Orangutan Declared ‘Non-Human Person’ In Argentina

Orangutan Declared ‘Non-Human Person’ In Argentina


In a landmark ruling, an orangutan named Sandra held in an Argentine zoo has been recognized as a “non-human” person with basic legal rights. Local media reported on Dec. 21 Read MoreThe post Orangutan Declared ‘Non-Human Person’ In Argentina appeared first on Ecorazzi.

— gReader Pro…

The Netherlands – Supermarket roof collapses under heavy snowfall

The Netherlands – Supermarket roof collapses


Due to heavy snowfall in the south of the country, the roof of a supermarket in Tilburg collapsed. On the roof there is a big load of snow. Although no one was hurt, employees and shoppers were evacuated as a precaution from the building at the Jan Heijn Street. Bystanders warned that the roof of the nearby drugstore also threatens to collapse . In the province Brabant lots of snow fell on Friday night. During the day it continued to snow, causing dangerous situations on the roads and in forests. Also in Brabant, in Prinsenbeek and Oisterwijk, skating rinks have been vacated because of heavy snowfall. See two videos: http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/23495694/__Dak_supermarkt_Tilburg_ingestort__.html Thanks to Argiris Diamantis for this link Reader’s comment: In recent years the stupid people in our country have believed the global warming crap, like the David Viner bogus story that snowfalls would be a thing of the past, and many roofs have not been built properly to hold up to some snowfall. It is a writing on the wall that on the first day of snowfall this year, December 27, 2014, already roofs are collapsing. As far as yet, snowfall in the Netherlands has been quite moderate compared to the snow that fell in other countries.

— gReader Pro…

Study: No evidence California homes use less electricity today than homes built before building energy codes


How Much Energy Do Building Energy Codes Really Save? Evidence from California
Arik Levinson
NBER Working Paper No. 20797
Issued in December 2014
NBER Program(s): EEE
Construction codes that regulate the energy efficiency of new buildings have been a centerpiece of US environmental policy for 40 years. California enacted the nation’s first energy building codes in 1978, and they were projected to reduce residential energy use—and associated pollution—by 80 percent. How effective have the building codes been? I take three approaches to answering that question. First, I compare current electricity use by California homes of different vintages constructed under different standards, controlling for home size, local weather, and tenant characteristics. Second, I examine how electricity in California homes varies with outdoor temperatures for buildings of different vintages. And third, I compare electricity use for buildings of different vintages in California, which has stringent building energy codes, to electricity use for buildings of different vintages in other states. All three approaches yield the same answer: there is no evidence that homes constructed since California instituted its building energy codes use less electricity today than homes built before the codes came into effect.

You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery.…

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Laments: ‘Politically correct climate change orthodoxy has completely destroyed our ability to think rationally about the environment’


Hot Stuff, Cold Logic
Politically correct climate change orthodoxy has completely destroyed our ability to think rationally about the environment.

Climate change is sometimes called humanity’s biggest problem. Ban Ki-moon, Christine Lagarde, and John Kerry have all said as much recently. The mainstream Western media often discuss climate change in catastrophic, or even apocalyptic, terms. Indeed, if you take newspaper headlines seriously, the Fifth Assessment Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came accompanied by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse; predictions of famine, pestilence, war, and death proliferated hither and yon. Conversely, when, on November 11, 2014, the United States and China inked an agreement on climate whose actual consequences are at best liable to be indistinct, banner headlines broke out, as though messianic times were nigh.

Assuming it falls somewhat short of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, how serious will the impact of climate change be really? How much do we know about these impacts? What are the implications for policy?

It’s helpful to recall here that climate change means a lot more than just different temperatures. It means more or less rain, snow, wind, and clouds in various places. It means different outcomes for plants, whether direct or, since plants compete for resources, indirect. It means changes for the animals that eat those plants. And this includes changes for everything that hitches a ride on those plants and animals, and hence changes for all sorts of pathogens. Nature, agriculture, forestry, and health will all be different in the future. The seas will rise as water expands and glacial ice melts, affecting coastlines and everyone and everything that resides there. Water supplies will be affected by changing rainfall patterns, but water demand will also be altered by changing temperatures. Energy demands will change, too; there may be less need to heat houses in winter and perhaps greater need to cool them in summer. Traffic, transport, building, recreation, and tourism, too, will all feel the impact of a changing climate.

For some, the mere fact of these impacts is reason enough for governments, businesses, and individuals to exert themselves to reduce greenhouse gases to minimize the change. That is strange logic, however. Change, after all, can be for the better or the worse, and at any rate it is inevitable; there has never been a lengthy period of climate stasis.…