given the reasonable chance that Trump will lose, motivated eco-conservatives are already positioning themselves to redefine the Republican Party’s climate and energy platform in a way that moves beyond institutionalized denial. Bob Inglis, a former congressman from South Carolina, sees Trump’s campaign as a window of opportunity. Inglis; his strategy director, Alex Bozmoski; and a small staff at George Mason University form the core of RepublicEn, a clean-energy advocacy organization. Bozmoski, a former climate denier, is particularly candid about Trump, whom he calls “freaking crazy.” It’s the backlash to that craziness that Bozmoski hopes will help remake the G.O.P. into a champion of free-market support for renewable energy. Trump’s outspoken denial, Bozmoski told me, is “good for climate.” On RepublicEn’s Web site, he added, a cartoon likeness of the candidate serves as a “Bat Signal for people who want to fight the crazy with principles and pragmatism.” So far, strategies like this appear to have worked, at least on a limited scale. “In the six months since Trump won in New Hampshire, RepublicEn doubled twice, adding eight hundred and sixty-five members,” Bozmoski said.
Inglis and Bozmoski are far from the first to reconsider the G.O.P.’s messaging around climate and energy. Still, for many years, the discussion on the right was hindered by the national squabble over science, and what some conservatives see as the Democrats’ hostile insistence on total orthodoxy. “Today, it doesn’t feel like we’re climbing that hill anymore,” James Dozier, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, which lobbies Republicans in the House and Senate, told me. “There’s general understanding that if you want to appeal to younger voters, if you want to appeal to independent voters and young mothers, being able to articulate a clean-energy position is important.” Mark Pischea, a Republican political strategist based in Michigan, agreed. “We don’t really talk about climate change overtly—not because we’re afraid to but because it’s not that relevant,” he said. At this point, Pischea added, there are enough reasons to persuade conservatives of the need for clean energy—the economy, national security, faith, their grandchildren’s health—that engaging them on science isn’t productive. Instead, according to Dozier, climate-conscious conservatives are trying to “change the narrative from one of a dire emergency to an opportunity for solving a challenge.” Polarizing rhetoric rarely leads to good policymaking—and focussing on hopeful, positive messages is likely more effective than continuing a cycle of denial and counter-denial.
The trend line for the transportation sector is less encouraging. Transportation emissions have begun rising as the economy rebounds. John DeCicco at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, who wrote the study, attributes the rebound we’ve seen during the past four years to straightforward causes: economic recovery and more affordable fuel prices. Vehicle sales numbers have been rising for several years, in particular for trucks and SUVs, and people are traveling more miles.
The trends have significant implications for the country’s energy policy. President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan will help ensure that emissions from generating electricity continue to fall in the coming years, and there are plenty of alternatives to coal-fired power plants. As for transportation, gasoline and diesel figure to keep dominating the market for decades because electric cars, the alternative, have been slow to take off. Federal laws designed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce tailpipe emissions will only serve to offset increasing travel demand, DeCicco says.
What ? The Megaprocessor is a micro-processor built large. Very large.
How ? Like all modern processors the Megaprocessor is built from transistors. It's just that instead of using teeny-weeny ones integrated on a silicon chip it uses discrete individual ones like those below. Thousands of them. And loads of LEDs.
Why ? - short answer : Because I want to.
Why ? - long answer : Computers are quite opaque, looking at them it's impossible to see how they work. What I would like to do is get inside and see what's going on. Trouble is we can't shrink down small enough to walk inside a silicon chip. But we can go the other way; we can build the thing big enough that we can walk inside it. Not only that we can also put LEDs on everything so we can actually SEE the data moving and the logic happening. It's going to be great.
There is an extreme overabundance of outdoor nighttime lighting in the US along with most of the developed world. Extremely expensive to power and maintain, the pressure has been to move to LED outdoor lighting with lower power consumption and much longer life. Unfortunately there are problems as most emit far too much blue light disrupting wildlife and leading to human health issues. While there is a shift to 'warmer' LED lights, a better solution would be to rethink how much outdoor lighting should be used and move to smarter designs that dim or turn off when not needed along with well designed lamp shades to direct light only where it is needed.
Further examinations at the NIH Clinical Center suggested the young patients lack body awareness. Blindfolding them made walking extremely difficult, causing them to stagger and stumble from side to side while assistants prevented them from falling. When the researchers compared the two patients with unaffected volunteers, they found that blindfolding the young patients made it harder for them to reliably reach for an object in front of their faces than it was for the volunteers. Without looking, the patients could not guess the direction their joints were being moved as well as the control subjects could.
The patients were also less sensitive to certain forms of touch. They could not feel vibrations from a buzzing tuning fork as well as the control subjects could. Nor could they tell the difference between one or two small ends of a caliper pressed firmly against their palms. Brain scans of one patient showed no response when the palm of her hand was brushed.
Nevertheless, the patients could feel other forms of touch. Stroking or brushing hairy skin is normally perceived as pleasant. Although they both felt the brushing of hairy skin, one claimed it felt prickly instead of the pleasant sensation reported by unaffected volunteers. Brain scans showed different activity patterns in response to brushing between unaffected volunteers and the patient who felt prickliness.
Hochschild developed a particular interest in why people who had suffered so much from deregulation were working so hard for politicians who wanted more of it. The energy and plastics companies that employed many of them were turning southern Louisiana into a gigantic chemical dump. Hochschild spent time with a plumber who had emptied toxic waste into a river, only to suffer years of guilt and regret, and with fishermen who coped with pollution by studying which fish flushed out the chemicals quickly and might still be O.K. to eat. She met local environmentalists, village ideologues who holed up in remote cabins, measuring the quality of the water—but they were often Tea Party supporters, too. Leaving the cabin of two environmental activists, Hochschild noticed a bundle of lawn signs for the local Tea Party congressional candidate, awaiting distribution.
At a Tea Party focus group on Lake Charles, Hochschild met a woman named Jackie Tabor. “Pollution is the price we pay for capitalism,” Tabor, the wife of a contractor, told her. While proudly showing Hochschild her subdivision house, Tabor explained that she had grown up poor in Chicago. She relied on welfare as a child and was briefly homeless. Tabor had a strong sense of the fragility of her own position. “This could all vanish tomorrow!” she said, gesturing around her living room. Tabor wanted clean air and water, Hochschild writes. But she also felt that she benefitted from things staying as they were. “Sometimes you had to do without what you wanted,” Hochschild writes, from Tabor’s point of view. “You accommodated.”
At the same focus group, Hochschild met an insurance saleswoman named Sharon Galicia, who moves the sociologist closer to the Trump phenomenon. Galicia had spent some years working as the management agent for a trailer park, and the lives of her mostly white renters there, Hochschild writes, “appalled and unnerved her.” Some of them had “matter-of-factly admitted lying to get food stamps,” Galicia told Hochschild. Hochschild also spoke to a woman named Janice Areno, who said that she knew construction workers who quit their jobs “so they can draw unemployment to hunt in season.” This evidence of social decline had complicated how Galicia and Areno saw their communities. The failings of their neighbors had become more obvious to them.