+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12605
Total Topics: 255
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 0
Total: 1

Author Topic: Pollution  (Read 14280 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Suffering Oceans Get Biggest Donation Ever From Bloomberg
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2014, 06:57:51 pm »
02/28/2014 02:25 PM     

Suffering Oceans Get Biggest Donation Ever From Bloomberg

SustainableBusiness.com News

Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's foundation is making the largest philanthropic donation ever to help the world's oceans, specifically to reform fisheries management.

 Over the next five years, Bloomberg Philanthropies will donate  $53 million to nonprofits Oceana, Rare, and EKO, which will simultaneously attack persistent problems that plague our oceans and are leading to collapsing fish species across the world.

 Under the Vibrant Oceans Initiative, the three groups will focus on boosting fish populations in Chile, Brazil, and the Philippines, which better practices would revitalize 7% of the world's fisheries. Models developed there will hopefully turn into policies that can be applied to many other countries.

There are three major causes of overfishing:

•Industrial fishing is too big - ships can catch twice the fish that exist in the ocean! Inadequate or nonexistent quotas allow species to be depleted to the point where they can't recover  >:(

•industrial bottom trawling, dynamiting and cyanide fishing, which destroy complete habitats  >:(

•bycatch - capturing many unintended species including sea turtles and dolphins.
  >:(

"The good news is that marine ecosystems can rebound relatively quickly if caught in time. The factors that led to mismanagement must be addressed now to replenish fish populations and to help meet the dietary needs of a growing global population," says Bloomberg Philanthropies.   

These problems have been known for decades but have yet to be resolved. With over 80% of the world's fisheries either exploited or threatened, Oceana will work with national governments on policies that reform industrial fishing practices, such as science-based quotas and bycatch.

 Because 12 million local fisherman catch roughly the same amount of fish, Rare will simultaneously help local governments and coastal communities implement sustainable small-scale practices. One reform will be to offer exclusive fishing rights in exchange for creating marine preserves as California, Australia and Costa Rica have done.


 EKO Asset Management is developing an investment model where private capital can reward fisheries that transition to sustainable practices.
 

With the oceans reeling from absorbing much of humanity's carbon emissions, reigning in pressure on fish and their habitats is one of the few ways to make a difference. As climate change advances and it becomes harder to grow food on land, a healthy fish population could make a huge difference.

 Bloomberg Philanthropies has made the same $50 million commitment to end the reign of coal with the goal of shuttering a third of aging coal plants by 2020 in the US. Their other big environmental initiative is $20 million to help cities tackle climate change through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.

Another emerging threat to oceans is mass industrialization of deep sea ecosystems as people figure out how to mine for minerals there. "Without international cooperation with a focus on 'deep-ocean stewardship,' deep sea mining will follow the destructive examples set by commercial fishing and offshore fossil fuel operations, say scientists.

 Incredibly, a group called the International Seabed Authority has already issued 19 prospecting licenses to governments and private companies.  >:(

Graphic of  Marine Preserves in Northern California at link:

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25552
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
In “The Sixth Extinction,” Elizabeth Kolbert reports from the frontlines of a dying world :(

By Grist staff

The New Yorker writer and acclaimed author Elizabeth Kolbert has a penchant for depressing topics. Her 2006 book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, helped push climate change into the mainstream (with bonus points for not mincing words in the title).

Now that climate change is safely keeping most of us up at night, Kolbert turned her pen to another big bummer: the sixth extinction. We’re currently losing species at a rate of 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than unassisted nature wiping out the occasional newt. While humans weren’t responsible for the last five mass extinctions, our fingerprints are all over this one. Yep: We collectively have the force of an asteroid when it comes to erasing species (high five, guys!) and for the most part, our response has been classic Urkel.

Kolbert dropped by the Grist office to chat mass extinctions, climate inaction, and whether there’s any hope (short answer: no. long answer: probably not). Here’s an edited and condensed version of our conversation.

Q. How much do scientists attribute the current wave of extinctions to climate change versus things like deforestation or chemical pollution or invasive species?


book coverA. The fact of the matter is that there are probably, right now, no extinctions that can be directly attributed to climate change. But there are many extinctions that can be pretty directly attributed to invasive species. So if you are just chalking things up, invasive species definitely have a big place.

But people trying to looking into the future with things like modeling — which may or may not be correct, but we won’t necessarily be around to see it — tend to project that the climate is going to become a major driver of extinctions over this century, for all the obvious reasons.

Q. How do we stack up in the extinctions? Like, wow, the Permian extinction is way better, but we’re better than the Chicxulub crater. Are we close to being the best extinction?



A. Well, that’s an unanswerable question, but I will say that I’ve now had several very serious scientists say to me, “We cannot rule out an outcome like the end Permian extinction.” If that ain’t sobering, I don’t know what is.

Q. We’re No. 1?

A. The end Permian extinction was almost certainly caused by a huge CO2 release, and no one is quite sure from where. And the scope of it was quite enormous.

We’re not there yet, but if we burn through everything, I think we could get there. Are we capable of getting there? These are questions that no one can answer at this point.

Q. It wasn’t until the late 1700s or early 1800s that the concept of extinction was even thought about. What process led to that discovery? We now know that there have been five extinctions to date, so a lot has occurred in 200 years in terms of our awareness.


A. As Europeans colonized North America and South America, they found a lot of fossils. One of the major finds was in the 1730s by French soldiers who were going down the Ohio River. They come to this site in what’s now Kentucky and they find mastodon bones, which they shipped to Paris.

Mastodons are interestingly weird because they have tusks like elephants, but teeth like people. So they were very confused by this. People actually speculated that they were two animals that had died, like a hippo and an elephant. Since they didn’t even have this concept of extinction they couldn’t really get their minds around it. (Thomas Jefferson was quite convinced that Lewis and Clark were going to find mastodons.)

People played around with it for a long time until this French naturalist, who’s sort of a main character in the book, came along. [Georges Cuvier] made this (what we would consider) not very scientific observation that if these animals were out there, we would have seen them already, so they were gone. He made that logical leap of faith. And he was right! He was the first person to really theorize extinction.

Q. There have been five extinctions, and each time Mother Nature has brought things back in a different direction — so can’t you see some hope in that? It may not involve humans.

A. If you take the really long view, yeah. Really long. Super long. People make this point about the planet. Well, the non-living planet will be fine. Even most microbial life will be fine, and what are we worried about? Vertebrates? People have said to me, “If the dinosaurs hadn’t been done in, we wouldn’t be here.” That is most certainly true, yeah, but it did take 66 million years, and for a while if you’d been around — I wasn’t there — it would have been pretty grim.

The end Permian didn’t do in life on Earth, and we will not do in life on Earth, but I think most people have a hard time seeing that — something that not even their most distant descendants will be around to see — as a hopeful thing. Geologists take that sort of view.

Q. On the scale of bummed-outed-ness, which one of your books caused you to be the most depressed? Your previous book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, is probably one of the most important books written on climate change to date, and really helped introduced the topic to a whole new range of readers.


A. For Field Notes, I interviewed a lot of the country’s top climate scientists, and they all agree that [climate change] is a pretty clear and present danger to human society. And yet, we can’t seem to come to terms with that at all. So it seemed to me that a species that can’t even do the sort of things that seem to be called for, for its own self, is that species really going to do the things called for everything else on the planet?

It’s maybe a little bit of writerly vanity — you say, OK, I’m going to put this out there and it true and it’s going to make a difference. The same year that my book came out, An Inconvenient Truth came out. It had a huge impact, but — what happened? Nothing happened. So I was already pretty bummed out, I guess.

Q.  You visited different natural places around the world. What was your favorite thing that you encountered?

A.  I’d say the most astonishing place I went was the Great Barrier Reef. I got to go to this very tiny island — the islands on the Reef are built out of the reef, the height of a table, basically, they’re very low and they’re all made out of coral — and they’re spectacularly beautiful. This tiny little research station was on this island. Going out on the reef — you know, you see nature movies and stuff — it’s even better than the nature movies. Unfortunately I don’t dive, but even just snorkeling was amazing. You never have access to that on land, you never see that many different living creatures. Even if you were in the middle of the Amazon, you’d just see leaves! But when you’re looking underwater, it’s just spectacular. And as you know — I was out there with a bunch of scientists studying ocean acidification — the prognosis for reefs is really, really grim.

Q. You also write about some efforts to save species. Could you share some of those?


A. I happened to go to the San Diego Zoo, where they have a very impressive conservation program. I was there to see something called the “frozen zoo.” It’s just a bunch of vats of liquid nitrogen with cell lines from, in many cases, highly endangered animals and, in one case, an animal that doesn’t exist anymore, a Hawaiian bird. The idea is pretty much what it sounds like: You have these cell lines, you’re going to keep them alive forever, and eventually people are going to figure out how to resurrect some of these species. Or maybe if you don’t want to go quite that sci-fi, we’ll take the cell lines, we’ll do a DNA analysis, we’ll try to figure out why this population is having trouble.

They took me to see this bird named Kinohi, one of the last Hawaiian crows. He’s “reluctant to part with his genetic material,” let’s put it that way. He had been taken from this breeding facility on Maui to San Diego, and he is ministered to by a PhD physiologist who is trying to, let’s say, pleasure this bird, so that he will give up some sperm, so she can artificially inseminate a bird back in Maui. When I visited he had not yet, you know, come through. She was literally preparing to try again — I don’t know if it has ever worked, I should call her.

That was really, to me, emblematic of this crazy situation we find ourselves in. We’re incredibly smart, we’ve figured out how to freeze cell lines and quite possibly bring back extinct animals — we’re willing to pleasure crows. And yet, the Hawaiian Islands are called the extinction capital of the planet — it’s an absolutely devastated ecosystem. Many, many birds are extinct already; those that aren’t are just clinging to existence. Those forces are not changing and, in fact, things are getting worse. There used to be no mosquitoes in Hawaii; there are now mosquitoes. They carry avian malaria, and as the climate warms, avian malaria is moving up the slopes so that even these refugees species that are high on the mountains are increasingly not there. A lot of birds are in terrible trouble there.

All of these things are happening at once and, once again, they’re all true. People are devoting a lot of time and energy and love to trying to preserve these species, and meanwhile the world is increasingly screwed up. So that is how I end the book: They can both be true; it’s not one or the other.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/in-the-sixth-extinction-elizabeth-kolbert-reports-from-the-frontlines-of-a-dying-world/
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 268
Re: Pollution
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2014, 06:59:56 am »
Have you watched any of "Years of Living dangerously" yet?

Just spinning up to speed on what is happening with deforestation in Indonesia alone tends to put a sober global perspective on things. I had no idea of the scope of the destruction, not its impact on global warming, prior to viewing that.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Pollution
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2014, 06:20:48 pm »
Yep. I watched the first one. Good stuff there. 

The first full show is on u-tube. That may be the only one I get to see because I don't have, or want, cable. So, if and when the other 8 parts get to u-tube or some other free forum, please let me know.
Your cheapskate friend,
Agelbert  ;D

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg919/#msg919
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 268
Re: Pollution
« Reply #51 on: April 26, 2014, 11:02:41 am »
Quote from: AG
Yep. I watched the first one. Good stuff there.   

The first full show is on u-tube. That may be the only one I get to see because I don't have, or want, cable. So, if and when the other 8 parts get to u-tube or some other free forum, please let me know.
Your cheapskate friend,
Agelbert  ;D

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg919/#msg919

I watched the first two on cable, but I'll try to keep an eye out.

BTW, does your "quote" function work properly-- or is is just my browser?

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Pollution
« Reply #52 on: April 26, 2014, 02:13:31 pm »
I watched the first two on cable, but I'll try to keep an eye out.

BTW, does your "quote" function work properly-- or is is just my browser?

It's still a pain. You have to right click on "quote", then "open in new tab" and copy the quote in the new tab to your reply like I just did.   :(

El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Shocking Success! Supreme Court Rules For Clean Air
« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2014, 03:43:19 pm »
Shocking Success! Supreme Court Rules For Clean Air  ;D




SustainableBusiness.com News

 Given the decisions issued by the US Supreme Court of late, today's ruling that upholds a critical EPA rule is pleasantly shocking.

 In another 6-2 vote, the court ruled in favor of EPA's Cross-State Pollution rule, issued in 2011, which would regulate emissions that travel from coal-heavy states in the Midwest and Appalachia to eastern states that have cleaner air.

 Should a coal plant in Ohio be able to pollute New York's air, for example? Besides sending polluted air their way, it also makes it unfairly harder for states to meet federal ambient air quality standards.


Coal emissions


When it finally goes into effect, an estimated 240 million Americans will benefit from cleaner air.    It cuts sulfur dioxide emissions across the US by 73% (compared with 2005 levels)  and nitrogen oxide emissions by 54%.

 Both pollutants can travel long distances, forming smog and soot, which are linked to respiratory illnesses and other disease. It is expected to save 34,000 lives each year and prevent 400,000 asthma attacks, for example. Overall, the economic and health benefits are in the range of $120 billion to $280 billion in exchange for an $800 million investment by the coal industry. 

Today's vote reverses the US Court of Appeals ruling against the EPA, brought by guess who - coal companies and utilities that use lots of coal, such as Southern Company and Peabody Energy. 14 "upwind" states challenged the rule, while "downwind" states defended it.

In writing the majority decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls the rule a "permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation" of the "good neighbor" provision of the federal Clean Air Act.   



Learn more about the Cross-State Pollution rule:

 
Website: www.epa.gov/airtransport/

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25677
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch
« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2014, 03:56:35 pm »
http://www.seafoodwatch.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_whatsnew.aspx?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoksqvJZKXonjHpfsX66OgpXaO3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4CT8FkI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFS7jNMbZkz7gOXRE%3D

Quote
Why are farmed Atlantic salmon rated “Avoid”?

The salmon farming industry has made improvements in the past decade to reduce its environmental impact, but additional work is needed in order to address remaining concerns. Though the scope of problems varies by country, chemical use and disease are two areas of environmental concern that exist across each assessment.

Salmon farmed in open net pens are highly vulnerable to infection from diseases, or parasites such as sea lice, and as a result require treatment with antibiotics and pesticides. The use of antibiotics in salmon farms increases the risk of antibiotic resistance in human diseases, and there is a high concern regarding the use of antibiotics that are listed as critically or highly important to human health by the World Health Organization.

Sea lice parasites and viral and bacterial diseases can be passed between farmed fish and wild fish populations, and are a high concern in Norway, Scotland and British Columbia where wild salmon or sea trout populations are vulnerable to such impact.


What salmon should I buy? 

Seafood Watch has published recommendations regarding a range of salmon options, from wild to farmed. View our salmon recommendations here (at link).

For what other countries or regions is Seafood Watch assessing farmed salmon?

The four regions assessed represent the large majority of global farmed salmon, but Seafood Watch is currently working to complete assessments for other regions that supply significant amounts of farmed salmon to the U.S. market: the Atlantic coast of North America (Atlantic salmon farmed on the U.S. and Canadian east coasts), New Zealand (Pacific King salmon) and the Faroe Islands (Atlantic salmon).


Why is Verlasso® farmed salmon from Chile rated a “Good Alternative”?

Verlasso® farm operations use a unique feed ingredient that reduces its dependence on fish oil and fishmeal from wild-caught fish sources, but the main reasons for the “Good Alternative” recommendation are that the fish are stocked in the pens at lower densities than in other open-net pen operations and documents show both limited pollution (effluent) levels at its farms, and lower use of antibiotics than the industry average in Chile.

More good info here:

http://www.seafoodwatch.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/Farmed_Salmon_FactSheet.pdf



El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
The Time for Wind and Solar Energy Is Now
« Reply #55 on: May 04, 2014, 04:34:16 pm »
The Time for Wind and Solar Energy Is Now


 Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists 
 May 01, 2014

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) latest report, which explores ways to cut carbon emissions, put the world on notice. Despite efforts in the United States, Europe and developing countries such as China to ramp up energy efficiency and renewable energy, global carbon emissions have been increasing at a much faster clip than they were just a few decades ago. To avoid the worst of the worst, IPCC scientists say emissions will have to be reduced 40 percent to 70 percent by 2050 and warn that we only have a 15-year window to reverse course.

"We cannot afford to lose another decade," said Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist who co-chaired the committee that wrote the report. "If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization."

As Edenhofer points out, the cost of doing nothing likely would dwarf whatever we might spend today to address climate change. That said, it makes the most sense to replace fossil fuels with the most cost-effective, safest, carbon-free and low-carbon options that can be deployed as quickly as possible.

For the biggest source of U.S. carbon pollution — electric utilities — the best solution is wind, solar and other renewable energy technologies, which, according to the new IPCC report, "have achieved a level of technical and economic maturity to enable deployment at a significant scale." In other words, renewables are now a lot cheaper and better than they were when the last IPCC report came out seven years ago.

Nuclear Not Economic

What about nuclear power? Although it now provides the most carbon-free electricity in the country, without a national carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, it's not economic, even with more than 50 years of generous federal subsidies.

Over the last decade, the estimated price tag for a new reactor has skyrocketed, jumping from $2 billion in 2002 to as high as $12 billion today. Wall Street won't finance a project unless Uncle Sam co-signs the loan, which leaves taxpayers on the hook if a project fails. So while Southern Company and its partners, with the help of an $8.3 billion federally guaranteed loan, are building two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia, it's unlikely the industry will be able to muster more than two or three more in the next decade. As recently as five years ago, utilities applied for licenses to build more than 25 new reactors.

At the same time the nuclear industry's hoped-for renaissance has fizzled, older reactors are shutting down. Four reactors closed last year because of prohibitively expensive safety upgrades or competition from cheaper energy sources, namely natural gas and wind. Economics will close a fifth reactor, Vermont Yankee, this fall, and the nation's largest nuclear plant operator, Exelon, said in February that unless market conditions improve, it will announce plant closings by the end of this year.

Wind, Solar More Affordable


Unlike new reactors, the cost of solar and wind has dropped dramatically. Solar panel prices have plummeted more than 75 percent since 2008, and the cost of generating electricity from wind turbines declined more than 40 percent over the past three years, sparking a construction boom. Last year, solar installations in the United States amounted to a record 5.1 gigawatts, boosting the national total to nearly 13 gigawatts -- enough to power nearly 2.2 million typical American homes. And by the end of December, there were enough wind turbines across the country to power 15.5 million homes and cut annual electric power sector carbon emissions by 4.4 percent.

Given solar and wind's exponential growth, experts see tremendous potential. The Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), for example,projects that wind and solar could produce 15 percent of U.S. electricity by 2020, 27 percent by 2030, and 50 percent by 2050.

Still, naysayers harp on the fact that wind and solar power are intermittent. The sun doesn't always shine, they say, and the wind doesn't always blow. That may be true, but it's not a deal-breaker. Studies by NREL and electricity grid operators in the United States and Europe conclude that larger contributions from solar and wind would not create significant technological problems or impose higher costs.

"Meeting demand in the face of variability and uncertainty is old hat for grid operators," said Mike Jacobs, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) who used to work at NREL. "They're already doing it with wind and solar here in the United States and in Europe.

"Besides, spreading wind and solar installations over a large enough area would help address the intermittency issue," he added. "The wind is always blowing somewhere, and if we increased the percentage of wind and solar to 30 percent — which we should be able to do within the next 15 years — the system's flexibility to manage supply and demand, along with a updated grid, should be able to integrate that power."

Renewables Provide More Resilience

Ramping up renewables not only would cut carbon emissions, it also would diversify the national electricity system and make it more resilient, according to a new UCS report. That system — which includes power plants, transmission lines and fuel delivery networks — was not designed to withstand all of today's extreme weather events, many of which have been linked to climate change.

Sea level rise, for example, threatens nearly 100 coastal electricity facilities, including power plants and substations, the UCS report found. Water temperature and availability also pose major problems. Older coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants rely on a "once-through" cooling process that draws hundreds of millions, if not billions, of gallons of water daily from the closest water body. When that river, lake or ocean gets too hot, which is happening with greater frequency, the plants have to cut back production or shut down temporarily. Likewise, droughts can substantially reduce water availability, while flooding from extreme rainfall can overwhelm a plant, as it did in June 2011 when a record-breaking Missouri River flood forced the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant near Omaha to remain shut down after a scheduled refueling outage two months earlier.

Renewables don't suffer from the same limitations. Rooftop solar panels and wind turbines, for instance, rely on smaller, more distributed units, which make it less likely that extreme weather events would have the same dramatic impact. Moreover, renewables are less vulnerable to drought and heat because they don't require water.

Let's Stop Subsidizing Fossil Fuels


To get where we need to go, the federal government has to turn its outdated energy subsidy policy on its head. The oil and gas industry has been enjoying average annual subsidies and tax breaks of $4.86 billion in today's dollars since 1918, according to a 2011 analysis by DBL Investors, a venture capital firm. The nuclear industry, DBL found, benefited from an average of $3.5 billion a year in subsidies from 1947 to 1999. And coal, which has been getting federal and state subsidies since the early 1800s, currently receives at least $3.2 billion a year, according to a 2011 Harvard study.

Renewables, on the other hand, averaged only $370 million a year in subsidies between 1994 and 2009, according to DBL. The 2009 stimulus package did provide $21 billion for renewables, but that support barely began to balance the scales that still tilt toward fossil fuels. Just last December, for example, Congress allowed a key wind industry tax break toexpire, but it continues to support massive subsidies for coal, oil and gas.

Americans represent less than 5 percent of the world's population, but we're responsible for 19 percent of the world's carbon emissions. Despite the fact that China surpassed us as the world's top carbon emitter in 2006, we're still the worst offenders per capita. So after subsidizing coal for more than 200 years and oil and gas for nearly 100 — which inadvertently got us into this mess — it's long past time to take fossil fuels off the dole and go all out to promote renewables. Fifteen years is just around the corner.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/the-time-for-wind-and-solar-energy-is-now
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Pollution
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2014, 10:56:34 pm »
Stanford Student Movement Inspires University’s $18.7 Billion Divestment From Coal    ;D


http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/07/stanford-divestment-coal/
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Warren Buffett to Close One of Nation’s Dirtiest Coal Plants in Favor of Solar Energy


Brandon Baker | May 8, 2014 12:20 pm     

One of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the U.S. will soon shut down, thanks to a well-known billionaire and previously passed legislation.

As part of its acquisition of Nevada’s largest utility, NV Energy, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway also inherited Reid Gardner, a 557-megawatt (MW), coal-fired energy plant near Las Vegas. The massive structure, which has a history of recognition among the country’s dirtiest carbon polluters, won’t be a lasting legacy of NV’s profile.

NV plans on shutting down three of Reid Gardner’s units that generate about 300 MW by the end of this year, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The remaining 257 MW would be closed by the end of 2017. In all, the company wants to end all of its coal operations by 2019.


Coal-fired plants will soon be a thing of the past for NV Energy   

As The Atlantic points out, the utility’s decision is tied to state legislation passed last year requiring the company to eliminate 800 MW of coal energy in favor of renewables. That passage was influenced by years of fighting for cleaner air by the Moapa Band of Paiutes, a Native American community that lives near Reid Gardner.

The state utilities commission has 180 days to approve the plan, which would also include a new solar project totaling 200 MW of clean energy on the Moapa Band of Paiutes reservation. The land is about 70,000 acres and has enough to space to also support the 1.5 gigawatts of renewable energy the Moapa Band of Paiute wants to construct through a joint venture announced last year with Terrible Herbst Inc. and Stronghold Engineering Inc.

“This is going to provide a strong economic base for the tribe,” Sandy King, director of renewable-energy project development at Stronghold, told Renewable Energy World.

Last fall, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a limit of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour for new coal plants.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/08/warren-buffett-coal-plants-solar-energy/
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26723
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Pollution
« Reply #59 on: May 12, 2014, 01:24:09 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: ANOTHER "cheap" FOSSIL FUELS MEGA DOLLAR SUBSIDY  >:(  BITES THE DUST!  ;D

Legal trifecta!

Another big EPA court victory — this time on soot pollution
 





By John Upton

http://grist.org/news/another-big-epa-court-victory-this-time-on-soot-pollution/
El viento sopla de donde quiere, y oyes su sonido; mas ni sabes de dónde viene, ni a dónde va;
así es todo aquel que es nacido del Espíritu. Juan 2:8

 

+-Recent Topics

Non-routine News by AGelbert
July 19, 2019, 12:50:14 pm

Future Earth by Surly1
July 19, 2019, 07:55:07 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
July 19, 2019, 07:10:15 am

Carbon Neutral Buildings by AGelbert
July 19, 2019, 12:32:32 am

Science by AGelbert
July 18, 2019, 11:43:58 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
July 18, 2019, 10:37:33 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
July 18, 2019, 10:22:25 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
July 18, 2019, 09:51:02 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
July 17, 2019, 11:34:47 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
July 17, 2019, 11:26:08 pm