Category Archives: wind energy

Virus Plagues the Pork Industry, and Environmentalists

A disease is killing huge numbers of piglets and young hogs, and environmental groups worry about the effects on groundwater of the buried carcasses. Follow this link – Virus Plagues the Pork Industry, and Environmentalists Related ArticlesEl Salvador Ends Dispute With U.S. Over SeedsDot Earth Blog: Protecting Parrotfish on the Path to a Caribbean Reef RevivalDot Earth Blog: Stroke Lessons (Time Wasted is Brain Lost)

Read this article – 

Virus Plagues the Pork Industry, and Environmentalists

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, Mop, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Virus Plagues the Pork Industry, and Environmentalists

Dot Earth Blog: Celebrating a Reviving River Through Sail and Song

A riverfront festival features floating folk concerts and sail-powered barges. Excerpt from –  Dot Earth Blog: Celebrating a Reviving River Through Sail and Song ; ;Related ArticlesRetiring: A Second Career, Happily in the WeedsDot Earth Blog: Two Climate Analysts Weigh the Notion of a ‘Good’ Path in the AnthropoceneOpinion: Lessons for Climate Change in the 2008 Recession ;

Read article here:  

Dot Earth Blog: Celebrating a Reviving River Through Sail and Song

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: Celebrating a Reviving River Through Sail and Song

World Briefing: Groups Pool Funds to Protect More of Amazon Rain Forest

An agreement between government and private partners will allow for an additional 34,000 square miles of Brazilian rain forest to be added to a conservation program. Original post: World Briefing: Groups Pool Funds to Protect More of Amazon Rain Forest Related ArticlesNote to Olympic Sailors: Don’t Fall in Rio’s WaterThe Science Behind Forest FiresCatastrophic Floods Hit Balkans, Raising Fears for Land Mines and Power Plants

See more here:  

World Briefing: Groups Pool Funds to Protect More of Amazon Rain Forest

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on World Briefing: Groups Pool Funds to Protect More of Amazon Rain Forest

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

back

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Posted 8 May 2014 in

National

Note: A PDF of the letter is available here.

Letter to President Obama: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

EPA Proposal to Reduce Renewable Fuels at Odds With National Climate Assessment

In a letter to President Obama today, leaders of America’s renewable fuel industry urge the Administration to rethink its proposal to weaken the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard – a proposal that is at odds with the National Climate Assessment the White House released earlier this week.

The letter is signed by Abengoa Bioenergy, the Advanced Ethanol Council, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, DuPont, DSM, Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, Novozymes, the Renewable Fuels Association, and POET.

The companies and organizations write that the Administration’s proposal to reduce the amount of renewable fuel in gasoline and diesel would “make us more oil dependent, effectively gut the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard, strand billions of dollars in private investment, and send emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants sharply higher.”

The letter notes that the impact of the Administration’s proposal would increase carbon pollution by an estimated 28.2 million metric tons in 2014 alone – which is equivalent to building 7 new coal fired power plants or cancelling every wind farm project currently under construction in the United States.

“The question comes down to whether we want to rely more on foreign oil, or more on clean, renewable American made biofuels,” said the authors of the letter. “We urge you to reconsider the EPA proposal and the methodology for reducing the volumes — and allow the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard to continue working as intended to create American jobs, promote American innovation, cut our reliance on foreign oil, and reduce harmful carbon pollution.”

Text of the letter is below:

May 8, 2014

The Honorable Barack Obama
President
United States of America
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

This week’s National Climate Assessment report is a wakeup call about the serious economic, environmental and public health threats to the American people caused by climate change.

The good news is that our nation has reduced energy related emissions of carbon pollution in recent years and we can achieve further reductions as we move to clean energy sources like wind, solar and renewable biofuels. The bad news is that the Administration, under heavy pressure from the global oil industry, has proposed to significantly reduce the renewable fuel content of gasoline and diesel this year. This would make us more oil dependent, effectively gut the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard, strand billions of dollars in private investment, and send emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants sharply higher. It represents a significant step backward in your effort to confront climate change.

Given that the United States already consumes far more oil than we produce – and the U.S. Energy Information Agency projects that will continue to be true for decades[1] — lowering the amount of renewable fuel we use will likely increase the amount of foreign oil we import and burn.

Argonne National Laboratory, in a 2012 study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, showed that the lifecycle CO2 emissions from traditional corn ethanol are 34% lower than gasoline. Advanced biofuels from switchgrass, corn stover or miscanthus represent reductions in lifecycle CO2 emissions of 88%, 96%, and 108% respectively. By cutting our use of these low-carbon fuels and reducing investments into innovative second generation biofuels, the EPA proposal to weaken the Renewable Fuel Standard would trigger a substantial increase in carbon emissions.

In fact, a recent analysis by the Biotechnology Industry Organization shows that this action would increase carbon pollution emissions by 28.2 million metric tons in 2014 alone. To put this in perspective, the impact would be equivalent to adding 7 new coal fired power plants or cancelling every wind farm project currently under construction in the United States.[2] Carrying the EPA’s proposed approach forward in future years would trigger even larger increases in climate-altering emissions; by 2022, the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases would be nearly 1 billion metric tons higher than would occur if EPA continued to set the Renewable Fuel Standard at statutory levels.

The EPA’s proposal will not only undermine your Administration’s efforts to address climate change, it will also undercut the Administration’s efforts to support commercial scale production of cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels – precisely at the time this new industry is taking root. Four new commercial scale cellulosic ethanol production facilities are coming online this year.

The policy stability offered by the Renewable Fuel Standard – with a gradual ramping up of renewable fuel targets year by year – created the market certainty needed to foster the private sector investment in these innovative new fuels. With the proposed rule, the EPA is changing the rules in midstream, replacing market certainty with uncertainty, and making it very difficult for additional U.S. cellulosic ethanol facilities to secure financing and investor support. If the United States continues on this course, future investments in advanced biofuels will increasingly shift to Asia, South America and Europe.

This is precisely what the oil companies want. In fact, after the EPA proposal was announced, the Big Five oil companies reaped a $23 billion windfall in a single day. The companies’ stock prices soared four times faster than the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500 during that same period. Just this week, the Center for American Progress reported that the big five oil companies have $68 billion in cash reserves and have been the largest recipient of federal tax breaks, subsidies, and other government supports over the past century.

The question comes down to whether we want to rely more on foreign oil, or more on clean, renewable American made biofuels. Do we want more U.S. jobs – or more jobs overseas? Indeed, a recent economic analysis performed by John Dunham & Associates makes clear the benefits that renewable fuels have for our country’s economy — driving $184.5 billion of economic output, supporting 852,000 jobs and $46.2 billion in wages, while generating $14.5 billion in tax revenue each year. The report also details these sizable economic benefits for every U.S. state and congressional district.

Finally, an accurate assessment of the climate impacts of transportation fuels requires rigorous analysis of the lifecycle carbon impacts of biofuels. Unfortunately, EPA continues to rely on outdated analysis from 2007 and an archaic view of some commercial biofuels. The 2007 analysis does not take into account the significant improvements that have been made in recent years to reduce the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from feedstocks and from renewable fuel production. For example, the land use changes predicted by EPA’s modeling simply have not materialized. We encourage your Administration to revisit its lifecycle analysis of these biofuels and ensure EPA is using the best available data and information.

We urge you to reconsider the EPA proposal and the methodology for reducing the volumes — and allow the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard to continue working as intended to create American jobs, promote American innovation, cut our reliance on foreign oil, and reduce harmful carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Abengoa Bioenergy / Advanced Ethanol Council / Biotechnology Industry Organization / DuPont / DSM / Growth Energy / National Corn Growers Association / Novozymes / Renewable Fuels Association / POET

 

[1] EIA’s 2014 Annual Energy Outlook reference case projects that imports will continue to decline into 2015 and then steadily rise through at least 2040. Reducing U.S. biofuel production below current levels – and those outlined in the Renewable Fuel Standard – would require additional imports.

[2] According to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator, the 28.2 million metric tons of CO2 added by this rule change is equivalent to the CO2 emissions from 7.4 new coal plants or the CO2 avoided from 15 gigawatts of wind power. The American Wind Energy Association reports that 12 gigawatts of wind power are currently under construction – more than any time in history.

Contact: Aaron Wells
aaron@smoottewes.com
320-247-7616

###

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
View post: 

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Oster, solar, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Bird lovers to sue feds for letting wind farms kill eagles

Bird lovers to sue feds for letting wind farms kill eagles

Shutterstock

Some bird advocates ain’t cool with recent moves by the Obama administration to smooth the way for wind power.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced in December that it will issue 30-year “take” permits that allow wind farms to inadvertently kill bald and golden eagles, provided they use “advanced conservation practices” to limit the number of deaths. Previously the permits were issued for only up to five years.

This week, the American Bird Conservancy said it will sue the federal government over the permits.

Wind energy advocates point out that turbines are less deadly to birds than many fossil fuel operations, not to mention household cats and buildings — and that wind power can help birds by slowing climate change. Still, the bird lovers at ABC think the wind industry needs to do more to protect our feathery friends.

The rule change “was adopted in violation of several federal wildlife protection and environmental laws,” ABC’s attorneys wrote in a letter stating their intent to sue. The group alleges the policy shift violates the Endangered Species Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and argues that it was made without the public consultation or environmental analysis that should have been required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

“ABC strongly supports wind power and other renewable energy projects when those projects are located in an appropriate, wildlife-friendly manner,” the letter states. “On the other hand, when decisions regarding such projects are made precipitously and without compliance with elementary legal safeguards, … ABC will take appropriate action to protect eagles and other migratory birds.”


Source
American Bird Conservancy to Take Legal Action Over FWS 30-Year Eagle Kill Rule, American Bird Conservancy

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Jump to original: 

Bird lovers to sue feds for letting wind farms kill eagles

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bird lovers to sue feds for letting wind farms kill eagles

How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real

Mother Jones

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

Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian, has had quite the run lately. A few weeks back, she was featured in the first episode of the Showtime series The Years of Living Dangerously, meeting with actor Don Cheadle in her home state of Texas to explain to him why faith and a warming planet aren’t in conflict. (You can watch that episode for free on YouTube; Hayhoe is a science adviser for the show.) Then, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people of 2014; Cheadle wrote the entry. “There’s something fascinating about a smart person who defies stereotype,” Cheadle observed.

Why is Hayhoe in the spotlight? Simply put, millions of Americans are evangelical Christians, and their belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average. And if anyone has a chance of reaching this vast and important audience, Hayhoe does. “I feel like the conservative community, the evangelical community, and many other Christian communities, I feel like we have been lied to,” explains Hayhoe on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. “We have been given information about climate change that is not true. We have been told that it is incompatible with our values, whereas in fact it’s entirely compatible with conservative and with Christian values.”

Hayhoe’s approach to science—and to religion—was heavily influenced by her father, a former Toronto science educator and also, at one time, a missionary. “For him, there was never any conflict between the idea that there is a God, and the idea that science explains the world that we see around us,” says Hayhoe. When she was 9, her family moved to Colombia, where her parents worked as missionaries and educators, and where Hayhoe saw what environmental vulnerability really looks like. “Some of my friends lived in houses that were made out of cardboard Tide boxes, or corrugated metal,” she says. “And realizing that you don’t really need that much to be happy, but at the same time, you’re very vulnerable to the environment around you, the less that you have.”

Her research today, on the impacts of climate change, flows from those early experiences. And of course, it is inspired by her faith, which for Hayhoe, puts a strong emphasis on caring for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. “That gives us even more reason to care about climate change,” says Hayhoe, “because it is affecting people, and is disproportionately affecting the poor, and the vulnerable, and those who cannot care for themselves.”

The fact remains, though, that most evangelical Christians in the United States do not think as Hayhoe does. Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do. Evangelicals in general, explains Hayhoe, tend to be more politically conservative, and can be quite distrusting of scientists (believing, incorrectly, that they’re all a bunch of atheists). Plus, some evangelicals really do go in for that whole “the world is ending” thing—not an outlook likely to inspire much care for the environment. So how does Hayhoe reach them?

From our interview, here are five of Hayhoe’s top arguments, for evangelical Christians, on climate change:

1. Conservation is Conservative. The evangelical community isn’t just a religious community, it’s also a politically conservative one on average. So Hayhoe speaks directly to that value system. “What’s more conservative than conserving our natural resources, making sure we have enough for the future, and not wasting them like we are today?” she asks. “That’s a very conservative value.”

Indeed, many conservatives don’t buy into climate science because they don’t like the “Big Government” solutions they suspect the problem entails. But Hayhoe has an answer ready for that one too: Conservative-friendly, market-driven solutions to climate problems are actually all around us. “A couple of weeks ago, Texas…smashed the record for the most wind energy ever produced. It was 38 percent of our energy that week, came from wind,” she says. And Hayhoe thinks that’s just the beginning: “If you look at the map of where the greatest potential is for wind energy, it’s right up the red states. And I think that is going to make a big difference in the future.”

2. Yes, God Would Let This Happen. One conservative Christian argument is that God just wouldn’t let human activities ruin the creation. Or, as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has put it, “God’s still up there, and the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate, is to me, outrageous.” You can watch Inhofe and other religious right politicians dismissing climate change on biblical grounds in this video:

Hayhoe thinks the answer to Inhofe’s objection is simple: From a Christian perspective, we have free will to make decisions and must live with their consequences. This is, after all, a classic Christian solution to the theological problem of evil. “Are bad things happening? Yes, all the time,” says Hayhoe. “Someone gets drunk, they get behind the wheel of a car, they kill an innocent bystander, possibly even a child or a mother.”

Climate change is, to Hayhoe, just another wrong, another problem, brought on by flawed humans exercising their wills in a way that is less than fully advisable. “That’s really what climate change is,” she says. “It’s a casualty of the decisions that we have made.”

3. The Bible Does Not Approve of Letting the World Burn. Hayhoe agrees with the common liberal perception that the evangelical community contains a significant proportion of apocalyptic or end-times believers—and that this belief, literally that judgment is upon us, undermines their concern about preserving the planet. But she thinks there’s something very wrong with that outlook, and indeed, that the Bible itself refutes it.

“The message that, we don’t care about anybody else, screw everybody, and let the world burn, that message is not a consistent message in the Bible,” says Hayhoe. In particular, she thinks the apostle Paul has a pretty good answer to end-times believers in his second epistle to the Thessalonians. Hayhoe breaks Paul’s message down like this: “I’ve heard that you’ve been quitting your jobs, you have been laying around and doing nothing, because you think that Christ is returning and the world is ending.” But Paul serves up a rebuke. In Hayhoe’s words: “Get a job, support yourself and your family, care for others—again, the poor and the vulnerable who can’t care for themselves—and do what you can, essentially, to make the world a better place, because nobody knows when that’s going to happen.”

One reason some evangelicals dismiss climate worries is an apocalyptic worldview. Igor Zh./Shutterstock

4. Even If You Believe in a Young Earth, It’s Still Warming. One reason there’s such a tension between the evangelical community and science is, well, science. Many evangelicals are Young-Earth creationists, who believe that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.

Hayhoe isn’t one of those. She studied astrophysics, and quasars that are quite ancient; and as she notes, believing the Earth and universe to be young creates a pretty problematic understanding of God: “Either you have to believe that God created everything looking as if it were billions of years old, or you have to believe it is billions of years old.” In the former case, God would, in effect, seem to be trying to trick us.

But when it comes to talking to evangelical audiences about climate change, Hayhoe doesn’t emphasize the age of the Earth, simply because, she says, there’s no need. “When I talk to Christian audiences, I only show ice core data and other proxy data going back 6,000 years,” says Hayhoe, “because I believe that you can make an even stronger case, for the massive way in which humans have interfered with the natural system, by only looking at a shorter period of time.”

6,000 years of temperatures records and a projection of the warming to come. Jos Hagelaars/My View on Climate Change

“In terms of addressing the climate issue,” says Hayhoe, “we don’t have time for everybody to get on the same page regarding the age of the universe.”

5. “Caring for our environment is caring for people.” Finally, Hayhoe thinks it is crucial to emphasize to evangelicals that saving the planet is about saving people…not just saving animals. “I think there’s this perception,” says Hayhoe, “that if an environmentalist were driving down the road…and they saw a baby seal on one side and they saw a human on the other side, they would veer out of the way to avoid the baby seal and run down the human.” That’s why it’s so important, in her mind, to emphasize how climate change affects people (a logic once again affirming the perception that the polar bear was a terrible symbol for global warming). And there’s bountiful evidence of this: The just-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “Working Group II” report on climate impacts emphasizes threats to our food supply, a risk of worsening violence in a warming world, and the potential displacement of vulnerable populations.

So is the message working? Hayhoe thinks so. After all, while only 44 percent of evangelicals may accept modern climate science today, she notes that that’s considerable progress from a 2008 Pew poll, which had that number at just 34 percent. Ultimately, for Hayhoe, it comes down to this: “If you believe that God created the world, and basically gave it to humans as this incredible gift to live on, then why would you treat it like garbage? Treating the world like garbage says a lot about how you think about the person who you believe created the Earth.”

To listen to the full interview with Katharine Hayhoe, you can stream below:

This episode of Inquiring Minds, a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and best-selling author Chris Mooney, also features a discussion of recent findings that laboratory mice respond differently to male researchers, and new breakthroughs in “therapeutic cloning,” or the creation of embryonic stem cell lines from cloned embryos.

To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. We are also available on Stitcher and on Swell. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook. Inquiring Minds was also recently singled out as one of the “Best of 2013” on iTunes—you can learn more here.

Read original article:

How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real

Ohio blames frackers for earthquakes

Let’s get ready to not rumble!

Ohio blames frackers for earthquakes

Shutterstock

Ohio officials have linked fracking in the state to an unprecedented swarm of earthquakes that struck last month. Following its investigation, the state is imposing new rules to help reduce frackquake hazards.

It’s well-known that frackers can cause earthquakes when they shoot their polluted wastewater into so-called injection wells. But a swarm of earthquakes that hit Mahoning County, Ohio, last month was different — it occurred not near an injection well, but near a site where fracking had recently begun. State officials investigated the temblors and concluded that there was a “probable connection” between them and hydraulic fracturing near “a previously unknown microfault.”

On Friday, following the discovery, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources announced that frackers will need to comply with new permit regulations. Under the tougher rules, frackers operating within three miles of a known fault or seismically active area will need to deploy sensitive seismic monitors. And if those monitors detect an earthquake, even if the magnitude is as small as 1.0 on the Richter scale, fracking will be suspended while the state investigates.

Meanwhile, the fracking operation linked to the recent quakes will remain suspended until a plan is developed that could see drilling resumed safely, an official told Reuters.

“While we can never be 100 percent sure that drilling activities are connected to a seismic event, caution dictates that we take these new steps to protect human health, safety and the environment,” said agency head James Zehringer.

Leaders in other states, including fracker-friendly California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), might want to pay attention to Ohio’s findings and its sensible new regulations. You may recall that frackers recently called L.A. city council members “appallingly irresponsible” after they asked scientists to investigate whether a swarm of earthquakes in the city was linked to nearby fracking. “Appealingly responsible” might be more apt.


Source
Ohio Announces Tougher Permit Conditions for Drilling Activities Near Faults and Areas of Seismic Activity, Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio links fracking to earthquakes, announces tougher rules, Reuters

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Continue reading: 

Ohio blames frackers for earthquakes

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Landmark, ONA, organic, Ringer, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ohio blames frackers for earthquakes

U.S. urges IPCC to be less boring, try this whole “online” thing

More GIFs, please

U.S. urges IPCC to be less boring, try this whole “online” thing

Shutterstock

Thousands of scientists volunteer to review research published by thousands of other scientists – part of an effort to pack all of the latest and best climate science into assessment reports from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But anybody who takes the time to read these reports is in danger of being bored to tears — even before they break down in tears over the scale of the damage that we’re inflicting on humanity and our planet.

After publishing five mammoth reports during its quarter-century of existence, the IPCC is facing an existential crisis. How can it reinvent its aging self – and its dry scientific reports — to better serve the warming world?

The U.S. is clear on what the IPCC needs to do: It needs to get with the times.

Despite the exhaustive amount of work that goes into producing each of the IPCC’s assessment reports, relatively little effort goes into making the information in those reports easily accessible to the public. The IPCC’s main website is ugly and static, mirroring the dry assessment reports to which it links. The IPCC’s online presence seems designed to meet day-to-day demands for climate information by bureaucrats — and nobody else.

Instead of publishing huge, three-part reports every five to seven years, the U.S. thinks the IPCC’s assessment reports should be divided into two main sections that would be published on staggered timelines — a little bit like how the winter and summer Olympics arrive two years apart. The U.S. is also urging the IPCC to publish “special reports” on emerging topics between its blockbuster assessments. Here are some highlights from the U.S. recommendations to the IPCC about its future:

Between these regular assessments (which would be easily searchable on a web-based platform), IPCC authors could add relevant publications to the web site to yield a “living document.” … A possible solution could be the kinds of modalities used in various moderated listserves and wikis. …

Consider taking advantage of the significant advances in information technology by providing the full content of the reports online in an interactive format that hyperlinks in-text citations to the abstracts/articles/reports they reference, as well as links to underlying data and research, where available.

America’s comments mirror those of other groups and countries. Here, for example, are highlights from the European Union’s recommendations to the IPCC:

[G]iven the relatively long period between assessment reports (currently seven years) there is a clear need for updates over shorter time-periods, especially when important new elements of information are available and existing pieces of information become outdated. This could be facilitated by a full digitalisation of the reports and complementary use of a web-based ‘wiki-type’ approach, to provide an ‘interim’ (advanced) version of the assessment report.

The changes that would be needed to get climate science onto smartphones and into living rooms seems like basic stuff in an increasingly internet-savvy world. But it could be challenging to drive such change in a group that’s understandably more interested in climate science than public engagement. To this end, Sweden and other countries have suggested that the IPCC hire professional science writers, while others are urging it to hire multimedia professionals.


Source
Future work of the IPCC: Collated comments from Governments, IPCC

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Read this article: 

U.S. urges IPCC to be less boring, try this whole “online” thing

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.S. urges IPCC to be less boring, try this whole “online” thing

U.N. report spells out super-hard things we must do to curb warming

Mission not-quite-impossible

U.N. report spells out super-hard things we must do to curb warming

Shutterstock

Hooboy, it’s gonna get hot. A U.N. climate panel on Sunday painted a sizzling picture of the staggering volume of greenhouse gases we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere — and what will happen to the planet if we keep this shit up.

By 2100, surface temperatures will be 3.7 to 4.8 degrees C (6.7 to 8.7 F) warmer than prior to the Industrial Revolution. That’s far worse than the goal the international community is aiming for — to keep warming under 2 C (3.7 F). The U.N.’s terrifying projection assumes that we keep on burning fossil fuels as if nothing mattered, like we do now, leading to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere of between 750 and 1,300 parts per million by 2100. A few centuries ago, CO2 levels were a lovely 280 ppm, and many scientists say we should aim to keep them at 350 ppm, but we’re already above 400.

These warnings come from the third installment of the latest big report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, compiled by hundreds of climate scientists and experts. (WTF is this IPCC? See our explainer. Feel like you’ve heard this story before? Perhaps you’re thinking of the first installment of the report, which came out last fall, or the second installment, which came out last month. Maybe the IPCC believes that breaking its report into three parts makes it more fun, like the Hobbit movies.)

Here’s a paragraph and a chart from the 33-page summary of the latest installment that help explain how we reached this precarious point in human history.

Globally, economic and population growth continue to be the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The contribution of population growth between 2000 and 2010 remained roughly identical to the previous three decades, while the contribution of economic growth has risen sharply … Between 2000 and 2010, both drivers outpaced emission reductions from improvements in energy intensity. Increased use of coal relative to other energy sources has reversed the long-standing trend of gradual decarbonization of the world’s energy supply.

IPCCClick to embiggen.

Of course, we could change our fossil-fuel-burning, globe-warming ways. It’s too late to avoid climate change — it’s already here — but the scientists who collaborated on the latest IPCC report think they know what it would take to keep warming within 2 degrees. It would require “substantial cuts” in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century “through large-scale changes in energy systems,” and maybe also changes in how we use land and protect CO2-slurping forests. By 2050, we would need to be pumping far less pollution into the atmosphere than we were in 2010 — perhaps 40 to 70 percent less. And by 2100, we would need to stop polluting the atmosphere entirely.

Achieving these seemingly impossible but utterly crucial reductions in greenhouse gas pollution will require international agreement, the report notes. The trans-boundary nature of the climate crisis means no one government or group can fix this problem on its own. So come on, everybody — let’s get to it!


Source
• Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change IPCC Working Group III Contribution to AR5, IPCC

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Read the article: 

U.N. report spells out super-hard things we must do to curb warming

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.N. report spells out super-hard things we must do to curb warming

IKEA makes big investment in wind energy (some assembly required)

WINDË Power

IKEA makes big investment in wind energy (some assembly required)

ShutterstockLet’s hope that couch holds up in a stiff breeze.

IKEA — though not exactly a friend to forests, and way too fond of dubious meatballs for our taste — still wins greenie points for having a Scandinavian way with alternative energy. Ninety percent of its massive warehouse stores will soon host rooftop solar panels, including sunny south Florida’s largest solar array, and Brits will be able to buy solar panels in U.K. stores starting this summer. On Thursday, the company one-upped its own clean cred by announcing its investment in a giant wind farm in Illinois.

Hoopeston Wind is the most recent in a series of wind investments by IKEA, including several farms in Canada, where the furniture behemoth is the largest retail wind investor. The Illinois farm will produce 98 megawatts of electricity when it comes online in 2015, or enough to power 34,000 Expedit-enhanced homes. That’s more than twice the electricity that all of IKEA’s U.S. operations consume, and about 18 percent of the company’s global consumption. All of those megawatts will be sold locally, and IKEA will count them toward its overall renewable energy goal: to be totally carbon-free by 2020.

When it comes to putting up wind power, IKEA is actually lagging. (Maybe they were struggling to read the instructions?) The American Wind Energy Association credits Walmart, of all companies, with kicking off the airy trend when it started buying a lot of energy from a Texas wind farm in 2008. Microsoft and Facebook both made flashy commitments to wind energy last year, while Google has been steadily ratcheting up its wind game for years.

This wind rush could be about, yes, corporate responsibility and a commitment to a more sustainable world. It’s also about the bottom line. Volatile fuel prices are driving smart companies to make long-term investments in more reliable power — and we’re OK with that, as long as they fix those wasteful bookcases, too.

Right now, IKEA’s new farm is saddled with the very Midwestern name Hoopeston Wind, but the company already stole our punchline about rebranding it:

“We haven’t figured out if it will say ‘IKEA’ on the blades,’’ [Rob Olson, chief financial officer of IKEA U.S.,] said. “Or maybe we’ll use the iconic names for our products on the wind turbines? We’re not sure.’’

WINDË coming soon to a utility near you.


Source
IKEA investing in Illinois wind farm, Chicago Tribune
IKEA Buys Illinois Wind Farm in Global Renewables Push, Bloomberg

Amelia Urry is Grist’s intern. Follow her on Twitter.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Living

Original link: 

IKEA makes big investment in wind energy (some assembly required)

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, Brita, FF, G & F, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on IKEA makes big investment in wind energy (some assembly required)