The energy Industry appears to be working on ways to lower the amount of water used and reusing/recycling the water used for fracking, but it is still a WIP (Work In Progress). How Much Water Does Hydraulic Fracturing Use? The average fracking job uses roughly 4 million gallons of water per well – or about as much water as New York City uses every six minutes and about 1.3 percent of the water used by the country’s car washes every day. That can vary by state, because the amount of water used in each hydraulic fracturing job depends on geology and a number of other factors. In California, for example, the average fracking job needed more than 116,000 gallons of water. Yet, that’s less than half the water used every day to irrigate the average California golf course. That said, industry is constantly working to reduce water use, investing heavily in reuse and recycling technologies. These efforts are working. For example, in Texas requests for recycling permits rose from less than two a year in 2011 to 30 approved applications in 2012. More than 90 percent of flowback fluid – water that returns to the surface after fracturing – is being reused in the Marcellus region of Pennsylvania.
There is a fair amount of overlap between that map and what the National Geographic has as the Dust Bowl.
One of the ad slogans the railroads came up with to get people to settle Kansas: The rain follows the plow.
This comment by the Fed Chair in testimony before Congress should get a lot more coverage than it has: "If you fast forward 10 or 15 years, they're going to be regions of the country where you can't get a mortgage, there won't be ATMs. There won't, you know, the banks won't have branches, things like that. That's, that's a possibility coming up down the road." He's not talking about Vermont. Again, take a cold, hard look at things. You don't want to be the last one on your block or the last one at a gas station. Capital is extremely mobile, but we don't move that easily.
A third of Pacific island nation applies for Australian climate change visa More than a third of Tuvalu citizens have entered the ballot for a world-first climate visa which would allow them to permanently migrate to Australia. Opening for the first intake on 16 June, the influx of registrations could indicate that programme will be hugely oversubscribed, with only 280 visas awarded to Tuvalu citizens from the random ballot each year. The visa programme has been pegged by the Australia's foreign affairs department as a landmark response to the threat of climate-related displacement. At just five metres (16ft) above sea level, the tiny Pacific archipelago is one of the most climate-threatened nations in the world. There have been 1,124 applications submitted to the ballot as of 27 June, which accounts for 4,052 Tuvalu citizens with the inclusion of family members. The island nation is home to 10,643 people, according to census figures collected in 2022. If successful, holders of the Pacific Engagement visa will be granted indefinite permanent residency in Australia, with the ability to freely travel in and out of the country. The visa will also provide for Australian supports on arrival in the country, such as access to the country's Medicare system, childcare subsidies and the ability to study at schools, university and vocational facilities at the same subsidisation as Australian citizens. Entry to the 2025 ballot costs A$25 (£11.93, $16.37), and will close 18 July. The new class of visa was created as part of the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union, announced in August 2024, which includes a commitment by Canberra to defend the island in the face of natural disasters, public health emergencies and "military aggression". "For the first time there is a country that has committed legally to recognise the future statehood and sovereignty of Tuvalu despite the detrimental impact of climate changed-induced sea level rise," said Prime Minister Feleti Teo in a statement last year. Scientists at Nasa have predicted that the majority of land mass and critical infrastructure in Tuvalu will sit below the level of the current high tide by 2050.
The Surprising Reason Your Groceries Are More Expensive | TIME “Climate events and adverse weather that are driven by climate change are increasing in frequency, and that's only going to continue going into the future.” The researchers note in the study that their work is a “a reminder of the urgency to enact policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming in line with globally agreed targets.” Further, though, they state that mitigations like early warning systems and "timely information on climate conditions” can help farmers limit their exposure and impact to certain extreme events. https://share.google/UqnzlhSUpryj999c6 Then there's the guy who prefers to take millions for himself from the billionaires in the fossil fuels industry instead of doing the right thing to acknowledge, and take action to address climate change. In fact on his first day in office he signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change He's nothing but a greedy selfish man, who doesn't give a damn about anything or anyone but himself and his family businesses. E.P.A. Is Said to Draft a Plan to End Its Ability to Fight Climate Change - The New York Times https://share.google/qQdLbMm5rdNskWr22 In landmark opinion, World Court says countries must address climate change threat In a watershed advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague has said a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" is a human right, and that failing to protect the planet from the impacts of climate change may be a violation of international law. Outlining the obligations of states to protect the human rights of citizens being impacted by rising global tempeartures, the UN's highest court said the climate must be protected for "present and future generations." https://www.reuters.com/sustainabil...ust-address-climate-change-threat-2025-07-23/
I was reading a different article basically saying the same thing and they focused on Coffee from Brazil and why coffee has gotten more expensive over the past few years, they also touched on Beef (which I have said is way high) and part of that was when the ranchers had issues a few years ago and now there are less Cows and a higher demand. Just wait until Brazil gets hit with the new 50% bully tariff, going to Starbucks will hurt. I am not sure how some people cant correlate weather is having a real impact around the world...........its the same folks who won't get a measles vaccine AI Overview Coffee prices have risen in recent years due to a combination of factors, primarily related to climate change impacting coffee production and increased global demand. Weather disruptions, particularly in major coffee-producing countries like Brazil and Vietnam, have significantly reduced yields. This, coupled with rising global demand, has led to a decrease in coffee supply, driving up prices AI Overview Beef prices have been steadily increasing over the past few years due to a complex interplay of factors affecting both supply and demand . Here's a breakdown of the key reasons: Shrinking cattle herds: The U.S. cattle herd has been on a decline for decades, reaching its lowest point since 1951 in January 2025, according to the USDA. This means fewer cattle are available to meet demand. Drought conditions: Severe and prolonged droughts, particularly in the West and Central Plains, have negatively impacted pasture conditions and forage availability, increasing the cost of feed for ranchers. This has forced some ranchers to reduce their herds, further tightening the supply of cattle. High demand for beef: Despite rising prices, consumer demand for beef has remained strong, both domestically and internationally, according to Beef Magazine. This robust demand, coupled with limited supply, puts upward pressure on prices. Rising production expenses: Ranchers face increasing costs for fuel, feed, and labor, squeezing their profit margins and creating disincentives to expand their herds.
There are pictures at the link. Troubling scenes from an Arctic in full-tilt crisis The Arctic island of Svalbard is so reliably frigid that humanity bet its future on the place. Since 2008, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault — set deep in frozen soil known as permafrost — has accepted nearly 1.4 million samples of more than 6,000 species of critical crops. But, the island is warming six to seven times faster than the rest of the planet, making even winters freakishly hot, at least by Arctic standards. Indeed, in 2017, an access tunnel to the vault flooded as permafrost melted, though the seeds weren’t impacted. This February, a team of scientists was working on Svalbard when irony took hold. Drilling into the soil, they gathered samples of bacteria that proliferate when the ground thaws. These microbes munch on organic matter and burp methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas and significant driver of global warming. Those emissions are potentially fueling a feedback loop in the Arctic: As more soil thaws, more methane is released, leading to more thawing and more methane, and on and on. In some parts of Svalbard, though, the scientists didn’t need to drill. Air temperatures climbed above freezing for 14 of the 28 days of February, reaching 40 degrees Fahrenheit, when the average temperature at this time of year is 5 degrees. Snow vanished in places, leaving huge pools of water. “I brought my equipment to drill into frozen soil and then ended up sampling a lot of soil just with a spoon, like it was soft ice cream,” said Donato Giovannelli, a geomicrobiologist at the University of Naples Federico II and co-lead author of a paper describing the experience, published last week in the journal Nature Communications. “That was really pretty shocking.” Scientists can now dig with silverware in the Svalbard winter because the Arctic has descended into a crisis of reflectivity. Until recently, the far north had a healthy amount of sea ice, which bounced much of the sun’s energy back into space, keeping the region cool. But as the planet has warmed, that ice has been disappearing, exposing darker water, which absorbs sunlight and raises temperatures. This is yet another Arctic feedback loop, in which more warming melts more sea ice, leading to more local warming, and on and on. Making matters worse, as temperatures rise in the far north, more moisture enters the atmosphere. For one, warmer seawater evaporates more readily, adding water vapor to the air. And two, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. This leads to the formation of more low-level clouds, which trap heat like blankets — especially in the dark Arctic winter — amplifying the warming. That, combined with the loss of sea ice, is why the Arctic is warming up to four times as fast as the rest of the planet, with Svalbard warming even faster than that. During the winter, Svalbard’s soils have historically frozen solid, and scientists assumed this made microbial activity grind to a halt. Reindeer could push through the snow to graze on vegetation. But February’s heat and rain melted the snow, forming vast pools of water that froze once temperatures dropped again. That created a layer of ice that reindeer couldn’t break through. “What we encountered was just so powerful, to be in the middle of this event,” said James Bradley, a geomicrobiologist at the Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography and Queen Mary University of London, co-lead author of the paper. “It really almost all melted over large, large, large areas of the ground. That ground remained frozen, so the water didn’t have too many places to drain away to, so what we also saw was huge pooling of liquid water over the tundra.” This new climate regime could be profoundly altering the soil microbiome. Scientists assumed that methane-producing bacteria, known as methanogens, stopped proliferating when Svalbard’s soils froze in the winter, just like food in your freezer keeps for months because it’s in a hostile environment for microbes. But with warm spells like this, thawing could awaken methanogens, which could still produce that greenhouse gas even if it then rains and a layer of ice forms at the surface. In addition, that solid cap on the soil will stop the exchange of atmospheric gases into the ground, creating anaerobic, or oxygen-poor, conditions that methanogens love. “In some areas, deeper layers might never freeze completely, which means the methanogens and microbes at depth remain active,” Giovannelli said. “There’s no real winter period.” Vegetation, too, is changing up there, a phenomenon known as Arctic greening. As temperatures rise, trees and shrubs are creeping north to conquer new territory. The good news is that those plants capture carbon as they grow, mitigating global warming to a certain extent. But the bad news is that dark-colored vegetation absorbs more of the sun’s energy and raises temperatures, just like the exposed ocean does. And shrubs trap a layer of snow against the landscape, preventing the chill of winter from penetrating the soil and keeping it frozen. The speed of transformation in the Arctic is shocking, even for stoic scientists. And as nations keep spewing greenhouse gases, the feedback loops of the far north are threatening to load the atmosphere with still more methane. “We call this the new Arctic — this is not something that is a one-off,” Giovannelli said. “And on the other side, we’ve probably been a bit too cautious with our warnings regarding the climate. It’s not something for the next generation. It’s something for our generation.”
On the bright side, if you try really hard to fly a kite with barely any wind on Svalbard, it makes a nice background for a smiling kite. I flew one of my Dad's kites he designed there in tribute to him after he passed away a few years ago. I've flown a few of his kites around the UK, Costa Rica and Ireland, to take his spirit with me on my travels.
Thanks! I just miss my Dad so much so I pack a couple cardboard tubes with some of his smaller kites to photograph on my travels. The best part about the arctic was that crisp fresh air. It was so awesome. I'd love to do an explorer cruise around Svalbard and Greenland to get up close to icebergs in zodiacs, but they are really expensive. My stop in Svalbard was off a Nordic cruise from Dover, England. The worst part was that you couldn't go hiking beyond the polar bear warning signs without a weapon, which weren't far from all the international research stations near the port. But, it was still cool, and I did see reindeer nearby, and cruising through glacier areas to get there was beautiful. It was in June, but I did get light snow on my balcony though, and wore my Texans knit cap. Haha. The whole 16 day tour through the Norway fjords and to the arctic was just beautiful. I didn't take any excursions because everywhere we cruised was breathtaking enough, with so many waterfalls coming down the hillsides. Plus, there was so much beauty just hiking from the ship from the ports themselves. It was so much better than my Alaska cruise, where the ports were so touristy and mainly souvenir shops, bars, and crowds. I spent more money on excursions on my Alaska cruise than my cruise itself, just to do something other than walking through shops, eating overpriced food and drinking in bars. Also, most excursions were overpriced and touristy, except for the train ride tour and helicopter tours to glacier walks. Those were definitely worth the experience.
On the Nordic cruise from Dover, England......were there many Americans or were the passengers mostly British and from the Continent?
There were definitely way more Brits and others from outside the US. It was 10 years ago though, and they don't run that small Princess ship from Dover anymore. I read that it is now owned by Oceana cruises, which doesn't have that route. I got really lucky finding a good deal on that cruise. I use a site called vacationstogo.com where you can find great deals at the right moment. Even better, it was our lucky day when we stepped onboard and found out they upgraded us to a balcony with a view looking right over the center of the bow at no extra charge. I'd love to go back to the arctic, but I doubt I'd ever get that view again without forking out 3 times as much. Regardless, just hanging out on the decks was visually stunning. There are lots of different options to reach Svalbard. I have no idea how different it is compared to cruises there from and around Greenland or Iceland. I've never cruised anywhere else in the arctic. As beautiful as the Norwegian fjords were, the Arctic part of my cruise was my favorite, so as much as I loved Norway, if I did it again I might find one that spends the majority of the cruise around Svalbard, or try a combination with Greenland. But, for folks that have never cruised the Norwegian fjords, I'd definitely recommend one doing that and a veer up to Svalbard.
