Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Protecting the one planet we've got (Score 1) 200

It is interesting that "pushing out into the Solar System not just to visit, but to stay" is part of a speech that emphasizes keeping Earth habitable. This is opposite to the SF "Run Away! Run Away!" meme. Given how long space colonization will take, this is actually the reality. Earth must be preserved to have the time and investment available for an ambitious effort.

+ - Paris Terror Spurs Plan for Military Zones Around Nuclear Plants->

Submitted by mdsolar
mdsolar (1045926) writes "Lawmakers in France want to create military zones around its 58 atomic reactors to boost security after this month’s Paris terror attacks and almost two dozen mystery drone flights over nuclear plants that have baffled authorities.

“There’s a legal void that needs to be plugged,” said Claude de Ganay, the opposition member of the National Assembly spearheading legislation to be considered by parliament on Feb. 5. The proposals would classify atomic energy sites as “highly sensitive military zones” under the control of the Ministry of Defense, according to an outline provided by de Ganay."

Link to Original Source

+ - Earth Protection Returns to NASA->

Submitted by mdsolar
mdsolar (1045926) writes "A press release announcing 2014 is the warmest year on record ends this way: "NASA monitors Earth's vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites, as well as airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. The agency shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet."

Back in 2006, that language about protecting the Earth was dropped from NASA's mission statement. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07... Welcome back!"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Mistaken View (Score 1) 441

by mdsolar (#48828587) Attached to: Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now
A high price would allow using the resource more slowly, but it does not support keeping it in the ground, in fact, just the opposite. It is clear that the only oil we can still burn is oil that cost very little to produce, so a cap on the price of oil is what is really what would work to keep from burning too much. http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

+ - Why We Have to Kiss Off Big Carbon Now ->

Submitted by mdsolar
mdsolar (1045926) writes "When the fossil-fuel divestment movement first stirred on college campuses three years ago, you could almost hear Big Oil and Wall Street laughing. Crude prices were flirting with $100 a barrel, and domestic oil production, from Texas to North Dakota, was in the midst of a historic boom. But the quixotic campus campaign suddenly has the smell of smart money.

One of the biggest names in the history of Big Oil – the Rockefellers – announced last September that they would be purging the portfolio of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund of "risky" oil investments. And that risk has been underscored by the sudden collapse of the oil market. After cresting at more than $107 in mid-June, the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate dipped below $50 a barrel in early January. The crash carries big costs: Goldman Sachs warned that nearly $1 trillion in planned oil-field investments would be unprofitable – even if oil were to stabilize at $70 per barrel."

Link to Original Source

What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!

Working...