Is skipping breakfast bad for weight loss?

After all, we’ve been told for years that breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

It’s supposed to stoke your metabolism so that you burn more calories throughout the day. Without it, your stress hormones will skyrocket, your muscles will waste away, and you increase your risk for diabetes and heart disease.

Is breakfast really the most important meal of the day? Or will you do just as well without it?

Selling You on Breakfast

If I was trying to sell you on the importance of breakfast, here’s how I’d go about it.

First, I would mention the observational studies showing that people skipping breakfast tend to weigh more than those who don’t ]

In a 2013 study, researchers found that participants who ate breakfast every day gained less weight than those who didn’t  They also reduced their risk of a spectrum of metabolic conditions, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Next, I would tell you about the research that shows tapering down your calorie intake — eating breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper — leads to a faster rate of weight loss.
In one such study, researchers assigned a set of overweight and obese subjects to one of two groups . Both groups ate the same number of calories per day, but with one key difference.The first group ate progressively smaller meals over the course of the day. Breakfast contained 700 calories, lunch 500 calories and dinner just 200 calories.

he 5×5 Workout: What is it?

The 5×5 workout is very simple: five sets of five reps for no more than a handful of compound movements, three times per week. Although there are numerous variations of the program, one of the most popular is Strong-lifts 5×5. With StrongLifts, you perform just five compound exercises each week: the dead-lift, squat, bench press, overhead press, and barbell row. There are two different workouts alternated throughout the week. In workout A, you do the squat, bench press, and barbell row. The lifts in workout B are the squat, overhead press, and dead-lift.

Workout A: Squat, Bench Press, Barbell Row

Workout B: Squat, Overhead Press, Deadlift

For each exercise, you do 5 sets of 5 reps. The exception is the deadlift, which you do for 1 set of 5 reps. You take a day of rest between each training day.

Week one looks like this:

Monday: Workout A

Squat 5×5

Bench Press 5×5

Barbell Row 5×5

Wednesday: Workout B

Squat 5×5

Overhead Press 5×5

Deadlift 1×5

Friday: Workout A

Squat 5×5

Bench Press 5×5

Barbell Row 5×5

Week two starts with workout B, and looks like this:

Monday: Workout B

Squat 5×5

Overhead Press 5×5

Deadlift 1×5

Wednesday: Workout A

Squat 5×5

Bench Press 5×5

Barbell Row 5×5

Friday: Workout B

Squat 5×5

Overhead Press 5×5

Deadlift 1×5

1. Foods You Don’t Like

If your current diet involves regularly eating food that you don’t like, you’re probably not going to be following that diet for very long.

If a particular food doesn’t taste good, there’s no rule that says you have to eat it.

Yes, it may very well have a number of nutritional benefits.

But there are probably many other foods out there that provide the exact same benefits.

There’s no need to keep eating a certain food you hate just because you’ve been told it’s “good” for you.

Compliance and consistency matter a lot more than the specific foods you’re eating.

2. Foods That Take You Out of An Energy Deficit

To lose fat, you need an energy deficit.

But some people find that eating certain “trigger foods” will set them off on a junk food binge that can last anywhere from a few hours to a few days.

If there is a packet of custard creams in my kitchen, the chances are very high that they won’t be here this time tomorrow.

That’s because once the pack is open, I will eat the lot.

Unlike my wife, who has the uncanny ability to eat just one or two, and then put them back in the cupboard.

So, when I’m trying to lose fat, I make sure there are no custard creams in the house.

If there is a particular food that consistently pushes you outside your macronutrient targets, then do everything possible to avoid it.

3. Foods That Make You Feel Bad

There are certain foods that will leave you feeling bad. If so, cut back or cut them out completely.

Of all the dumb fitness ideas out there, the dirty bulk is one of the dumbest.  That may seem like an extreme statement, but trust me on this one. 
After all, I used to guzzle weight gainers mixed with ice cream until I grew a FUPA and had more stomach rolls than abs.
Bottom line: a dirty bulk will leave you fat and frustrated, not jacked and confident.

1. CALORIC SPILLOVER

Calorie balance is still king when it comes to building muscle. If you’re going to put on lean muscle, you need to be in a caloric surplus.
Calories In: Calories from food.
Calories Out: Calories used for daily activity and bodily function.
Caloric Surplus: When you take in more calories than your body burns each day.

2. FAT HYPERPLASIA

When you overeat, your body increases the number of fat cells your body stores. It’s a survival mechanism. This is called fat hyperplasia, and it makes it more difficult to lose fat going forward.The big kicker here is you can’t eliminate cells. You can only make them smaller. When you follow a dirty bulk you’re increasing the number of fat cells in your body. You’ll gain weight in the short term while also making it easier for your body to store fat in the future.
The result? You get stuck in permabulk mode. You gain more fat than muscle. And you may have one hell of a time getting ripped once beach season comes around.

3. DECREASED INSULIN SENSITIVITY

At any given moment you’re either burning fat or building muscle.The switch behind this? Insulin stimulates protein synthesis, inhibiting the breakdown of protein, and is an extremely powerful muscle-building hormone.

4. POOR NUTRITION PARTITIONING

When you gain body fat and decrease insulin sensitivity from mindless eating during a dirty bulk, you impair your body’s ability to break down food into its usable parts. THE RESULT? IT BECOMES EASIER TO GAIN FAT AND MORE DIFFICULT TO BUILD LEAN MUSCLE. 

5. YOU’LL DEVELOP SHITTY HABITS
Raise your hand if you know a lifter who’s always bulking.

3 Essential Hamstring Stretches to Prevent Injury

This is particularly true for sports and activities that involve the feet striking the ground when the leg is mostly straight and the body is decelerating or changing direction, like football, soccer, rugby, basketball, track and field, and gymnastics.

But a regular routine of hamstring stretches can gradually lengthen these muscles, making them less prone to injury. It takes time and effort to loosen tight muscles, so you should commit to doing one or more hamstring stretches at least twice a day over the long term to get the best results.

When you’re doing these stretches, make sure to keep breathing and don’t bounce. Instead, gently enter the stretch in a single movement and hold it. To help prevent muscle tearing, don’t push yourself to the point of discomfort or pain.

If your hamstrings are tight, start with the gentle exercises, then move on to the intermediate exercises as your flexibility increases.

Gentle hamstring stretch

• Seated chair stretch
  Sit at the front edge of the chair and straighten one leg in front of you, with your heel of the ground and your toes pointed at the ceiling. Then keep your back straight and lean forward over the outstretched leg. You should feel the stretch in the back of your thighs. To increase the stretch, prop your heel on a stool or second chair rather than the floor. The higher you elevate your foot, the deeper the stretch.

Intermediate hamstring stretches

• Supine hamstring stretch (also called towel hamstring stretch)
  Lie on the floor with your left knee bent and your left foot flat on the floor. Keeping your abdominal muscles tight, lift the straight right leg slowly upward. If your hamstrings are tight, try wrapping a belt or exercise band around your right instep and hold onto the ends, using it to help you lift your leg. When you feel a gentle stretch in the back of the right thigh, hold for at least 15 seconds, then lower the leg to the floor. Repeat 3 times per side, alternating your legs.
• Wall hamstring stretch
  Lie on the floor with your knees bent and your hip next to a doorjamb or wall corner. Place the leg nearest the corner on the wall, with the knee bent. Slowly straighten the leg against the wall while keeping your hips flat on the floor. Hold for 15 to 30 seconds. Repeat 3 times per side, alternating between legs. If you’re already pretty flexible, try doing both legs at the same time.

If you do injure your hamstring muscles, these stretches can also help you through the recovery process. However, any aggressive stretching in the early part of recovery should be avoided, so that the muscles have a chance to heal and create scar tissue.

5 fun fitness ideas for mom and baby

Losing baby weight

Is there any family event quite as special as the arrival of a new baby? Whether your infant is the first, or the latest addition to your brood, this bundle of joy will have you smitten. But along with all that happiness, there also comes unwanted pregnancy pounds.

So how does a new mom lose the baby weight without leaving her precious infant behind? Thankfully, there are now several fitness activities that allow moms to bring baby along for the fun.

The benefits of postpartum exercise

Sandra Drygas, a certified trainer with Beaches Fitness in Toronto, specializes in pre- and postnatal well-being. A mom herself, Drygas understands the postpartum path back to fitness. “Exercise has so many benefits,” she says. “Moms come for the social aspects, because their babies sleep longer after a class, and to lose weight and tone up.” Working out also sparks the release of endorphins-feel-good brain chemicals that can help tackle the “baby blues.”

Swimming

Time in the pool encourages baby to explore her natural instincts for water, while mom enjoys a low-impact routine that’s kind to her healing body. “It’s stress-free on the joints, and can be a great cardio workout,” says Drygas. Some swimming programs accept infants as young as 12 weeks of age, while others prefer your child to be five to six months. Many YWCA locations across Canada offer mom and baby sessions, or try Fit4Two‘s AquaFit classes in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Swimming ticks all the boxes for a safe and effective workout, however, “Not all moms are comfortable getting back into a swimsuit right away, so it’s not for everyone,” says Drygas.

Strollercise

The easiest postpartum exercise, moms can stroll solo, or with a neighbourhood group. Raising your heart rate is key to a successful stroller-based workout. Some classes rely on jogging to achieve this goal, however in her own strollercise sessions, Drygas uses cardio bursts and wind sprints to achieve the same results. Plus, her methods don’t require fancy jogging strollers. “It all depends on the class that you sign up for,” says Drygas. And don’t worry about keeping baby occupied, she says, “It’s as easy as giving them a toy, or a snack.” Ready to roll? Type “strollercise” into Google and be spoilt for choice, or try Mommy and Baby Fitness if you live in Ontario, Alberta or Saskatchewan.

Yoga

Low-impact and great for overall health, yoga stretches help us stay calm and limber, and baby gets to indulge in her favourite sport-watching Mom! To guarantee a comfortable workout, Drygas suggests breastfeeding before class. It releases the pressure from your chest, and helps ensure that baby will be content through the session. Most yoga studios across Canada include mom and baby programs. Check your local paper, go online, or ask your friends for recommendations. “Word of mouth is really the best way,” says Drygas. “If you know someone who has taken a class and enjoyed it, it’s a safe bet it’s a good class.”

The next concrete vote on Trump isn't until November, but pollsters and election wonks are all analysing the data furiously to see if the Democrats will ride a wave back to congressional power, or whether Trump and the Republicans will in fact be able to dig down further and secure a counter-cycle triumph.

This election analysis and discussion from Politico is fascinating and a must read for students of American politics.

The wording of the famous Second Amendment to the US Constitution is this:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

My students and I saw it just a few days ago, the faded writing on the Bill of Rights displayed in the National Archives still visible. I was puzzled for a while, as in the document this is actually the fourth amendment, but it turns out the first two weren't ratified, thus pushing the famous arms amendment up to number 2 in the ranks.

I've read it a number of times, and it still seems to me that the so-called right to bear arms is very dependent on the maintenance of a militia to defend the state.  It is not, thus, an individual right at all.  It is very much a concession granted in the interests of state defence.

So how has this seemingly obvious interpretation become so sullied that the second amendment now becomes synonymous with individual freedom and democracy?  So ingrained into the American psyche as a key element of freedom that no matter how many kids are shot in schools, the right to buy any type of weapon for individual use can never be controlled?

It turns out this is a recent phenomenon.  And it's down to an organisation called the National Rifle Association, itself the front group for gun manufacturers.

As early as 1876 the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was not a granting of the right to bear arms (United States v Cruickshank).  A 1939 ruling (US v Miller) maintained the link between arms and a militia.  Only more recently has the Second Amendment been given such broad latitude as to imply a defence of the individual right to bear arms, most noticeably in the 2008 District of Columbia v Heller ruling.

It beats me how the so-called "originalists" - the right-wing judges who claim to adhere to the very wording of the constitution and its amendments - can possibly interpret the 2nd in any other way than the one written above - as the need to preserve a "well regulated" militia.  They say the commas should be ignored and that the two clauses, on militia and the right to bear arms, are not really linked.  Doesn't read that way at all, so I guess originalists are more like creativists after all.  Which is just one of the many tragic ironies of the gun control debate in America.

The NRA's chief, Wayne LaPierre, has given an uncompromising defence of arms in the wake of the Florida school killings, at the CPAC conference.  He trotted out the old line that all you need to stop bad men with guns is good men with guns.  Do lots of "good men" hold guns?  Would "good men" want to be always ready to shoot to kill I wonder?

The NRA has been so successful in its defence of the right to have guns - and thus the immediate use of a lethal killing machine right by your side as and when you want it - that it has radically altered the culture of America.  From the president down, dozens of lawmakers - nearly all Republican - dance to the NRA tune.  Not just because of NRA money, though some do receive lots of that, but because they have bought wholly in to a culture that now identifies the right to own the means to kill with freedom.

The kids who are campaigning so prominently and admirably for gun control now won't win.  Not yet anyway.  They're up against lawmakers who can witness any number of mass killings and still refuse to ban the one thing that cause them.  If they do want to change, they have to be in for the long haul.  That's what the NRA did, and they were so successful they even got Supreme Court Justices to re-interpret the second Amendment for them.  Money and culture is still powerfully behind gun possession in America, and don't expect it to change anytime soon.

Recent headlines touted a link between daily alcohol consumption and a nearly 20-percent decrease in mortality risk — but those findings may be clouding the true relationship between alcohol and good health.

While a study of senior citizens did find a correlation between drinking two alcoholic beverages a day and increased longevity, the underlying reasons for this association aren't clear — and are likely not sufficient reason to celebrate booze as a health tonic, other research suggests.

The research in question is part of The 90+ Study, a massive, longitudinal study from the University of California, Irvine, that began in 1981 by surveying 14,000 senior citizens living in a retirement home. The initial participants answered questions about their health, hobbies and drinking habits involving alcohol, among other things. A 2007 paper published by the study's researchers found that seniors who drank two or more alcoholic drinks a day (it didn't matter what kind) had a 15-percent reduced risk of death compared to nondrinkers.

"If in 1981 you were using alcohol, compared to people your same age who weren’t using alcohol, you lived longer," Dr. Claudia Kawas, a professor of neurology and neurobiology at the University of California, Irvine, and one of the co-principal investigators for The 90+ Study, said at an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference on Saturday (Feb. 17).

"I have no explanation for it," Dr. Kawas added, "but I do firmly believe that modest drinking is associated with longevity."

was is not alone in her thinking — various other studies have linked moderate drinking to reduced risk of heart attack, stroke, and other conditions. Findings like these come with significant caveats, however — which Kawas quickly pointed out to the AAAS audience. "Keep in mind that I start studying people when they’re 90," Kawas said. "I think it’s very likely that individuals who have very excessive alcohol intake at younger ages don’t even make it to their 90s."

Alcohol's health impacts

Kawas' disclaimer echoes mounting research that suggests that the more alcohol a person drinks, the more likely that person is to experience adverse health effects.

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, an estimated 88,000 Americans die from alcohol-related conditions every year, making it the third-greatest preventable cause of death in the United States after tobacco, poor diet and inactivity. Nearly 24,000 of these deaths were attributed to liver diseases, such as cirrhosis and liver cancer.

Additionally, drinking alcohol has been associated with an increased risk of contracting seven types of cancers, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology, with greater alcohol intake generally being associated with greater cancer risk.

Binge drinking — defined as downing at least four drinks for women or five drinks for men within a few hours — is especially dangerous. One 2014 study found that adults in their 50s and 60s who reported binge drinking once a week were twice as likely to die over the following 20 years as were adults of the same age who drank less.

So, where do alcohol's apparent longevity benefits come from? According to a 2016 meta-analysis of 87 studies linking alcohol consumption and longevity, casual drinking may be an indicator of other lifestyle factors related to good health rather than a cause.

Older individuals who abstain from drinking might do so because of existing health issues, the study said, or because they had problems with excessive drinking in the past. In other words, if a person is still drinking at age 90, their health is likely good enough for them to do so. Good health among senior citizens can be attributed to a multitude of other lifestyle factors including diet, exercise and strong social relationships, The 90+ study reported.

If you want to protect yourself from colds and flu, regular exercise may be the ultimate immunity-booster. Studies have shown that moderate aerobic exercise—around 30 to 45 minutes a day of activities like walking, biking or running—can more than halve your risk for respiratory infections and other common winter maladies.

There’s some evidence that very intense exercise—running a marathon, say—can briefly suppress your immune function, says Dr. Bruce Barrett, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. But in general, physical activity is a great way to shield yourself from illness, he says.

Other experts agree. “Your immune system needs activity to do its job better,” says David Nieman, a professor and director of the Human Performance Lab at Appalachian State University. “Every time you exercise, you increase the circulation of important immune cells.”

But once you’ve caught a bug and are feeling crummy, the story changes. “Exercise is great for prevention, but it can be lousy for therapy,” Nieman says.

Research from Ball State University shows that moderate exercise has no effect on the duration or severity of the common cold. “If your symptoms are neck up—things like sinus and nasal congestion, sort throat, etc.—exercise neither helps nor hurts,” Nieman says. If you feel up to it, there doesn’t seem to be much harm in continuing to work out, he adds.

But if you have the flu or other forms of fever-causing systemic infections, exercise is a bad idea.

“Back in the 1940s during the polio epidemic, some investigators noticed that athletes who played a hard game of football were coming down with the more severe form of polio,” Nieman says. This observation led to follow-up studies on the way viruses respond to exercise in both primates and humans. The sum and substance of those studies, Nieman says, is that a body infected with flu can react very poorly to physical activity. “A lot of athletes have this idea that, if I have a fever, I should sweat it out,” he says. “That’s the craziest idea ever.”

How Does Playing Sports Affect Your Health

Sports and other physical activities have innumerable physical health benefits, including improved cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, bone health, increased life expectancy, and coronary health. Sports can also help prevent various types of cancer and weight gain and have positive effects on mental health by reducing depression and improving cognitive function.

Weight Maintenance

Sports can help promote long-term weight loss and help avoid weight gain. Sports increase metabolic rates and can help increase lean body mass while burning calories and getting rid of excess fat. Although the amount of physical activity needed varies by body type and caloric intake, sports can help a person maintain a healthy weight. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, between two and half to five hours of moderately-intensive physical activity can help achieve weight stability. High-intensity sports can help people who want to lose weight or maintain a significant amount of weight loss.

Cardiorespiratory Health

Sports can help people of all ages maintain and improve the health of their heart, lungs and blood vessels. Physical activity can significantly reduce the risk of coronary disease and stroke. According to the British Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, approximately 40 percent of deaths related to coronary heart disease are related to inadequate physical activity, obesity, stress and raised blood pressure. Sports can help with all of these physical issues, decreasing the risk of coronary disease by about 50 percent.

Muscle and Bone Health

As you grow older, physical activity becomes increasingly important for the health of bones, muscles and joints. Building bone, muscle and joint strength is important for children.

Cancer

Sports can decrease the risk of colon cancer by as much as 300 percent, according to the British Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. It can also significantly decrease the risk of breast cancer, and might decrease the risk of endometrial and lung cancer.

Pyschological Health

Sports can be a form of mental therapy for people with psychological disorders and depression. Sports may promote self-esteem in the form of positive perception of body image and self-worth. By participating in sports with others, people can also enter in positive social environments to promote psychological health. Physical activity can also decrease the risk of cognitive decline that comes with aging and can reduce anxiety in adolescents.

Tips and Warnings

Some risk is involved with participating in sports. While little risk is involved in participating in moderate-intensity sports such as swimming or cycling at a moderate pace, the risk of musculoskeletal injury increases with the amount of intense physical activity. People who are normally inactive should start slow and gradually increase the intensity and duration of their participation in sports.

The graph below shows global warming for a 30-year period centered on January 2018, using NASA 2003 to January 2018 LOTI anomalies from 1951-1980, adjusted by 0.59°C to cater for the rise from preindustrial to 1951-1980, and with a polynomial trend added.

From: ECMWF Nino Plumes

Above graph shows that the 1.5°C guardrail, set at the Paris Agreement, was crossed in 2016 and that a 10°C (18°F) warming could eventuate within a decade or so.

The variations in above temperature data are strongly influenced by El Niño/La Niña. We currently are in a La Niña period, during which surface temperatures are suppressed, whereas surface temperatures in 2016 were much above the trendline, due to El Niño.

The ECMWF forecast from 1 February 2018 on the right indicates that we're heading for another El Niño, i.e. surface temperatures will be rising strongly over the coming months.

The IPCC seeks to downplay the amount of global warming that has already occurred and that looks set to eventuate over the next decade or so. A leaked draft of the IPCC 'Special Report on 1.5°C above pre-industrial' (First Order Draft of SR1.5 SPM) estimates that the global mean temperature reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels around 2017/2018. The IPCC appears to have arrived at this estimate using an extrapolation or near term predictions of future warming so that the level of anthropogenic warming is reported for a 30 year period centered on today.

This 1°C IPCC estimate looks quite incredible when calculating the temperature rise using NASA's data for the two most recent years for which data are available (2016/2017), which shows a warming of 0.95°C when using a baseline of 1951-1980 and a warming of 1.23°C when using a baseline of 1890-1910.

Indeed, the temperature rise differs depending on which baseline is used, and when using preindustrial as a baseline, i.e. the baseline agreed to at the Paris Agreement, indications are that temperatures have already risen by more than 1.5°C, as also discussed in an earlier post.

Furthermore, when using a 30-year period centered on January 2018, the current temperature will have to be calculated over the past 15 years and estimated for the next 15 years, i.e. up to the year 2033.

To arrive at a 1°C rise for the 30-year period, the IPCC must somehow assume that temperatures will magically fall dramatically over the next 15 years, whereas indications are that temperatures will instead rise dramatically over the next decade or so.

The image on the right shows that 10°C (18°F) warming from preindustrial could eventuate within one decade when taking into full account the warming that could result from the elements depicted in the stacked bar. Each of these warming elements is discussed in more detail at the extinction page.

The image below shows the rise from 1750 to 2030, in surface temperatures (land+ocean), rather than in anomalies.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.

Links

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• How much warming have humans caused?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html

A new analysis by Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson and colleagues shows that the world can be powered by 100% clean, renewable energy, with today's technology.

The analysis looks at different pathways, using different ways of energy generation (by wind, water and sunlight), in combination with storage, transmission, and demand response, concluding that the world can also be powered by 100% clean, renewable energy at a lower cost than a BAU (Business-As-Usual) scenario dominated by fossil fuel.

“Based on these results, I can more confidently state that there is no technical or economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean, renewable energy with a stable electric grid at low cost,” says Mark Jacobson.

[ image added May 2018, see video ]

Moreover, the price of fuel currently excludes the cost of health and climate damage caused by fuel. When including these costs, the cost of clean, renewable energy is ¼ the cost of BAU. Since clean, renewable energy uses 43%-58% fewer kWh, it is ⅛ the cost of fuel.

[ brightened image, added May 2018, see video ]

The price of fuel looks set to go up over time due to decreasing economies of scale for fuel and due to the cost of conflict associated with fuel. As an example, a 2017 report puts the cost of U.S. military intervention in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan over the period FY2001-FY2018 at $5.6 trillion, or $23,386 for the average taxpayer. The report adds that, unlike past US wars, these wars have been paid for largely through borrowing. The $5.6 trillion includes the interest the US has already paid on this debt, but it does not include projected future interest. Even if the US stopped spending money on these wars right now, cumulated interest costs on borrowing will ultimately add more than $7.9 trillion to the national debt over the next several decades.

Meanwhile, the price of clean, renewable energy looks set to keep coming down, in line with ongoing innovation, efficiency improvements and economies of scale. Examples are induction cooking, batteries, heat pumps, LED lights, refrigeration and smelters.

Local feebates can most effectively and rapidly achieve the necessary transition to clean, renewable energy. One example is to impose fees on sales of fuel, with the revenues used to fund rebates on local supply of clean, renewable energy. Another example is to impose fees on registration of vehicles with internal combustion engines, with the revenues used to fund rebates on registration of battery-electric vehicles. Local feebates can best help areas each get their preferred mix (of local supply/storage, of grid interconnection and imports/exports of electricity, and of demand response).

The Climate Plan calls for dramatic cuts in emissions through such policies, while also calling for further lines of action. For more on the benefits of feebates, see the feebates and policies pages.

[ image from Renewables ]

100% clean & renewable energy is technically feasible and more attractive economically, more healthy, and will provide more jobs and more robust, stable and lower-cost energy with greater energy independence and security and with less need for land, water and imports. Moreover, it will dramatically reduce harmful pollution and emissions, which is absolutely imperative in the light of the urgent need to act on global warming.

Feel encouraged to discuss things further at the following groups at facebook:
facebook.com/groups/Renewables
facebook.com/groups/ElectricTransport
facebook.com/groups/biochar
facebook.com/groups/ClimateAlert
facebook.com/groups/ArcticNews
facebook.com/groups/geoengineering


Links

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Matching demand with supply at low cost in 139 countries among 20 world regions with 100% intermittent wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) for all purposes, by Mark Z. Jacobson et al.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526

• Stanford engineers develop a new method of keeping the lights on if the world turns to 100% clean, renewable energy
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08/avoiding-blackouts-100-renewable-energy

• Costs of War project, Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/

• Rapid Transition to a Clean World
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/11/rapid-transition-to-a-clean-world.html

• Roadmap for Repowering California for all Purposes with Wind, Water, and Sunlight
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/06/roadmap-for-repowering-california-for-all-purposes-with-wind-water-and-sunlight.html

• Feebates
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feebates.html

• Policies
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/policies.html

•  Professor Mark Z. Jacobson speaks at Cupertino Rotary, California, May 9, 2018
https://vimeo.com/269302931

1.  The Republicans have been accused of "turbo-charged" gerrymandering in order to hold on to their state and federal offices, and the two states which seem to critics to exemplify their approach are Pennsylvania and North  Carolina.  The New York Times provides, as might be expected, excoriating commentary on both situations, suggesting that Republicans are no longer just about holding power but about de-legitimising their opponents.

At stake are not just hundreds of state legislative seats, but also control of the House of Representatives, which Republicans currently hold by a 45-seat margin.

The most shocking case is playing out right now in Pennsylvania, where Republican lawmakers in 2011 created maps so skewed that when Democrats won a majority of the popular vote the following year, it translated into only five of the state’s 18 congressional seats.

But when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the districts, the Republicans were ready.  After their appeal to the US Supreme Court was struck down by none other than Samuel Alito, they moved against the elected Pennsylvania judges:

A Republican legislator this week moved to impeach the five Pennsylvania justices who voted to strike down the maps, on the grounds that they “engaged in misbehavior in office.” 

And if Pennsylvania sounds bad, how about North Carolina, where electors put a Democrat, Roy Cooper, into the state house as Governor, only to have the gerrymandered state legislature quickly strip the office of as many powers as possible before Cooper took office.

Democracy in America?  Not going terribly well, it would seem.


2.  Meanwhile, evangelicals continue to parade their support of Donald Trump.  

America's fundamentalist protestant Christians have a habit of preferring non-religious presidents like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, both divorcees who could hardly be seen as exemplars of Christian teaching on marriage.  In Trump, they have managed to find a leader to support who has committed serial ethics violations, engages in abusive personal tweets, and can rarely be found holding to truth.  

Evangelical leaders claim they do not want to judge Trump as an individual, not a tolerance they held towards Bill Clinton, or to any American citizens who happen to be gay.  

In abandoning any moral stance whatsoever, evangelicals have at least revealed their colours as a partisan pressure group which merely holds its religious statements up as an umbrella for its political activism, rather than as a serious set of principles to live by.  Atheists must be delighted at their overt outing.  

From the Washington Post's "Plumline" blog, some still optimistic points about the Democrats' chances in November:

* DEMS POUR MONEY INTO STATE LEGISLATIVE RACES: The New York Times reports that a Dem-aligned group led by former attorney general Eric Holder is set to pour big money into obscure state legislative races across the country in 2018:

The group [is] determined to deny Republicans so-called trifectas in state governments — places where a single party controls the governorship and an entire legislature … The group’s list of high-priority states includes most of the critical states in presidential elections.

Preventing total GOP control in as many states as possible could block lopsided pro-GOP congressional maps in the next decade and avoid a repeat of the last decade’s disaster.

* DEMS GRAB ANOTHER SEAT IN DEEP RED TERRITORY: Last night, Democrat Mike Revis won a special election for a state legislative seat in Missouri. Reid Wilson explains:

If Revis’s lead holds, it would mark a significant swing from 2016, when President Trump won the district by a 61 percent to 33 percent margin. Four years before that, Mitt Romney beat President Obama in the district, south and west of St. Louis, by a 55- to 43-percent margin.

It’s another sign of the energy on the Democratic side putting deep red territory in play, which continues to bode well for 2018.

* DEMS HOLD ADVANTAGE IN BATTLE FOR HOUSE: The punditry has swung toward a Trump/GOP comeback, based on the economy and Trump’s slightly rebounding approval. But National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar diagnoses the situation much more accurately:

If there’s one constant that strategists in both parties acknowledge, it’s that Democratic turnout will be sky-high, fueled by deep-seated antipathy towards Trump. … For Republicans to mitigate the impact, they need to persuade enough independent voters to support them and turn out their own voters in similar numbers. … They could hang on to many of their most-vulnerable seats, but still see the bottom fall out because of red-hot Democratic intensity and lackluster GOP preparation. It’s why Democrats still hold the edge in the battle for House control, even if the anti-Trump tsunami never materializes.

By the way, ignore the punditry that tells you Dems are overconfident. They know this is still very much up in the air and that there’s tons of work to be done.

(Greg Sargent)

The Sunday Times runs a piece today about the frustration of hard-Brexit minded Tory MPs, and their desire for a "dream team" of Johnson, Gove and - of course - Rees-Mogg, to come in and run things.

Remain minded Tories should probably consider the same thing.  As Theresa May's government lurches around trying to find a strategy, or a vision, or anything at all, it becomes increasingly apparent that there is no value to the Remainer wing in her continued leadership.

Mrs. May's poor negotiating situation can be put down to her need to have been more Brexit than the Brexiters initially, in order to convince that wing of the party that this quondam (admittedly lukewarm) Remainer really could be trusted.   Alex Wickham notes this point in his assessment of the depressed state of Brexiteers.

However, Mrs. May's own lack of vision for Brexit means she is caught between the two wings of her party.  For every Johnson, there's a  Hammond etc.  Given the lack of control they have over the process, the Brexiters - exemplified by the increasingly frustrated outbursts from the non-governmental Jacob Rees-Mogg - will keep complaining that the outcome we are heading for is nothing to do with them.  Nick Cohen skewers their responsibility avoidance strategy perfectly in his article for the Observer.

So it may be that the allegedly plotting Brexiteers should be given their time in power.  They wanted this thing, campaigned energetically for it, and should now be given the chance to deliver it.  That way, they can hardy avoid responsibility for the result, good or bad.  Remainers can thus make their case more forcefully, unafraid of the charge of de-stabilising the government or the fear of getting someone worse.  In effect, they would become the coherent, opposition group that the Brexiters currently are.  And be ready to step in should the Three Brexiteers swashbuckle their way to disaster.