Crop pollination exposes honey bees to pesticides, altering their susceptibility to pathogens

I'd like to say: "No shit?" but it'd be premature. Instead: hm... further research is obivously needed (har, before a billions-of-dollars industry can be put to question & 'blame').

Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae. Link to PlosONE.

From the research article's abstract: "We detected 35 different pesticides in the sampled pollen, and found high fungicide loads. The insecticides esfenvalerate and phosmet were at a concentration higher than their median lethal dose in at least one pollen sample." (Pettis et al, 2013)

And the original source where I got the link from: here.

"Highlight":

'The pollen was contaminated on average with nine different pesticides and fungicides though scientists discovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample. Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated with increased risk of infection by the parasite called Nosema ceranae.' (here)

 

Glaciers flooding nearby towns

Never thought of this particular consequence of global climate change and warming, to be honest:

 

"Starting in July 2011, and each year since, sudden torrents of water shooting out from beneath the glacier have become a new facet of Juneau's brief, shimmering high summer season. In that first, and so far biggest, measured flood burst, an estimated 10 billion gallons gushed out in three days, threatening homes and property along the Mendenhall River that winds through part of the city. There have been at least two smaller bursts this year."

 

From: July 23 News: Melting Glaciers Across The Globe Experiencing 'Jokulhlaup,' Icelandic For 'Glacier Leap' (link)

 

 

Climate change is threatening Bangladesh's Millennium Development Goals two years before the goals' 2015 deadline. [Reuters] (Ibidem)

 

'Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy' (link)

Funny, food, de-re-forestation, desertification, floods, draughts, acidification do not even enter the title.
See, this is sort of what I talk about when I say value of Climate Change costs (from damages, adaptation or mitigation) might (harhar) end up higher than the money 'we have' as the world.

In relation to the news and the above, this comes to mind.

Obama's Climate Care

Some stuff changes. Some doesn't. China's role in the world is. USA's dealing with climate change isn't ... at least not as fast. 

Read below. It is encouraging, however, that a (black) US president is saying stuff like climate change being affected by human behaviour and climate emissions.

 

'President Barack Obama has stumbled on an unusual partner in his quest to combat climate change: China.' Josh Lederman |21.7.2013|
(1) http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/07/21/environment/obama-finds-unlikely-ally-in-climate-change-battle-china/

I have to say: how is carbon capture going to help us, in the long term? Besides prolonging the age of the fossil fuel consumption, how is having a time-bomb stored underground in an - if it leaks - atmosphere-accessible way, going to help us?
Seriously, people.
"They also agreed to team up on large-scale experiments with "carbon capture" — a technology that isolates carbon dioxide from power plant emissions so it can be safely stored." (Ibidem)

Some time ago (Nov, 2012, (1)) and less time ago (3), president Obama was making some big-ass statements. With little actual work.
'Obama Talks Climate Change During His First Post-Election Press Conference', Stephen Lacey |Nov 14, 2012|
"Obama's response in today's press conference shows that broad action on climate probably isn't very high up on the priority list at the moment. While he did say he wanted to do more on climate in his second term, Obama gave few specifics about what a plan might look like."
From source (2): http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/14/1191841/obama-talks-climate-change-during-his-first-post-election-press-conference/

Pic from the same source (2).

Whitehouse gave us a nice jpeg file online, after Obama's speech (5) on climate. 'President Obama's Plan to Fight Climate Change' (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)
(3): http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan

And now, for something (not) completely different:
'Billions spent in Obama climate plan may be virtually useless, study suggests' (July 18, 2013)
  Though I must say that you know, in theory, getting together paying 12 people to do some research for you should not be too hard in climate-sceptic abundant US&A. To me, it seems a bit like
this news is launched by the Big Oil. But then again, I offer no proof and it's just a minor feeling.
It would be worthy to see who pays and owns Fox news. Just saying.
Additionally, it has been shown in economics (though, I must say and point out, I cannot cite the source (!) at this time, as I forgot where it was that I read it)
that taxes work less well than monetary incentives for businesses and households. (One is negatively and the other one, positively charged and perceived.)

Highlights: biofuels VS gasoline, 'fracking' seems to be supported or at least not contradicted, 'more research needed to attribute the GHG reductions with government's actions', US army going green (see below), possibly more nuclear ("investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels to nuclear mini-reactors") and others.

"The Defense Department is committing to deploy about 3 gigawatts of solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy on military installations by 2025. Federal agencies intend to install 100 megawatts of additional renewable capacity in federally subsidized housing by 2020."

(4) Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/18/billions-spent-in-obama-climate-plan-may-be-virtually-useless-study-suggests/#ixzz2ZmR5XXDe

(5) President Obama's Climate Change Speech: Full Text: http://ens-newswire.com/2013/06/25/president-obamas-climate-change-speech-full-text/