Category Archives: OXO

California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke?

The case for saving trees. Deforestation caused by wildfires, development, and agriculture could be a major source of carbon emissions in California. Mark Rightmire/ZUMA Last week California Gov. Jerry Brown made headlines when he announced that his state would pursue the most aggressive greenhouse gas emissions cuts in the nation. The new goal—to reduce emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030—is an interim step meant to help achieve a final goal set by Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, of an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Exact details on how the new target will be achieved haven’t yet been released, but it will likely include a combination of new clean energy mandates and pollution reduction rules for power companies, as well as incentives for electric vehicles. That’s a good place to start: Transportation and the energy sector are the two biggest portions of the state’s carbon footprint, accounting for roughly 36 percent and 21 percent of emissions, respectively. Those sectors are also the two biggest in the nationwide carbon footprint, which is why President Barack Obama’s climate rules have likewise focused on cars and power plants. But there’s another slice of the carbon pie that gets very little airtime, and on which California and the US as a whole fare very differently: Land use. Trees and soil store a lot of carbon, and any time they get destroyed (logged for timber, burned in a fire, plowed for agriculture, paved over for urban development), there are associated carbon emissions. On the national level, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, land use is actually a carbon sink, meaning that the carbon stored by forests and other vegetation outweighs emissions from messing with them. It’s no small piece; land use offsets up to 13 percent of the total US carbon footprint, according to the EPA (through policies such as minimizing soil erosion and limiting the conversion of forests into cropland). New research indicates the trend may be very different in California, contrary to conventional wisdom in the state. Since the passage of the state’s first global warming legislation, A.B. 32 in 2006, California’s carbon targets have been set with the assumption that there would be no net increase in land use emissions. The greenhouse gas inventory published by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state’s air pollution regulatory agency, makes no mention of forestry or land use emissions. But a peer-reviewed study commissioned by CARB and published last month by the National Park Service’s top climate change scientist, Patrick Gonzalez, in conjunction with UC-Berkeley, found that over the last decade land use in California has been a source, not a sink, of carbon emissions. Gonzalez’s research aggregated, for the first time, a vast collection of satellite data and on-the-ground measurements to estimate how much carbon is stored in vegetation in the state. It’s a pretty staggering amount: The state’s 26 national parks store the rough equivalent of the average annual carbon emissions of 7 million Americans. But even more revealing was how that number has shrunk over the last decade, as wildfires, development, and agriculture chip away at forests and other “natural” landscapes. Every year, the disappearance of these carbon stocks emits about as much carbon dioxide as the city of Dallas, says Gonzalez—that’s roughly 5 to 7 percent of California’s total carbon footprint. In other words, Gonzalez says, if California wants to meet its climate targets, the state has a hole that needs to be filled with better land management. Unfortunately, climate change itself is likely to make this situation even worse. Two-thirds of the land use emissions Gonzalez identified was the result of wildfires, meaning that better managing fires—and thereby keeping carbon locked away inside forests—is a key step for reducing the state’s overall emissions. Climate change makes wildfires worse by increasing the severity and frequency of droughts, and as the state’s unprecedented drought enters its fifth year, experts say the wildfire season there is already shaping up to be a “disaster.” Overall, deforestation needs to take on a much more prominent role in the state-wide climate conversation, says Louis Blumberg, director of the Nature Conservancy’s climate program in California. “There’s no way to meet the ambitious targets without dealing with deforestation,” he says. A spokesperson for CARB said that the agency is still skeptical that land use is as much of a problem as the Gonzalez study indicates, and that the study likely underestimates the amount of carbon still stored in forests due to uncertainties in the satellite data. Meanwhile, bureaucratic complications have so far precluded CARB from including forests in its carbon accounting (most of the forests are managed by federal, rather than state, agencies). Still, state officials appear to be increasingly aware of the significance of land use in its climate planning. In his inaugural address in January, Gov. Brown discussed the need to “manage farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands so they can store carbon.” Both the Nature Conservancy and National Park Service are now working with state regulators to track the climate impact of deforestation and to develop policies to keep more carbon safely stored away in trees. Deforestation “is a new part of the puzzle,” Blumberg said. “But it’s essential.” This post has been updated. From –  California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke? ; ; ;

Visit site:

California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke?

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, Smith's, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke?

How the Fukushima Disaster Crippled Japan’s Climate Plans

Japan’s climate strategy is broken. Can President Obama help fix it? Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2013. Japan Pool/ZUMA Japan used to have a pretty good reputation on climate change. Thanks to its robust industrial economy, it has the fourth-largest carbon footprint in the G20 nations. But it gets a sizable chunk of its power from zero-carbon sources like hydro dams and, at least until the 2011 disaster at Fukushima, nuclear plants. And in 2009, the country agreed, along with the other G8 nations, to reduce its carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. Back in 1992, Japan played host to the negotiations that led to the Kyoto Protocol, the first time a group of countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Even though the United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it was a groundbreaking agreement. But today, in the context of a decade and a half of additional scientific research, policy advances, and public pressure, it’s woefully insufficient to ward off the worst effects of climate change. That’s why the international community is planning to craft a new agreement to replace it in Paris later this year. And this time around, Japan isn’t looking so hot. Today, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is in Washington to address Congress about his plan to expand his country’s military operations in Asia. He’ll also meet privately with President Barack Obama. According to the White House, climate change is on the agenda. It seems likely that the two leaders will discuss what Japan plans to bring to the table in Paris: Last week deputy national security adviser Caroline Atkinson told reporters that one of the main goals of the meeting is “to help build momentum towards a successful and ambitious climate agreement.” The United States met a United Nations deadline at the end of March to announce its carbon contribution—that is, how much it will be willing to cut its carbon footprint—in preparation for the Paris talks. But a month after the deadline, Japan has yet to make an official announcement (some disappointing clues have leaked out; more on that in a minute). In fact, recently Japan has found itself at the center of several unflattering climate stories. Last year, the country pledged $1.5 billion to a UN-controlled fund that aims to help poor nations adapt to climate change. But a couple of months later, the Associated Press revealed that a separate pot of money Japan designated as “climate finance” actually contained $1 billion in investments in coal-fired power plants overseas. In March, the AP uncovered another half billion dollars of coal investments that Japan had labeled as climate finance. The Japanese government maintained that the funds were in fact climate-friendly, because even though coal is indisputably the greatest source of carbon emissions, these funds went toward cutting-edge coal technology that is cleaner than what might have been built otherwise. Japan’s coal spree is also playing out inside its own borders. The country has 43 coal-fired power plants either planned or under construction, according to Bloomberg News. If built, those plants would have a combined carbon footprint equal to 10 percent of Japan’s current total emissions, and equal to 50 percent of the total emissions it aims to have in 2050. Even now, the country’s coal consumption is on the rise, and its emissions in 2013, the year for which the most recent data is available, were the second highest on record. “Japan appears to be backsliding at the moment,” said Taylor Dimsdale, head of research at the sustainability nonprofit E3G, in a call with reporters yesterday. “There’s a risk for Japan that it’s leaving itself marginalized in an issue [climate change] that’s increasingly an international policy priority.” Which brings us back to the Paris talks. Over the past couple weeks, unnamed government officials have leaked various figures for Japan’s carbon reduction target to the Japanese media. They aren’t looking very ambitious, and the reaction from analysts has been roundly critical. The most recent leak, reported Friday by the Asahi Shimbun, a leading national daily newspaper, said the stated goal is going to be a 25 percent reduction from 2013 levels by 2030. That’s weak compared to the US goal of 28 percent by 2025 and the EU goal of 35 percent by 2030. (Even the US and EU targets are probably insufficient to keep global warming below the internationally agreed-upon threshold of 2 degrees Celsius.) What’s more, the 25 percent emissions cuts being floated would set up Japan to miss its preexisting 2050 emissions target, said Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the climate division at World Wildlife Fund Japan. Meanwhile, the country’s most recent energy strategy, which is a key part of how these carbon targets are reached, envisions a future with increased dependence on coal and with no designated targets for renewable energy. What the heck went wrong? In a word: Fukushima. In the aftermath of that disaster—in which an earthquake caused a tsunami that flooded the plant and led to meltdowns in half of its nuclear reactors—Japan decided to indefinitely shutter all of its nuclear power plants. The last one closed in September 2013, completely eliminating an energy source that had once provided nearly a third of the country’s power. That hole has since been filled by coal, oil, and natural gas, which goes a long way toward explaining Japan’s poor performance on emissions in recent years. It may also explain why the government has been reluctant to set more aggressive targets for Paris: Heavy-duty emission cuts aren’t possible without nuclear power, and although Prime Minister Abe is pushing to reopen some of the closed plants, nuclear power remains deeply unpopular with the Japanese people. Moreover, the increase in fossil fuel use has made Japan more dependent on imports (it has no fossil fuel resources of its own), which, in combination with a weak yen, has driven up electricity prices. And rising energy prices, Yamagishi said, have eroded support for renewable energy incentives that could cost ratepayers even more. Overall, since Fukushima, political will to address climate change has evaporated, Yamagishi said. Even among the general public, what was once a popular issue now barely makes the news in Japan. “After Fukushima, everyone’s attention shifted away from climate change,” he said. “That’s why we’re having a hard time pushing on this issue.” View original:  How the Fukushima Disaster Crippled Japan’s Climate Plans ; ; ;

Continued here: 

How the Fukushima Disaster Crippled Japan’s Climate Plans

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Prepara, Smith's, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Fukushima Disaster Crippled Japan’s Climate Plans

What Do Green Activists Think About Hillary Clinton?

green4us

“I’m ready for Hillary…to say NO KXL.” Ben Adler/Grist Notwithstanding The Washington Post’s inevitable jokes about “fedoras, flannel shirts and beards” outside Hillary Clinton’s campaign office “in the midst of hipster-cool downtown Brooklyn,” there actually is no such thing as “hipster-cool downtown Brooklyn.” Downtown Brooklyn is a warren of architecturally undistinguished office buildings and sterile windswept plazas. And so it was on a charmless little patch of sidewalk near the new campaign headquarters that a group of about 20 activists with 350 Action, an affiliate of 350.org, held signs and chanted on Monday afternoon urging Clinton to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. The signs played on a slogan used by Clinton’s supporters — “I’m ready for Hillary” — by tacking an extra phrase onto the end — “to say NO KXL.” In a comment that cut to the heart of the contradiction embedded in Clinton’s record — embracing both cuts to carbon emissions and increases in fossil fuel production — Duncan Meisel, an organizer with 350, said, “If you want to stop carbon pollution, keep carbon in the ground!” Reporters in attendance strained to hear the unamplified speakers over the steady hum of idling buses across the street. What the event lacked in grandeur, though, it made up for in topical importance. Clinton herself has called climate change “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face.” And yet climate activists have good reason to be worried about Clinton’s Keystone stance. In recent years, she has refused to take any position on the pipeline, but in 2010, when she was secretary of state, she said, “we are inclined to” approve it. Says Ben Schreiber, Friends of the Earth’s climate and energy program director, “It was inappropriate for her to make comments about the merits of the proposal when there wasn’t even an environmental impact statement.” Read the rest at Grist.

Excerpt from: 

What Do Green Activists Think About Hillary Clinton?

Related Posts

Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill, and This Democratic Presidential Hopeful Is Pissed
BREAKING: President Obama Will Veto Congress’ Keystone XL Pipeline Bill
Why Big Coal’s Export Terminals Could be Even Worse Than the Keystone XL Pipeline
Here’s What a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean for Global Warming
72 Percent of Republican Senators Are Climate Deniers
Obama on Climate Change: “No Challenge Poses a Greater Threat to Future Generations”

Share this:






Continue at source:

What Do Green Activists Think About Hillary Clinton?

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Do Green Activists Think About Hillary Clinton?

Permafrost “Carbon Bomb” May Be More of a Slow Burn, Say Scientists

Carbon dioxide from thawing Arctic permafrost is likely to be released gradually, rather than in a catastrophic eruption. ETM/Landsat 7/NASA The “carbon bomb” stored in the thawing Arctic permafrost may be released in a slow leak as global warming takes hold, rather than an eruption, according to new research. Scientists at the US Geological Survey (USGS) found previous predictions of a catastrophic release of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere as permafrost thaws may have been overstated. But the impact on the climate of future permafrost emissions remained significant. More than 1,000 billion tons of carbon are stored in the soils beneath the Arctic tundra, double humanity’s emissions since the industrial revolution. “The data from our team’s syntheses don’t support the permafrost carbon bomb view,” said A David McGuire, a senior scientist at the USGS, which conducted a review of the current science on permafrost thawing. Read the rest at the Guardian. More here: Permafrost “Carbon Bomb” May Be More of a Slow Burn, Say Scientists ; ; ;

From: 

Permafrost “Carbon Bomb” May Be More of a Slow Burn, Say Scientists

Posted in GE, OXO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Permafrost “Carbon Bomb” May Be More of a Slow Burn, Say Scientists

For Wyoming, Climate Change Is Now

Science doesn’t care about Wyoming’s laws. In 2014, I wrote about the Wyoming state Legislature actively moving to suppress real science education when it came to global warming. As I said, Science itself has many laws, but it doesn’t give a damn about ours. Those words still echo loudly when it comes to Wyoming. A new research paper has come out showing that snow melt in the northwest region of that state is occurring earlier all the time, exactly as you’d expect with warmer winters and spring. The scientists used satellite data to measure snow extent over time and found that snow is melting 16 ± 10 days earlier in the 2000s compared with 1972–1999. Percent snow cover for a given day for the area in Wyoming studied. Note that in more recent years, snow melted earlier. NASA Earth Observatory Read the rest at Slate. View post:  For Wyoming, Climate Change Is Now ; ; ;

View article – 

For Wyoming, Climate Change Is Now

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Optimus, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on For Wyoming, Climate Change Is Now

Here’s What a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean for Global Warming

Clinton sees climate change as a major threat. But she still wants to boost fossil fuel supplies. Hillary Clinton at the 2014 National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas John Locher/AP It’s strange to remember how bitterly divisive the 2008 Democratic presidential primary battle was. Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s platforms and ideological positioning were awfully similar. And on the chief difference between them—Obama’s less hawkish foreign policy—the victor wiped away that distinction by appointing Clinton as secretary of state. Now Clinton has announced her candidacy and is poised to coast through the 2016 Democratic primaries as her party’s prohibitive favorite. Would a Clinton presidency be essentially a third Obama term? On climate change and energy, it seems the answer is yes. For better and for worse, Clinton’s record and stances are cut from the same cloth as Obama’s. Her close confidant and campaign chair, John Podesta, served as an Obama advisor with a focus on climate policy. Like Obama and Podesta, Clinton certainly seems to appreciate the seriousness of the threat of catastrophic climate change and to strongly support domestic policies and international agreements to reduce carbon emissions. But, like Obama and Podesta, she subscribes to an all-of-the-above energy policy. She promotes domestic drilling for oil and natural gas, including through potentially dangerous fracking. (The Clinton campaign did not respond to our request for comment.) Here are eight important points about Clinton’s climate and energy views: 1. She understands the science. In a December speech to the League of Conservation Voters, Clinton said, “The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say. Sea levels are rising; ice caps are melting; storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc…If we act decisively now we can still head off the most catastrophic consequences.” Read the rest at Grist. See the article here: Here’s What a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean for Global Warming

Visit site – 

Here’s What a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean for Global Warming

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean for Global Warming

Fox News Host Sees No Racial Factor in South Carolina Killing

Mother Jones

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld is not racist. How not racist is Greg Gutfeld? Very not racist! You’re a racist. (You’re a racist.) But Gutfield doesn’t even see race. What’s race? A race? Are we running a race? The word “race” for Greg Gutfeld only has one definition: a competition of speed.

White cop guns down unarmed black man in cold blood: a thing that happens unbelievably often in the United States. Almost always the cop gets to walk away scot-free. But this time the cop is actually charged with murder! Not because South Carolina is so evolved (haha), but because a video emerges that puts on display the undeniable reality of the cop’s crime.

The Fox News chyron even calls it straight: “Video shows white police officer shooting black man in back.” But apparently the Fox News chyron is less evolved than Fox News host Greg Gutfeld. Because Greg Gutfeld saw something else:

“I didn’t see a black man killed by a white cop. I saw a man shoot another man in the back.”

If Greg Gutfeld were at Wounded Knee, he’d say he didn’t see white soldiers massacring Native-Americans.

If he were at Stonewall, he’d say he didn’t see straight cops beating gay men.

And if he were in Pleasantville, he’d say he never saw color.

(via TPM)

Excerpt from – 

Fox News Host Sees No Racial Factor in South Carolina Killing

Posted in alo, Anchor, bigo, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, OXO, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fox News Host Sees No Racial Factor in South Carolina Killing

Texas City Opts For 100% Renewable Energy–to Save Cash, Not the Planet

green4us

Georgetown, Texas, decision not about going green:”‘I’m probably the furthest thing from an Al Gore clone you could find,” says city official. A wind farm near Fluvanna, Texas fieldsbh/Flickr News that a Texas city is to be powered by 100 percent renewable energy sparked surprise in an oil-obsessed, Republican-dominated state where fossil fuels are king and climate change activists were described as “the equivalent of the flat-earthers” by US Senator and GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz. “I was called an Al Gore clone, a tree-hugger,” says Jim Briggs, interim city manager of Georgetown, a community of about 50,000 people some 25 miles north of Austin. Briggs, who was a key player in Georgetown’s decision to become the first city in the Lone Star State to be powered by 100 percent renewable energy, has worked for the city for 30 years. He wears a belt with shiny silver decorations and a gold ring with a lone star motif, and is keen to point out that he is not some kind of California-style eco-warrior with a liberal agenda. In fact, he is a staunchly Texan pragmatist. “I’m probably the furthest thing from an Al Gore clone you could find,” he says. “We didn’t do this to save the world—we did this to get a competitive rate and reduce the risk for our consumers.” Read the rest at the Guardian.

Read the article:  

Texas City Opts For 100% Renewable Energy–to Save Cash, Not the Planet

Related Posts

Yup. A Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Scott Walker Is the Worst Candidate for the Environment
Scientists: Ted Cruz’s Climate Theories Are a “Load of Claptrap”
Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill, and This Democratic Presidential Hopeful Is Pissed
North Dakota Is the Deadliest State to Work In
Are Solar Companies Ripping You Off?

Share this:






See the original post: 

Texas City Opts For 100% Renewable Energy–to Save Cash, Not the Planet

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, TOTO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Texas City Opts For 100% Renewable Energy–to Save Cash, Not the Planet

Climate-Skeptic US Senator Given Funds By BP Political Action Committee

Senator Jim Inhofe, who opposes climate change regulation, has received $10,000 from PAC funded by donations from US staff at oil group. Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP One of America’s most powerful and outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley. Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax and challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC). Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment and public works committee in January, and then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor. Read the rest at the Guardian. More:  Climate-Skeptic US Senator Given Funds By BP Political Action Committee ; ; ;

Follow this link:

Climate-Skeptic US Senator Given Funds By BP Political Action Committee

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, TOTO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate-Skeptic US Senator Given Funds By BP Political Action Committee

Here’s What President Obama Just Promised the World in the Fight Against Climate Change

Can Republicans block it? Charlie Riedel/AP This morning, hours ahead of a looming deadline, the United Stats released its formal submission to the UN in preparation for global climate talks that will take place in Paris later this year. Known as an “intended nationally determined contribution,” the document gives a basic outline for what US negotiators will pony up for an accord that is meant to replace the aging Kyoto Protocol and establish a new framework for international collaboration in the fight against climate change. The US submission offered few surprises and essentially reiterated the carbon emission reduction targets that President Barack Obama first announced in a bilateral deal with China in November: 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The document then gives a rundown of Obama’s climate initiatives in order to demonstrate that the US goal is attainable with policies that are already in place or are in the works. Chief among those policies is the Clean Power Plan, which sets tough new limits for carbon emissions from the electricity sector, with the aim to reduce them 30 percent by 2030. // <![CDATA[ DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1698605-un-indc.js”, width: 630, height: 800, sidebar: false, container: “#DV-viewer-1698605-un-indc” ); // ]]></script> UN INDC (PDF) UN INDC (Text) With today’s announcement, the US joins a handful of other major polluters, including Mexico and the European Union, in formally articulating its Paris position well in advance. In a series of earlier UN meetings over the fall and winter, negotiators stressed that setting early delivery dates for these pledges was important so that countries will have time to critique each others’ contributions in advance of the final summit in December. But although the deadline is today, many other key players—including China, Brazil, Russia, Japan, and India—have yet to make an announcement. Environmental groups’ immediate reactions to the US submission were mostly positive. “The United States’ proposal shows that it is ready to lead by example on the climate crisis,” World Resources Institute analyst Jennifer Morgan said in a statement. “This is a serious and achievable commitment.” At least one leading Republican offered an equally predictable rebuttal, according to the AP: “Considering that two-thirds of the US federal government hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Jump to original:  Here’s What President Obama Just Promised the World in the Fight Against Climate Change ; ; ;

See the article here: 

Here’s What President Obama Just Promised the World in the Fight Against Climate Change

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Pines, Prepara, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What President Obama Just Promised the World in the Fight Against Climate Change