Category Archives: global climate change

Water Out of the Tailpipe: A New Class of Electric Car Gains Traction

In California, state subsidies for hydrogen filling stations are encouraging clean-energy advocates to try fuel-cell vehicles. Read More:   Water Out of the Tailpipe: A New Class of Electric Car Gains Traction ; ; ;

See the original article here: 

Water Out of the Tailpipe: A New Class of Electric Car Gains Traction

Posted in alo, cannabis, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, organic, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Water Out of the Tailpipe: A New Class of Electric Car Gains Traction

Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto Focus on Climate, Both Political and Global

The three North American leaders met in Ottawa, focusing on climate change and the ripples from Britain’s vote, and disavowed nativist political currents. More:  Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto Focus on Climate, Both Political and Global ; ; ;

Read more: 

Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto Focus on Climate, Both Political and Global

Posted in alo, Brita, cannabis, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto Focus on Climate, Both Political and Global

American Drivers Regain Appetite for Gas Guzzlers

Setting aside concerns about global warming, consumers are unloading hybrid and electric vehicles in favor of bigger cars, pickups and S.U.V.s. Link to article:   American Drivers Regain Appetite for Gas Guzzlers ; ; ;

Read this article: 

American Drivers Regain Appetite for Gas Guzzlers

Posted in Anker, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on American Drivers Regain Appetite for Gas Guzzlers

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

green4us

“He’s talking about rolling back the clock, which I think is very dangerous.” Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock A couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump took a stage in Bismarck, North Dakota, and laid out his vision for addressing climate change and energy issues should he win the White House. It was about what you might expect from a candidate who has previously claimed that global warming is a hoax invented by Chinese bureaucrats to disadvantage US manufacturers. He railed against the historic global agreement on climate change struck in Paris last year, called President Barack Obama’s cornerstone climate policy “stupid,” and said that his administration “will focus on real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been looking at.” Though after he fulfills his promise to dismantle the “Department of Environmental,” it is hard to imagine how he would make that happen. The Washington Post called Trump’s proposals “dangerous and nonsensical,” and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey and head of the Environmental Protection Agency during George W. Bush’s first term, agreed. Whitman has always been a bit of a nonconformist among conservatives on climate change: She pushed hard for Bush to let the United States join the Kyoto Protocol, the last significant stab at global climate action prior to Paris, and she infamously told the Post that she left the EPA after coming under intense pressure from then-Vice President Dick Cheney to implement lax regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants. These days, she co-chairs the CASEnergy Coalition, an educational coalition that promotes the use of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. In earlier, more innocent days of the Republican primary race, she endorsed Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Now she “will not vote for Trump,” but is on the fence about Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nominee, she said, “has real flaws, but hers are more within the normal parameters we’re used to. Trump’s are way outside, as far as I’m concerned.” I had a chat with Gov. Whitman about the threat Trump’s candidacy poses to Obama’s climate legacy and why his energy “plan” makes no sense: Climate Desk: What did you make of Trump’s energy speech in North Dakota? Christine Whitman: Not surprised, but disappointed. I don’t think he has a full grasp, not surprisingly, of the issues. He’s taking moves that I believe are totally contrary to the health and well-being of the country and the citizens, when you talk about walking away from [the Paris Agreement], when you talk about having a need to restart coal plants. He should know that the reason a lot of the coal plants are shutting down now has nothing to do with environmental regulations and everything to do with economics and the low price of natural gas, which he also wants to encourage. So those two things run counter to one another in a way. He’s talking about rolling back the clock, which I think is very dangerous. CD: Trump’s comments on climate and energy might seem radical, but aren’t they really just a more extreme, less articulate version of sentiments we hear from Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans frequently: Climate change isn’t a threat, we need to save coal and the fossil fuel industry, etc.? CW: Well, first of all, environmental protection is a Republican issue. The first president to set aside public land was Lincoln. It was Nixon who established, with a Democratic Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency. This is in our DNA. Conservation is inherently conservative, and it should be something that we embrace. So I would like to see Republicans understand this and also recognize facts. You can have economic growth and a clean and green environment. We’ve done it. It’s not a zero-sum game. They’ve just got to get off this attitude that you can’t have them both at the same time. [During the Nixon era] the public said, “We don’t like being told not to go outside from 10 to 4 because of bad air quality,” and “We don’t like seeing our land turned into a garbage dump.” That’s what drove Congress and the president to actually take action. To walk away from [environmental issues] is a very dangerous political move, if nothing else, because the public still doesn’t want dirty air and dirty water and trashed land. You really don’t have any credible scientists who say that climate change isn’t occurring, and you don’t have any credible scientists who say humans don’t play a role. If you want to ignore it, you do so at your peril. CD: And yet, here we are with a Republican nominee for president who is a climate change denier. What do you think the effect of Trump’s candidacy on Obama’s climate legacy will be? Is he lending a sense of urgency to formally finalize the Paris Agreement? CW: Well, I hope he’s not representative of the party as a whole. I mean, he’s off the charts as far as what you can expect him to do or say. He is scaring other countries, and that’s pushing a desire to get [the Paris Agreement] done while we can—and make it that much harder for him to roll back. He says he’s going to roll back a lot of things, but he can’t do it. He’s not an emperor, but he doesn’t seem to get it. He is going to try to push the powers of the presidency, the boundaries. He doesn’t seem to understand the Constitution or really care much about it. But still, some of those who oppose taking dramatic action [on climate change] in India or in China are saying, “Wait a minute, the United States is going to back out. Do we still want to be a part of this?” So it’s making it much more difficult and confusing for people. CD: What are you hoping to see from the candidates on climate change as the election moves forward? CW: Truth? I hope they don’t get into it. [An election] is the worst time to discuss serious policy, because people politicize everything. I really don’t want to see a deep dive into climate change or into these issues, other than a recognition that they exist, that they’re important, and that we have to take action. Right now, on every issue, the extremes are pushing the agendas. What I’m really scared about is that people get dug in too far. And they’ll have to move further to the left, further to the right, the lines will get harder, and then once someone is elected there will be an inability to move back to the center or to really get things done. We all know that people will say things during campaigns that they don’t really mean. Or they’ll be willing, when they come into office, to look at what the reality is. So when they get in, if they’ve really painted themselves into a corner, then we’re not going to be able to have the kind of discussion that we need to get these issues solved.

See original article:

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Related Posts

Obama’s Budget Calls for Billions in Climate Funding
13 Tweets That Definitively Prove That Donald Trump Is Not a Scientist
Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill
BREAKING: President Obama Will Veto Congress’ Keystone XL Pipeline Bill
Scientists Bash EPA’s Take On Burning Wood For Power
Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution

Share this:






View original article – 

Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Posted in Black & Decker, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, Oster, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even George W. Bush’s Environment Chief Thinks Trump’s Energy Plan Is Bonkers

Should We Respond to Climate Change Like We Did to WWII?

green4us

The controversial theory of “climate mobilization” says we should. War Production Co-ordinating Committee/Wikimedia Commons This story was originally published by The New Republic. On December 7, 1941, Japan’s surprise attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor killed more than 2,000 people and drew the country into World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the War Production Board to oversee the mobilization, as factories that once produced civilian goods began churning out tanks, warplanes, ships, and armaments. Food, gasoline, even shoes were rationed, and the production of cars, vacuum cleaners, radios, and sewing machines was halted (the steel, rubber, and glass were needed for the war industries). Similar mobilizations occurred in England and the Soviet Union. Today, some environmentalists want to see a similarly massive effort in response to a different type of existential threat: climate change. These proponents of climate mobilization call for the federal government to use its power to reduce carbon emissions to zero as soon as possible, an economic shift no less substantial and disruptive than during WWII. New coal-fired power plants would be banned, and many existing ones shut down; offshore drilling and fracking might also cease. Meat and livestock production would be drastically reduced. Cars and airplane factories would instead produce solar panels, wind turbines, and other renewable energy equipment. Americans who insisted on driving and flying would face steeper taxes. Though climate mobilization has existed as a concept for as many as 50 years, it’s only now entering the mainstream. Green group The Climate Mobilization pushed the idea during a protest at the April 22 signing of the Paris Agreement. On April 27, Senators Barbara Boxer and Richard Durbin introduced a bill Despite these inroads, climate mobilization remains a fringe idea. Its supporters don’t entirely agree on the answers to key questions, such as: What will trigger this mobilization—a catastrophic event or global alliance? Who will lead this global effort? When will the mobilization start? And perhaps the greatest hurdle isn’t logistical or technical, but psychological: convincing enough people that climate change is a greater threat to our way of life than even the Axis powers were. Lester Brown, environmentalist and founder of the Earth Policy Institute and Worldwatch Institute, says he first introduced climate mobilization in the late 1960s. His approach is holistic—and ambitious. “Mobilizing to save civilization means restructuring the economy, restoring its natural systems, eradicating poverty, stabilizing population and climate, and, above all, restoring hope,” he wrote in his 2008 book, Plan B 3.0. Brown proposes carbon and gas taxes, and pricing goods to account for their carbon and health costs. In his “great mobilization,” all electricity would come from renewable energy. Plant-based diets would replace meat-centric ones. According to Brown, this new economy would be much more labor-intensive, employing droves of people in services like renewable energy and in compulsory youth and voluntary senior service corps. Brown also advises the creation of a Department of Global Security, which would divert funds from the U.S. defense budget and offer development assistance to “failed states,” (he cites countries such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Iraq) where climate change’s impact on available natural resources will exacerbate political instability. This may sound far-fetched, but Brown believes we’re at a tipping point for climate mobilization. The economy is increasingly favoring renewables over fossil fuels, and grassroots campaigns like the Divestment Movement are gaining steam. Any number of circumstances could push the globe over the edge toward mobilization: severe droughts that create conflicts over water, or the accumulation of climate catastrophes from raging fires to hurricanes. When we cross over, Brown told me, “suddenly everything starts to move. … We’re just going to be surprised at how fast this transition goes.” For environmentalists who’ve seized upon Brown’s idea, the transition has not been fast enough. They’ve tailored their plans to include more explicit links to the war effort and a new sense of urgency. In 2009, Paul Gilding, the former executive director of Greenpeace International and a member of the Climate Mobilization’s advisory board, and Norwegian climate strategist Jorgen Randers published an article outlining “The One Degree War Plan.” The authors set out a three-phase, 100-year proposal for healing the planet, beginning with a five-year “Climate War.” In that first phase, a cadre of powerful countries—the United States, China, and the European Union, for example—would act first, forming a “Coalition of the Cooling” that would eventually pull the rest of the globe along with them. Governments would launch the mobilization and reduce emissions by at least 50 percent. One thousand coal plants would close. A wind or solar plant would blossom in every town. Carbon would be buried deep in the soil through carbon sequestration. Rooftops and other slanting surfaces would be painted white to increase reflectivity and avoid heat absorption from the sun, which makes buildings and entire cities more energy-intensive to cool. Later, a Climate War Command would distribute funds, impose tariffs, and make sure global strategy is “harmonized.” According to the paper, this Climate War should start as early as 2018. Much has changed since the release of Brown’s Plan B 3.0. Months after Gilding and Randers published “The One Degree War Plan,” climate negotiators faced the crushing defeat of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where delegates left without toothy commitments. The world has experienced one record-breaking temperature after another, and two of the three global coral bleachings on record. Last year’s climate conference in Paris was a relative success, as an unprecedented number of countries proposed plans to cut their emissions. And although the final agreement won’t bind countries legally, the consent to meetings every five years to consider ramping up commitments and the efforts of groups like the “high ambition coalition,” which pushed for a legally binding agreement, showed progress. But even before the ink dried, environmentalists and some politicians condemned the wishy-washy language and limp goals. Leaving the fate of the planet up to such diplomacy has “always been a delusion—one that I had, by the way,” says Gilding. “In that diplomatic world they have a notion of political realism which is quite separate from physical reality,” says Philip Sutton, a member of The Climate Mobilization’s advisory board and a strategist for an Australian group advocating a full transition to a sustainable economy. “The physical reality is now catching up with us.” To compare the fight against climate change to WWII may sound hyperbolic to some, but framing it in such stark, dramatic terms could help awaken the public to that “physical reality”—and appeal to Americans less inclined to worry about the environment. “It’s not tree hugging—it’s muscular, it’s patriotic,” said Margaret Klein Salamon, director and co-founder of The Climate Mobilization. “We’re calling on America to lead the world and to be heroic and courageous like we once were.” When Salamon began working on the group that would become the Climate Mobilization, she was earning her PhD in clinical psychology. “I view it as a psychological issue. What we need to do is achieve the mentality that the United States achieved the day after the Pearl Harbor attacks,” Salamon said. “Before that there had been just rampant denial and isolationism.” Indeed, climate denial is still pervasive. Only 73 percent of registered U.S. voters believe global warming is even occurring according to the most recent survey. Only 56 percent think climate change is caused mostly by human activity. It’s going to take a catastrophe much worse than Hurricane Katrina or Sandy to alter public opinion to the degree necessary for a climate mobilization—and even then, achieving that war mentality may be impossible. “We’re good at fighting wars. … We fight wars on drugs and wars on poverty and wars on terrorism,” says David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College. “That becomes kind of the standard metaphor or analogy for action.” But climate change is “more like solving a quadratic equation. We have to get a lot of things right.” There are other reasons the war analogy doesn’t hold up. WWII mobilization was prompted by a sudden, immediate threat and was expected to have a limited time span, whereas the threat of climate change has been increasing for years and stretches in front of us forever. But perhaps the biggest difference is that our enemies in WWII were clear and easy to demonize. There is no Hitler or Mussolini of climate change, and those responsible for it are not foreign powers on distant shores. As Orr says, “We’ve met the enemy and he is us.” that would allow the Treasury to sell $200 million each year in climate change bonds modeled after WWII War Bonds. Bernie Sanders has mentioned mobilization on the campaign trail and in a debate. And Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced last week that if she’s elected, she plans to install a “Climate Map Room” in the White House inspired by the war map room used by Roosevelt during World War II.

See original:

Should We Respond to Climate Change Like We Did to WWII?

Related Posts

How Screwed Are Your State’s Oysters?
WATCH: Drought-Hardy Barley Could Save Your Beer
Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution
Forget the Oil Industry’s Methane. Obama Should Crack Down on Cows Instead.
Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill, and This Democratic Presidential Hopeful Is Pissed
Are We About to Say Goodbye to Fish Sticks?

Share this:






See original article here:  

Should We Respond to Climate Change Like We Did to WWII?

Posted in alo, cannabis, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, global climate change, growing marijuana, Hagen, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar panels, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should We Respond to Climate Change Like We Did to WWII?

20 Percent of Plant Species Could Go Extinct

green4us

Climate change, deforestation, and pollution are wreaking havoc on the Earth’s vegetation. djgis/Shutterstock One out of every five plant species on Earth is now threatened with extinction. That’s the disturbing conclusion of a major report released this week by scientists at Britain’s Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. The planet’s vegetation—from grasslands to deserts to tropical rainforests—is being hit hard by human activity. And deforestation, pollution, agriculture, and climate change are all playing a role. The sliver of good news, though, is that some researchers are hopeful that people will be able to act in time to avert the worst of the impending crisis. “I am reasonably optimistic,” said Kathy Willis, Kew’s science director, in an interview with our partners at the Guardian. “Once you know [about a problem], you can do something about it. The biggest problem is not knowing.” But others take a darker view. “Regardless of what humans do to the climate, there will still be a rock orbiting the sun,” said University of Hawaii scientist Hope Jahren in a recent interview with Indre Viskotas on the Inquiring Minds podcast. Jahren is a geobiologist—she studies how the earth (“geo”) and life (“bio”) come together to shape our world. “I’m interested in how the parts of the planet that aren’t alive—rocks and rivers and rain and clouds—turn into the…parts of the world that are alive: leaves and moss and the things that eat those things,” she explains. And what she’s seeing isn’t good. “We are already seeing extinctions,” she says. “We’re already seeing the balance of who can thrive and who can’t thrive in…the plant world radically shifted. In a lot of ways, I think that train has passed.” You can listen to her full interview below: Jahren, who is the author of a new book called Lab Girl, was recently included onTime magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people. She’s also an outspoken voice for gender equality and the fight against sexual harassment and assault in the scientific community. Part of Jahren’s work has focused on reconstructing the climate of the Eocene, the geologic epoch that lasted from about 56 million years ago to about 34 million years ago. In the middle of that period, about 45 million years ago, the world was so warm that massive deciduous forests were growing above the Arctic Circle—despite the fact that, as Jahren points out, the region saw little-to-no sunshine for part of the year. Jahren and her colleagues study fossilized plant tissues left over from these ancient forests in order to understand how the climatic factors of the time—light levels, atmospheric composition, water, etc.—combined to “make possible this life in the darkness.” She compares her work to investigating a crime scene. “Almost anything you come upon could have information in it,” she says. Jahren’s description of a lush Arctic full of plants and animals is striking. Imagining that world, she says, is “a really neat thing to do when you’re…juxtaposing that image against that fact that you’re near the North Pole, and there’s not a soul in sight for thousands of miles, and there’s not a green thing in sight for hundreds of miles.” That may be one of the reasons why she speaks so passionately about environmental destruction in the present day. “The world breaks a little bit every time we cut down a tree,” she says. “It’s so much easier to cut one down than to grow one. And so it’s worth interrogating every time we do it.” In the end, though, Jahren isn’t sure that science will lead humanity to make better decisions about the planet. Instead, she says, “I think my job is to leave some evidence for future generations that there was somebody who cared while we were destroying everything.” Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes orRSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow, like us on Facebook, and check out show notes and other cool stuff on Tumblr.

Jump to original: 

20 Percent of Plant Species Could Go Extinct

Related Posts

There’s a Horrifying Amount of Plastic in the Ocean. This Chart Shows Who’s to Blame.
Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution
Brooklyn Botanic Garden Defends Decision to Suspend Science Program
China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando
Climate Change is Clear and Present Danger, Says Landmark US Report
This Major Newspaper Just Declared War on Fossil Fuels

Share this:






View this article: 

20 Percent of Plant Species Could Go Extinct

Posted in bamboo, Brita, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Landmark, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Paradise, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 20 Percent of Plant Species Could Go Extinct

There’s worrying volcano news. But could that be good climate news?

There’s worrying volcano news. But could that be good climate news?

By on May 11, 2016Share

If you, like me, have Google alerts for the terms “volcano,” “earthquake,” “end of days,” and “survivalist cult now accepting applications,” the recent news that both Mount St. Helens and Yellowstone’s supervolcano are showing signs of activity may have had you reaching for your bug-out bag. Then again, if you’re more afraid of climate change than natural disasters, massive volcanic explosions might actually sound like a good thing, right? After all, a huge plume of ash could block sunlight and lower global temperatures.

Here’s what’s up in volcano news: Over the past two months, Mount St. Helens in Washington state, located a scant 174 miles from this author’s house, has been experiencing an “earthquake swarm.” More than 130 small quakes have rumbled beneath the mountain, indicating that magma is on the move. But while this sounds terrifying, it’s actually nothing to worry about, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which wrote on Facebook that “there are no signs of an imminent eruption.” Whew.

But what about Yellowstone? Yellowstone National Park is located on top of a supervolcano, and scientists discovered a few years ago that the massive magma reservoir beneath it is two and a half times larger than previously believed, measuring 55 miles across. An eruption there could be 2,000 times larger than the blast at St. Helens in 1980 that killed 57 people, and, Tech Insider reports, such an event could cover much of the Midwest in ash, wipe out food and water supplies, and render vast swaths of land uninhabitable for at least a decade.

Scientists have long thought that Yellowstone wasn’t due to erupt for at least another 10,000 years. However, a recently posted YouTube video alleging to show unusual seismic activity at the park has had some people speculating that eruption is imminent. It also, naturally, has inspired quite a few headlines that might have you stockpiling food and water.

But pause a moment before you head for the hills. I asked Bill Steele of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network if I should add the Yellowstone supervolcano to my (lengthy) list of anxieties. He said, quite simply, “No.” Then he laughed.

The recent “unusual” seismic activity at Yellowstone isn’t actually unusual, Steele told me. “Yes, there are earthquakes there and it is a volcanic hotspot, but this is normal.”

As for Mount St. Helen’s, Steele said that even if it blew today, it just wouldn’t be that big a deal. The major eruption in 1980 let off all the mountain’s gas, and so, at worst, the next time St. Helen’s blows, it’ll be mostly steam.

But let’s just pretend for a moment that Steele is totally wrong and both Yellowstone and St. Helen’s go today — and go big. Is it possible that large volcanic eruptions could actually be good for the environment? After all, one thing that definitely is happening right now is global climate change, so wouldn’t it be good to have an ashy reprieve from soaring temperatures, helping us keep the ice caps intact at least a little while longer?

Yes, Steele tells me, if a volcano threw enough material into the stratosphere, it would cool the planet for a while. In fact, big eruptions have led to ice ages in the past. On the other hand, volcanic emissions include carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, which worsen climate change (though volcanos are a minuscule source of warming gases compared to fossil fuel burning by humans). So a big eruption would be kind of a mixed bag for the climate.

Ultimately, the planet will be alright if and when both volcanos blow. “The Earth can handle volcanos,” Steele says. “It’s having a lot more difficulty with human activity.”

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally from – 

There’s worrying volcano news. But could that be good climate news?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There’s worrying volcano news. But could that be good climate news?

NASA Facebook page manager has had enough with climate deniers

NASA Facebook page manager has had enough with climate deniers

By on 15 Apr 2016commentsShare

This story was originally published by Huffington Post and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

“We invite you to comment on our page, but we ask that you be courteous and cite credible sources when sharing information.”

That’s the disclaimer posted atop NASA’s Global Climate Change Facebook page. And judging from the normally staid government agency’s response to a handful of climate change deniers who ran amok this week under a post by media personality Bill Nye, they mean it.

Nye, known as “the Science Guy,” shared a story on NASA’s page Monday about a climate change denier who refused to accept $20,000 in bets that the planet will continue getting hotter. The post inspired readers to share a torrent of poorly substantiated — yet fiercely defended — theories in the comments section, ranging from outright climate change denial to vitriolic attacks on NASA itself.

After a couple days of the lunacy (as of Friday morning, the comments section was still growing), whoever manages NASA’s climate change Facebook page finally had enough and decided to set the record straight.

One reader, who referred to NASA as a group of “leftards,” but nevertheless claimed NASA has confirmed “that fossil fuels are actually cooling the planet’s temperature,” earned a clear rebuke: “Do not misrepresent NASA,” the agency responded. “Fossil fuels are not cooling the planet.”

That stone-cold retort appears to have since been deleted, but other similarly blunt replies remain:

Facebook

Most of NASA’s replies were informative, well-substantiated, and written with admirable restraint:

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Facebook

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here:

NASA Facebook page manager has had enough with climate deniers

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NASA Facebook page manager has had enough with climate deniers

Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Just a few days after President Barack Obama promised new actions on climate change during his final State of the Union address, his administration has unveiled a sweeping overhaul of how coal can be extracted from federal land.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced on Friday that she was placing a moratorium on new coal-mining leases on public land and that her department would begin a multiyear review of how those lease contracts are awarded. The policy change is likely to make the leases more expensive for mining companies, to generate increased royalties for the government, and to offset the damage coal production and consumption do to the environment.

“We haven’t done a top-to-bottom review of the coal program in 30 years,” Jewell told reporters. She added that her department will search for ways “to manage coal in a way that is consistent with the climate change agenda.”

This is a big win for environmental groups. But don’t expect it to result in an overnight decline in coal use, the nation’s No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions. Jewell said the lease moratorium will not “have any impact at all on coal production” and that the review will largely be carried out by the next presidential administration. All of the Republican presidential contenders have vowed to scale back Obama’s climate legacy; the Democratic candidates have vowed to push it forward.

About 40 percent of all US coal extraction takes place on federal land, much of that in Wyoming, the nation’s top coal producer. For years, environmentalists have complained that the coal industry enjoys royalty rates much lower than offshore oil or other publicly owned fossil fuels. Those low rates make it cheaper for coal companies to operate and may also be a raw deal for the public that has to deal with the impacts, from local environmental degradation to global climate change. While offshore oil companies typically pay a royalty rate of about 18 percent, Jewell said, the rate for coal is only 8-10 percent. A Government Accountability Office report in 2014 found that undervalued coal leases cost the US Treasury nearly $1 billion per year in lost revenue.

When the leasing policy was originally created decades ago, Jewell said, “our practice was really about getting as much coal as possible” to feed the nation’s power plants. Now, many scientists agree that the exact opposite approach is needed to have any chance of limiting global warming. A 2015 study found that 92 percent of US coal reserves need to stay buried to have any hope of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the cap enshrined in the international climate agreement brokered in Paris last month.

Jewell said there are about 50 pending coal leases that could be halted by the moratorium; leases that have already been approved will be allowed to go forward, and there will be no change to any current mining operation. There’s enough coal in reserve under existing leases to continue production at its current rate for another 20 years, she said. Many of the leases that could be put on ice were unlikely to have gone into production anyway, said Matt Lee-Ashley, director of the public lands program at the Center for American Progress. That’s because, with prices so low, big coal companies in the West routinely snatch up leases just to keep in their back pocket without necessarily developing them.

In effect, Lee-Ashley said, “it’s a pause on adding additional stockpiles on coal.”

The coal companies, he added, “are well resourced to continue mining for the foreseeable future.”

Still, the announcement is yet another headache for an industry that has already had a very bad start to 2016. Coal has been battered over the last few years by competition from cheap natural gas and by new climate regulations from the Obama administration. US coal production is at a 30-year low, one of the country’s biggest companies recently declared bankruptcy, and once-promising export markets in China now seem to be drying up.

The leasing reform quickly faced a backlash from Republican lawmakers who represent coal states.

“Once again the administration is circumventing Congress, the voice of the American people, to launch another unilateral attack on coal,” Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to ensure our policies promote access to affordable, reliable energy.”

Kentucky is among the two dozen coal-reliant states that are suing the Obama administration over its plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Lee-Ashley countered that the reforms are “a giant step forward” on Obama’s climate agenda. “This is the first time any administration has taken such a serious look at the management problems, and also the environmental costs, of fossil fuel production on public lands,” he said. He cautioned that if a Republican follows Obama in the White House, he or she could impede the climate-oriented aspects of the reform. But he said the financial overhaul should enjoy bipartisan support, since it boils down to giving the American people a fair price for their natural resources.

“When you look at the money being lost to taxpayers through these loopholes, anybody who believes in good business should be able to carry it forward,” he said.

Link to article: 

Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

How 19 Big-Name Corporations Plan to Make Money Off the Climate Crisis

green4us

Think weapons, air conditioners, and ice cream, for starters. New York officials tour flood damage in a Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopter in 2011. Hans Pennink/AP Climate change will have some pretty terrifying consequences. Experts have predicted everything from deadly heat waves and devastating floods to falling crop production and even increased political instability and violence. But according to some of the world’s biggest companies, these future disasters could also present lucrative business opportunities. In a remarkable series of documents submitted to a London-based nonprofit called CDP, big-name corporations describe global warming as a chance to sell more weapons systems to the military, more air conditioners to sweltering civilians, and more medications to people afflicted by tropical diseases. CDP, which stands for “Carbon Disclosure Project,” asks companies all over the world to disclose information about their greenhouse gas emissions and how the changing climate will impact their operations. Each year, thousands of companies send in responses. Below, we’ve compiled a list of some of the most striking—and, in some cases, disturbing—scenarios laid out by those businesses. It’s important to keep in mind that these companies aren’t rooting for catastrophic warming. In the same documents, they outline huge risks that climate change poses to humanity—and to their profits. Many of them have also taken significant steps to reduce their own carbon footprints. Still, the fact that corporations have spent so much time thinking about the business opportunities that could emerge as the world warms underscores just how colossal an effect climate change is going to have on our lives. Defense and border surveillance Embed from Getty Images Republicans have recently mocked President Barack Obama and Sen. Bernie Sanders for saying climate change poses a national security threat. But Democratic politicians aren’t the only ones making this connection. In 2014, the CNA Military Advisory Board, a group of retired US generals and admirals, warned that the impacts of global warming “will serve as catalysts for instability and conflict.” Saab, a Swedish defense firm (and former parent company of the struggling automaker), agrees. In its CDP submission, the company cites the CNA report and adds that climate change could “induce changes in natural resources e.g. water, oil etc., which may result in conflicts within already unstable countries” as well as illegal deforestation, fishing, and drug smuggling. Saab sees these dangers as a business opportunity that will result in an “increased market for civil and military security solutions.” As an example, the company points to its Erieye Radar System, which “works in a dense hostile electronic warfare environment” and is “capable of identifying friends or foes.” Raytheon, the Massachusetts-based defense contractor, warned in a 2012 CDP document that climate change might “cause humanitarian disasters, contribute to political violence, and undermine weak governments.” The company wrote that it expects to see “demand for its military products and services as security concerns may arise as results of droughts, floods, and storm events occur as a result of climate change.” Connecticut-based United Technologies Corporation cites arguments that a devastating drought contributed to instability in Syria. The company notes that helicopters made by its Sikorsky business (which has since been sold to Lockheed Martin) were “deployed during population dislocations and humanitarian crises,” and that last year it provided support to the US military’s efforts to “mitigate population dislocations in Syria.” Cobham, a British corporation that manufacturers surveillance systems, stated in a 2013 CDP document that “changes to countries [sic] resources and habitability could increase the need for border surveillance due to population migration.” Security from “social unrest” G4S provides security for the enormous refugee camps outside Dadaab, Kenya. Many of the camps’ residents fled conflict and drought. Jerome Delay/AP Private security firms also see opportunities in climate change. G4S, a London-based corporation that operates around the globe, told CDP that extreme weather is a potential source of business. The company deployed hundreds of security officers to protect its clients following Hurricane Katrina, and it sent officers throughout the Northeast following Superstorm Sandy. G4S also sees financial opportunities in responding to humanitarian disasters such as droughts and famines in the developing world. The company currently provides security for refugee camps in Kenya that are home to hundreds of thousands of people, including many who have fled conflict and drought. G4S says the United Nations “has projected that we [the planet] will have 50 million environmental refugees.” (The United Nations appears to have backed off that particular prediction; according to its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [PDF], “there are no robust global estimates of future displacement.”) Securitas, a Stockholm-based firm that owns the fabled Pinkerton agency, also provided security in the aftermath of Katrina. That company says extreme weather linked to climate change will increase demand for its services “when properties…need to be protected from looting, burglary and social unrest.” Monitoring, Responding to, and Rebuilding From Extreme Weather Embed from Getty Images According to Raytheon, the possible impacts of climate change—including hurricanes, tornadoes, severe storms, and rising seas—could present opportunities to sell the company’s “weather satellites services, radar and sensing technologies, disaster response, homeland security, and emergency response communications, as well as alternative energy technologies.” Cobham anticipates opportunities to supply cameras to monitor flash floods, “large antennas” for extreme weather conditions, and emergency communications systems for “areas where severe storms have destroyed communications infrastructure.” 3M, the Minnesota-based manufacturing company, says it sells a number of products that can be used to protect buildings during extreme weather and to rebuild after a storm. Shipping Lanes and Travel Embed from Getty Images One of the most striking climate developments in recent years has been the opening of Arctic shipping lanes that were once obstructed by sea ice year-round. Hanjin, a major South Korean shipping company, acknowledged in a 2014 CDP document that a new polar route would be a “tragic consequence” of climate change. But, the company added, Arctic melting would also have environmental and financial benefits: It would allow the shipping industry to “drastically reduce CO2 emissions and cut transit time by 1/3.” Global warming could have some benefits for companies that specialize in transporting tourists, as well. According to Carnival, “change in mean temperatures could open up new routes and ports” for its cruise ships, while “change in precipitation [might] make some ports more attractive.” Drilling for more oil Embed from Getty Images Energy companies have long viewed melting Arctic ice as an opportunity to extract once-inaccessible oil and gas. That hasn’t worked out well so far. In September, Royal Dutch Shell announced that it was ending its costly Arctic exploration project. But Chevron is still optimistic. “Should the current trend in global warming be sustained, both access to and the economics of Chevron’s offshore oil and gas production in the arctic could potentially improve,” states the California-based oil company in its CPD disclosure. “The greatest effects will be associated with an extension to the summer operating period which will tend initially to favor access to and the cost of exploration operations in many arctic basins.” Protection From Deadly Heat Waves Embed from Getty Images In a report last year, a panel co-chaired by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned of risks posed by hotter temperatures: By the middle of this century, the average American will likely see 27 to 50 days over 95°F each year—two to more than three times the average annual number of 95°F days we’ve seen over the past 30 years. By the end of this century, this number will likely reach 45 to 96 days over 95°F each year on average. That’s an opportunity for United Technologies, which—in addition to its defense products—makes air conditioning, refrigeration, and energy efficiency systems. “Annually, extreme heat events kill more Americans than any other environmentally related events, and an increase in extreme heart [sic] events as a result of climate change is forecast for many parts of the world,” the company states. “UTC believes changes in temperature extremes will result in a need for more energy efficient building and other infrastructure, especially chillers and cooling units…We anticipate this demand to be global, with strong increases in tropical and some temperate zones.” According to UTC, “air conditioner sales have increased more than 20% per decade in the developing world 1990 – 2010 in response to increasing temperatures and increasing wealth.” UTC believes these trends could lead to $5 billion in new demand over the next two decades. Halliburton sees related opportunities. The oilfield services company states that it could see increased revenue from the additional energy resources needed for “increase[d] cooling and/or heating.” Combating Crop Failure and Hunger Embed from Getty Images Experts have warned that rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns could reduce crop yields in vulnerable parts of the world, making it difficult to feed a growing population. Biotech companies are racing to develop products that will address this problem. Monsanto, for example, says its products could help farmers “meet increased food needs as available natural resources become more limited.” Bayer notes that its crop sciences division is using “chemical and modern plant breeding approaches” to address the agricultural damage expected to be caused by “an increased occurrence of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat, cold and storms.” On the consumer side, the Campbell Soup Company identifies “increasing humanitarian demands” related to climate as a significant opportunity—one that will allow the company to “leverage its key assets to provide relief for such demands.” In addition to directly donating money and food to humanitarian causes, Campbell highlights a current program in which one of its brands donates one smoothie to a needy child for every four smoothies that it sells. According to the company, these types of promotions “can result in millions of dollars for the company.” Fighting Climate-Related Diseases Embed from Getty Images Climate change poses a number of serious public health risks, and the pharmaceutical industry has certainly noticed. Walmart, for instance, believes that it could experience growing demand for prescription medications due to “increases in pollen exposure or climate-change induced medical conditions.” (The retail giant is careful to note that it primarily views climate change, which a spokesperson calls an “urgent and pressing challenge,” as a risk.) Several drug companies believe that rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and worsening extreme weather could increase the spread of tropical diseases that are transmitted by mosquitoes, such as malaria and dengue fever. In its CDP document, Bayer cites one estimate that climate change could result in 40 million to 60 million additional people being exposed [PDF] to these diseases. The company anticipates increased demand for its mosquito nets and other mosquito-control products, especially if malaria spreads to the developed world. GlaxoSmithKline also anticipates that climate change could affect demand for its anti-malarial products and notes that if the company’s “sales rose by 1% around £300m [about $446 million] would be added to our turnover.” A GSK spokesperson added, however, that the company is developing a malaria vaccine that it would offer to African children at a “not-for-profit price,” and that under some scenarios, climate change could actually reduce demand for the company’s products. Novartis, which makes several malaria and dengue drugs, points out that it has provided millions of doses to African health officials at a not-for-profit price. But, the company notes, “businesses selling these drugs will become more profitable if the diseases spread to more developed and richer countries.” A number of experts doubt that will happen, at least in the case of malaria. They argue that factors such as economic development and public health infrastructure are far more significant than climate in controlling malaria. Asked for clarification, a Novartis spokesperson stated that higher temperatures and increased extreme weather from climate change could “lead to large floods, social crises and challenges, which may allow vector diseases to spread further.” Still, he added, Novartis agrees that malaria is unlikely to spread in the developed world. Drug companies point to other health threats, as well. GSK warns that changing precipitation patterns and increased extreme weather events could “affect the spread of water-borne diseases” and respiratory and diarrheal illnesses, creating a need for “greater disease prevention and more patient treatments.” These problems could be especially serious in the poorest countries, according the GSK spokesperson. In its CDP submission, Merck says it is researching the negative impacts that higher temperatures could have on vaccines. Ice Cream! Austronesian Expeditions/Flickr Rising temperatures don’t just drive demand for air-conditioning units and better vaccines. According Nestlé, they can also boost sales of “refreshing products such as ice creams and bottled water.” Nestlé notes that in 2014, Earth experienced its hottest summer on record (until 2015, anyway) and that a number of the company’s local brands performed well that year. So how much of an impact does heat have? “Increased demand for bottled water and ice creams as a result of temperature increase can result in additional sales of CHF 100 million per year,” says Nestlé. In case you aren’t familiar with the exchange rate for Swiss francs, that’s about $100 million.

View original:  

How 19 Big-Name Corporations Plan to Make Money Off the Climate Crisis

Related Posts

Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution
China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando
Climate Hawks Are Not Impressed by Obama’s Methane Plan
Why Can’t Public Transit Be Free?
Buried in Muck, Clues to Future NYC Drought
Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming

Share this:






Excerpt from: 

How 19 Big-Name Corporations Plan to Make Money Off the Climate Crisis

Posted in alternative energy, ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How 19 Big-Name Corporations Plan to Make Money Off the Climate Crisis