voting sites would have helped, the panel was told. While the 17 early voting sites in Duval County handled an average of 30,000 people, the three sites in Pinellas County handled an average of 210,000 voters.
One lawmaker suggested election supervisors use the model of fast food restaurants: When the line gets to long, the franchisee needs to open another restaurant nearby or lose business.
Other issues contributing to Election Day issues were a long ballot and a record number of absentee ballots.
"There will be some legislation that will be out of this committee by the first part of session," said Sen. Jack Latvala, R-St. Petersburg.
Beyond more early voting sites, other suggestions are likely to include more equipment and better funding for elections.
Copyright 2012 by News4Jax.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text: What could be more tempting than jerky? Maybe smoked salmon candy. This highly addictive snack is made with just four ingredients: salmon, brown sugar, maple syrup, and salt. That doesn't mean it's a quick process. It's will take 15 hours of patience to make a batch, so make a big one. Take it on a road trip, long hike, or as a break from work at the office.


text:
Contact Us
Travel Conditions
Local News Archive
Local News
Police/ Sheriff
Our Family Favorites
State/National News
Opinion Archive
Douglas Burns
Brett Christie
The Agenda
Misc. Sections
Real Estate
Photo Galleries
Buy Prints
Video Galleries
Audio Gallery
Pet of the Week Entry Form
The Big Chill
School was canceled today - and those who worked outdoors dressed in layers - as temperatures remained well below zero degrees
Jared Strong & Audrey Ingram
, Staff Writers
A late day sun appears to add warmth to the air at Swan Lake State Park Sunday, but strong winds from the northwest pushed windchill readings into the 40 below zero range according the National Weather Service.
Outside the United Bank of Iowa building the temperature was 16 below zero at 4:45 a.m. today. Officially, Carroll's temperature dropped another degree before sunrise.
January 6, 2014
Tom Heithoff's arms and legs were stiff this morning as he delivered the first of about 500 batches of mail to Carroll homes and businesses.
But it wasn't the sub-zero temperatures that kept his limbs from moving - it was the layers upon layers of clothing.
Four layers of shirts, four layers of long-johns and pants, three pairs of socks.
Hand warmers. Toe warmers.
And a tight hood that hugged his face.
The 27-year-old Carroll man has been on the job for about three months, and it's been a frigid three months, he said.
"I'm not a cold-weather person," Heithoff said as he set out on-foot for about seven hours of door-to-door delivery.
Temperatures in Carroll dipped to about -17 degrees Fahrenheit overnight and were expected to reach a high of -7 today. The National Weather Service warned that winds of up to 30 mph would make it feel like -40 degrees.
All area school districts cancelled classes and activities today, and some have already planned late starts for Tuesday, if not another round of cancellations. The overnight low is predicted to be -12 degrees.
"Everything is twice as slow this morning," said Jeff Schulte, of Carroll, who started hauling trash for Ray's Refuse at 12:30 a.m.
He stepped outside of the warm cab of his garbage truck about 9:30 a.m. on the west edge of town and threw open the lid of an apartment complex garbage bin.
The truck's hydraulic system whined as it lifted and flipped the bin into the back of the truck.
Earlier this morning, Schulte hauled the truck with two other workers clinging to its back who jumped off to grab trash from Carroll homes for more than two hours.
"Those guys had it bad," he said. "They took turns with me up here in the cab to warm up."
The overnight cold strained home furnaces that ran non-stop to keep up. Drees Plumbing and Heating has fielded several calls to replace furnaces that failed.
"Furnaces in this area aren't designed for -15-degree temperatures," owner Howie Drees said. "Even if they are designed properly, they're not keeping up once it's 5-below."
Drees said he pulled some of his workers from other jobs to help fix the home furnaces to help prevent water pipes from freezing.
"A lot of people may come home today after work and find that their furnaces stopped," he said.
Frigid temperatures often spur residents to use space heaters and wood stoves to keep warm, which increases the risk of fires, Carroll Fire Chief Greg Schreck said. His department responded to one minor fire Sunday night on East Eighth Street near Graham Park, but it didn't appear to be related to the weather.
"We're just very fortunate that was all we had," he said. "People have to pay particular attention to the heaters and stoves. Just use extra precautions."
Nearly every school district in a 30-mile radius of Carroll canceled classes today. Audubon Community Schools was not scheduled to be back in session today.
"We always err on the safety of the students," said Carroll Community School District transportation director Tom Reiter, who added that the current temperatures are the lowest he has seen since his first year in the transportation department in 1996. "You don't want to put kids in any kind of harm's way."
Superintendent Rob Cordes made the official call to cancel school today between 10:30 and 11 a.m. Sunday.
"With a forecast of extreme cold and wind, there is a fear of buses quitting out in the country and things of that nature," Cordes said. "Obviously that's one of the reasons we pulled the pin today."
Reiter said that the wind, in particular, makes it difficult to operate the district's fleet of diesel buses in sub-zero temperatures.
"You can generally always get them started, but it's hard to get the (engine) temperature up to operating temperature to keep it going," he said.
District busses run between 27 and 30 routes each day. Under extremely cold conditions, bus drivers leave the buses running all day, rather than shutting them off and trying to restart them for afternoon routes. Drivers have not had to do that yet this school year, Reiter said.
Though there is not a hard-and-fast rule on when to cancel school due to the cold, Cordes said, the risk of problems increase when wind-chill factors reach between 25 and 30 degrees below zero.
"When it gets this cold, I don't think it matters if a school is rural or not," said Cordes, pointing to many Des Moines schools that canceled classes today as well. "They still have kids at bus stops, waiting for buses, things like that."
Cordes said there will likely be a two-hour delay Tuesday morning, but that the final decision on whether to cancel classes will be made sometime this afternoon.
"It's supposed to warm up tomorrow," Cordes said. "Today it wasn't, so we knew two hours wouldn't do any good."
If students go to school tomorrow, Reiter said, they need to dress warm for the cold temperatures, even if they are riding the bus. No buses have broken down yet this year, but it is always a possibility, Reiter said.
Carroll County Sheriff Doug Bass said there were no reports of broken-down vehicles on county roads and highways overnight, but that his deputies are prepared to help if such situations arise.
"We're ready to go all the time," he said. "We've got bags with blankets and water to help."
Carroll Public Works Director Randy Krauel said it's fortunate that no snowstorm accompanied the cold.
"It's hard on our equipment and difficult to get ice off the roads in these temperatures," he said. "The worst-case scenario for us right now would be broken water mains. When temperatures get this cold this quickly, the ground shifts as it freezes, and there's a possibility of breaking mains. That, of course, during this type of weather, is very difficult to repair."
The traffic signals at the intersection of U.S. Highways 30 and 71 were offline for about an hour this morning when a truck struck a power pole at Pepsi Beverages just north of the intersection, fire chief Schreck said.
"The wires were down in the Pepsi parking lot there," he said. "There was no real threat to motorists. We just kept people away."
Newest ▼
Oldest ▲
Please fill out the form below to submit a comment.
Message is a required field.
Captcha entry is not valid, please try again.
A comment must be approved by our staff before it will displayed on the website.
Search only accepts letters and numbers.
search sponsored by
Click for weather forecast
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Content © 2017
Daily Times Herald
Software © 1998-2016
1up! Software,
All Rights Reserved


text:
You cannot drive after having a stroke until your doctor says that
you can. This may be hard to accept. You may feel that this is a big loss of
independence. But any problems with your vision, speech, or ability to
move quickly after a stroke can change your ability to drive safely. You need
your doctor's approval for the safety of yourself and others.
After your doctor says that you can drive, talk to the motor vehicle
department and ask about the rules for people who have had a stroke. You may
need to take classes, be tested again, and have changes made to your car. Some
stroke rehab centers give driver training classes.
If you cannot drive because of problems from your stroke, check with
your stroke rehab center about programs that offer special vans that can take
you to and from places. Senior groups and volunteer agencies may also offer
transportation services.
Next Section:
Previous Section:
Last Revised:
June 28, 2011
Healthwise Staff
Medical Review:
E. Gregory Thompson, MD - Internal Medicine & Richard D. Zorowitz, MD - Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
This information does not replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise, Incorporated disclaims any warranty or liability for your use of this information. Your use of this information means that you agree to the Terms of Use. How this information was developed to help you make better health decisions.
To learn more visit Healthwise.org
© 1995-2012 Healthwise, Incorporated. Healthwise, Healthwise for every health decision, and the Healthwise logo are trademarks of Healthwise, Incorporated.


text:
Tyler was drafted by the Sabres in the first round, 12th overall, in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft. At the end of the 2009-10 NHL season, Myers won the Calder Memorial Trophy as the NHL's best rookie. Standing at 6-feet-8-inches, Tyler is a larger than presence on the Sabres defense.
These autographs were obtained at a recent signing held at our Tranist store. Our deal grants us exclusive rights to Tyler Myers Autographed Memorabilia, assuring that our Buffalo Sabres autographed items are 100% authentic! Your item will come with a Dave and Adam's Card World Certificate of Authenticity, so buy with confidence! Please note this is a stock photo the actual autograph you receive may be slightly different.


text:
BRIDGWATER continued their winning start to the season with a 72-run triumph over Minehead on Saturday.
Batting first, Bridgwater posted 239-7 from their 40 overs, thanks to 88 from Chris Gange and 50 from Stuart Butt.
In reply, Minehead could only manage 167-7, with Gary Bennett scoring 67 not out.
Ian Higgins (2-23), Cameron Williams (2-33), Robbie Montgomery 2-37 did the damage for Bridgy. Next Saturday, Bridgwater host Welsh Premier side Port Talbot at 1pm, while the second X1 travel to Uphill Castle.
The 'A' X1, who will be making their debut in the SCL first Division the following week, play a Wembdon X1 at Wyndham Park.
On Sunday April 27, Bridgwater travel to Ashcott and Shapwick in the first round of the ECB national KO Cup at 1pm.
## ASHCOTT & Shapwick's season preparations suffered a setback as they went down by three wickets to Premier Two new boys Clevedon.
Batting first, Ashcott made an impressive 234 from their 40 overs, thanks to half-centuries from Steve Tinnion (87) and Charlie Vickery (74).
But Clevedon reached their target with eight balls to spare, with Masoor Khan leading the way with 86.


text:
BIOSIS Citation Index covers all major areas in the life sciences, with broad coverage in molecular and cell biology, pharmacology, endocrinology, genetics, neurosciences, infectious diseases, ecology and organismal biology.
More Options:
Classic Catalog |
OhioLINK |
Online Journals/Resources |
Lane Public |
WorldCat |
More Options:
Research by Subject |
Databases A-Z
More Options:
OhioLINK Home |
OhioLINK Catalog |
Research by Subject |
Databases A-Z
More Options:
Miami University Search |
Miami University Directory
Staff Spotlight: Ariel Shirley
New in Leisure Reading!
Investigating How Chinese Students Conduct Research
Carla Myers selected as OhioLINK Open Textbook Network System Leader


text:
- Home
- Registration
- Spring 2017
- Fall 2017
- Coaches
- Managers
- Referees
- Volunteering
- Info/FAQ
- About SM AYSO
- About Our Soccer Programs
- Cultural Exchange Team
- 5v5 Tournament
- League Champion Teams
- Extra Program
- Spring Scrimmage Program
- Spring Select Program
- Sunday Soccer Opportunities
- Turkey Tournament Info
- Upper Division
- U7 Division FAQs
- Very Important Players
- Board & Staff Contacts
- FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions
- Fields & Safety
- Information for Players
- Kids Zone
- Lost & Found
- Administrative Access
- 2016-2017 Parade of Champions
First Annual "Sister City Saturday" This Saturday
Pull date:
Sun, 11/21/2010
Sister City Saturday is this Saturday: November 20
In August, 2010, a U13 Girls Cultural Exchange team of Santa Monica AYSO Region 20 soccer players participated in a tournament hosted by Santa Monica's Sister City, Fujinomiya, Japan. Our cities have been sisters for 35 years, and this was the third time in 10 years we were invited to visit them and hope to reciprocate in the near future.
To honor that relationship, on Nov. 20, 2010, we will hold "Sister City Saturday". All games will be played with the sportsmanship on display in Fujinomiya. In addition, we will observe the Japanese pre-game customs as follows:
- Both teams will come to the outside of the center circle to observe the coinf flip. (each team standing on opposite sides)
- The referee conduct the coin flip with the captains in the usual manner
- Both teams will then bow to each other.
- Both teams will then line up on either side of the referee, parallel to the touchline, facing the home team's side (north or west of the field.) and bow to the spectators on that side.
- They will then bow to the spectators on the visitors' side of the field.
- The referees will then step back as both teams file past each other similar to our shaking hands at the end of the game. As they file past they will wish their counterparts good luck by saying, "Gambatte Kudasai!"
Both teams will then begin play as normal and spectators & coaches will display excellent sideline behavior.
During the game, referees will acknowledge exemplary sportsmanship as follows:
If the referee sees an example of exemplary sportsmanship, such as helping a fallen opponent off the ground, retrieving a ball when it is an opponent's restart, the referee will "card" the player by showing them a Green Card. That player will then be written up in the official lineup card of the match.
The Cultural Exchange team players are encouraged to roam the fields and provide guidance to any other players.
Thank you for helping us start this tradition of sportsmanship in honor of our Sister City, Fujinomiya.
For more information about this year's Cultural Exchange team, including letters by the players, go to the Cultural Exchange Team page under the INFO & FAQs tab.


text:
Could Hillary Clinton be back on the ballot in 2012? It doesn't happen very often, but there have been elections when sitting Presidents have lost so much support, that someone from their own party has ran for the nomination(Johnson 1968, Ford 1976, Carter 1980, to name a few recent examples). This is looking as if it could be one of those elections, and the Clinton's seem to be putting themselves in a position to run.
The Clinton's took what could be their first step towards distancing themselves from the Obama administration on Tuesday when Bill Clinton endorsed Andrew Romanoff in the Colorado Senate Race. This came on the heels of President Obama endorsing the incumbent Micheal Bennet after a failed attempt to convince Romanoff to pull out of the race. Press Secretary Gibbs refused to comment on the situation, which leads many to believe that the Obama administration is not happy about the announcement that has devided the cabinet. This has political junkies from all over the map questioning if the Clinton's are not positioning themselves for a run.
The Clinton's are also known for shrewd political manuvers, and this could be just another part of their arsenal. If that is in fact their plan, then she hasn't stopped running for president since before the 2008 primaries, but instead has been positioning.
With President Obama's polling numbers down to an all time low, this could be the best time for Hillary to make a move for the White House. She now has foriegn policy experience, which she could not claim in 2008, and already had more legislative and executive experience going into the 2008 elections than Obama. She has also put herself in a good position by maintaining a post in the cabinent, but also keeping her distance from the political anchor that the President seems to have tied around his waist. During the early months of the campaign she was active and in the news, but once the administration began to falter she moved into the backround and has made little or no noise at all. She is also in a position to make quiet comments against White House policy, because if the President was forced to remove her, he would lose more of his base, the majority women voters, and would give her campaign compassion as well as momentum.
The best bet for the Obama 2012 campaign would be to ask for Joe Biden's resignation at the end of this term and run an Obama/Clinton ticket. That is if she would accept it. Otherwise it seems unlikely he would be able to avoid the runoff, without a drastic turnaround of popularity in the last two years of his term. If she does decide to run, it would either save the democratic party or be disasterous. To date, no sitting President has won the November election after being challenged in the primary, and only one challenger has won the nomination and went on to win the Presidency(Chester Arthur). The positive side would be that no democratic President has been so fondly remembered as Bill Clinton in the last 50 years, and that by itself could save the party. Ofcourse this may seem like a far fetched idea, but with the current political atmosphere, anything is possible.