GreenEnergy4.us

Cities

It’s a sports dome and a hurricane shelter all in one

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Originally posted here:

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged agency, cities, climate & energy, energy, federal, google, hymas, structure, technology, texan, texas | Comments Off

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has left the building

by RubinkJoseph Posted on December 27, 2012

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has left the building

By Scott Rosenberg

We knew this one was coming, but now it’s official: Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s long-embattled administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is leaving her post.

Jackson served for four years as lead environmental regulator for the Obama administration, taking innumerable volleys of criticism from all directions. Serious environmentalists felt she caved too regularly to White House-driven compromises, allowing the climate to become a footnote and essential initiatives to be watered down. Meanwhile, the Tea Party right set her up as a job-killing bogeyperson and marshal of a “war on coal.” (Green types only wished that war was real.)

As the first African American EPA administrator, Jackson brought a more inclusive approach to her environmental work — moving both her agency and the national public far beyond old green stereotypes. The achievements of Jackson’s tenure were real: major improvements in automobile emissions standards, important new controls on mercury in power-plant fumes, and the first-ever federal ruling that greenhouse gases should be classed as pollutants.

And yet no one who is conscious of the climate crisis can fail to see the last four years as, fundamentally, a failure where it most counts — a critical, fleeting, now-missed chance to jam open a closing window of opportunity and alter our global-warming course. Early in Obama’s first term, the White House and a then-Democratic Congress took one futile run at a watered-down cap-and-trade measure, then played dead on the issue. Obama barely mentioned the climate during his reelection campaign. Prospects for stronger action remain dim.

When Grist interviewed Jackson last summer, we asked her what headline she’d write over her administration’s record on climate issues. She joked about not being good at keeping her language short and sweet, then came out with:

“In accordance with the law, we moved forward with sensible, cost effective steps at the federal level on climate, using the Clean Air Act.” And I would have a second sentence — see, I can’t write headlines! But it would be something like, “The progress at state and local levels, combined with the federal level, does not obviate the need” — you can’t use obviate, it’s above fifth-grade level! — “does not obviate the need for federal legislation to address this incredibly important challenge for this and future generations.”

And here’s Jackson’s July 2012, appearance on The Colbert Report:

Source

E.P.A. Chief to Step Down, With Climate Still Low Priority, New York Times

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Excerpt from –

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has left the building

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged african, agency, climate, green, grist, house, jackson, uncategorized | Comments Off

Appeals court rejects industry attempt to kill EPA regulation of greenhouse gases

by biglermyrta910 Posted on December 20, 2012

Appeals court rejects industry attempt to kill EPA regulation of greenhouse gases

Envios

Perhaps the debate’s next stop.

An appeals court in D.C. today rejected an attempt by the fossil fuel industry to gut a critical EPA pollution rule.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, as pollutants. Since that point, as the EPA has struggled to implement various rules limiting such pollution for both new and old power plants, there have been a series of court battles over its authority. The ruling today is not the final word, but is nonetheless an important victory.

From The Hill:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia voted 6-2 to reject a request for the full court to reconsider a June ruling that upheld EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

The court’s action could set up a Supreme Court challenge by industry, energy firms and the state of Alaska, which were pushing for the rehearing.

The decision in June by a three-judge panel determined EPA properly evaluated the health effects of greenhouse gas emissions. That allowed the agency to continue regulating those emissions through the Clean Air Act.

Unsurprisingly, the arguments from industry and oil companies (hereafter, “The Polluters”) suggested that the EPA’s scientific finding on the health threat of greenhouse gas pollution was faulty.

Circuit Judge David Sentelle, writing an opinion for the court, disagreed.

“Of course, we agree that the statute requires EPA to find a particular causal nexus between the pollutant and the harm in order to regulate. … But that is exactly what EPA did: it found that ‘greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare,’” Sentelle wrote. …

Sentelle [also wrote], “Congress did not say ‘certain ‘air pollutants.’ … It said ‘any air pollutant,’ and it meant it.”

The EPA has a (somewhat dense) page with information about its various proposals aimed at stemming greenhouse gas pollution.

As the legal machinations play out, The Polluters continue to hurriedly burn coal and sell oil to make a few bucks. And the atmosphere slowly gets warmer.

Source

Court won’t revisit greenhouse gas ruling, The Hill

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Appeals court rejects industry attempt to kill EPA regulation of greenhouse gases

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit site:

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged agency, business, clean, energy, epa, health, judge, philip, politics, sentelle | Comments Off

NYC’s public transit system will raise fares — because what choice does it have?

by RubinkJoseph Posted on December 19, 2012

NYC’s public transit system will raise fares — because what choice does it have?

New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority and its director Joe Lhota received broad (and largely deserved) praise for the speed with which the city’s transit system was brought back online after Sandy. One of the things that made that recovery remarkable was how expensive it was, with the agency tallying $5 billion in expenses linked to the storm. That cost came on top of the MTA’s ongoing budget problems.

MTAPhotos

An empty, dry tunnel under the East River.

Unsurprisingly, then, the MTA today announced plans to increase fares. As reported by The New York Times:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted unanimously on Wednesday to raise the base fare on subways and buses by a quarter, to $2.50, and increase the cost of a 30-day MetroCard by $8, to $112. …

The cost of a seven-day subway or bus pass will also rise by $1, to $30. And the bonus on pay-per-ride MetroCards will decrease to 5 percent, from 7 percent, but will be available to anyone who places at least $5 on a card. Currently, the bonus applies only to purchases of at least $10.

Those increases are 11 percent for a single ride, 8 percent for a 30-day card, and 3 percent for a 7-day pass. Sounds steep — particularly when you consider that fares have consistently increased faster than the rate of inflation. Then again, so has the number of bus routes and subway lines.

Wikipedia

Click to embiggen.

Given that we’re talking public transit, it’s tempting to label the hikes regressive, disproportionately affecting lower-income users. But it isn’t that simple. According to the most recent subway and bus rider data, the demographics of public transit users in the region are probably not what you’d expect.

In each of these charts, the data presented is the percentage of ridership meeting a particular criterion, or, in the case of the yellow columns in each, the percentage of all New Yorkers.

While the bus (as one would expect) has more lower-income riders and riders of color, the plurality of riders of both the bus and the subway earn over $75,000 a year. The MTA does have a reduced fare structure, but it is predicated on age and disability, not ability to pay. And what’s not depicted in the graphs above is how much of the riders’ income goes to transit. So, yes, the fare increase is regressive — but perhaps less than it may at first seem.

This is the challenge of an institution that is dependent on flat-rate public financing. At some point, the cost of maintaining or expanding service outpaces the revenue that is coming in. (See also: the federal government.) Hikes are unpopular and often unduly burdensome to lower income levels. But they’re also necessary.

Earlier today, Chair Lhota announced that he was leaving the agency. Many expect that he’ll announce a (doomed) bid for mayor of New York. It’s a weird note to go out on: After receiving praise for handling Sandy, he’ll certainly be remembered for this fare hike, even though it doesn’t go into effect until March.

Then again, championing unpopular causes to preserve public priorities is ideally what politics is all about. The problem for Lhota is that you have to get elected first.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Cities

NYC’s public transit system will raise fares — because what choice does it have?

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

From:

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged agency, bus, business, cities, given, mayor, metro, politics, subway | Comments Off

By 2017, the world will be burning enough coal for another U.S. and Russia

by biglermyrta910 Posted on December 18, 2012

By 2017, the world will be burning enough coal for another U.S. and Russia

Shutterstock

Extremely good news for the world: Over the next five years, oil will fall from the top spot as a source of energy.

Extremely bad news for the world: Coal will replace it.

From The Guardian:

Coal consumption is increasing all over the world — even in countries and regions with carbon-cutting targets — except the US, where shale gas has displaced coal, shows new research from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The decline of the fuel in the US has helped to cut prices for coal globally, which has made it more attractive, even in Europe where coal use was supposed to be discouraged by the emissions trading scheme. …

According to the IEA, demand from China and India will drive world coal use in the coming five years, with India on course to overtake the US as the world’s second biggest consumer. China is the biggest coal importer, and Indonesia the biggest exporter, having temporarily overtaken Australia.

According to the IEA’s Medium Term Coal Market Report, published on Tuesday morning, the world will burn 1.2bn more tonnes of coal per year by 2017 compared with today — the equivalent of the current coal consumption of Russia and the US combined. Global coal consumption is forecast to reach 4.3bn tonnes of oil equivalent by 2017, while oil consumption is forecast to reach 4.4bn tonnes by the same date.

The calculus, in brief: The U.S.’s natural gas boom has dropped demand for coal, making U.S. coal cheaper. That cheaper U.S. coal helps drive down costs for the fuel internationally, where it’s already cheap and accessible. So in five years’ time, we’ll be burning as much coal as we do now, plus the amount of coal currently consumed by another Russia and another United States.

Last year, global demand for coal rose 4.3 percent. It’s expected to keep growing until it hits the figures above. A short ton of coal produces 2.86 short tons of carbon dioxide. So the additional 1.2 billion tons of coal we’ll be burning each year means 3.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide produced on top of what we’re producing right now — getting us ever closer to the magic too-late number on carbon pollution.

The IEA report does have some good news. In the U.S., coal production is expected to plummet. And Europe, temporarily crazy for coal, will recover from that psychosis as natural gas prices and coal prices even out and the continent relies more heavily on renewables. But that’s about it. Australia and Indonesia will export more. India will become a dominant force in coal markets.

But the grimmest note is the one the IEA leaves us with:

In the pipeline are almost 300 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of terminal capacity and the 150 mtpa (probable) to 600 mtpa (potential) of mine expansion capacity, more than enough to meet coal demand in a secure way over the outlook period.

For all of the coal that the world’s going to want to burn, there’s more than enough to supply it. Dig it up, light it on fire, watch the smoke rise into the sky.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

By 2017, the world will be burning enough coal for another U.S. and Russia

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View post:

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged agency, article, australia, business & technology, climate, energy, europe, fuel, iea, indonesia, technology | Comments Off

Justice Department ditches Monsanto investigation

by Myrna Posted on December 3, 2012

Justice Department ditches Monsanto investigation

By Susie Cagle

While we were celebrating Thanksgiving, Monsanto had much to be thankful for, too. Last month, the Department of Justice quietly scrapped an investigation begun in January 2010 into anticompetitive practices in the American seed market that Monsanto dominates like an extra-mean, extra-genetically-modified Hulk. Today, Hulk “pleased.”

Monsanto

Tom Philpott at Mother Jones reports:

The DOJ didn’t even see fit to mark the investigation’s end with a press release. News of it emerged from a brief item Monsanto itself issued the Friday before Thanksgiving, declaring it had “received written notification” from the DOJ antitrust division that it had ended its investigation “without taking any enforcement action.”

A DOJ spokesperson confirmed to me that the agency had “closed its investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the seed industry,” but would divulge no details. “In making its decision, the Antitrust Division took into account marketplace developments that occurred during the pendency of the investigation,” she stated via email. I asked what precisely those “marketplace developments” were. “I don’t have anything else for you,” she replied. Monsanto, too, is being tight-lipped — a company spokesperson said the company had no statement to make beyond the above-linked press release.

Monsanto’s proprietary traits end up in 98 percent of genetically modified soybeans and 79 percent of GM corn grown stateside. Along with other toxic seed avengers DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow, Monsanto owns more than 80 percent of the seed market.

We may not know why the DOJ abandoned its investigation, but we know it probably shouldn’t have.

[O]ne sign of an uncompetitive industry is the ability to raise prices at will, unimpeded by price pressure from rivals. It’s impossible to say, without more information, if the GMO giants have done that — but prices have risen briskly over the past decade. In her … 2009 paper, the American Antitrust Institute’s [Vice President Diana] Moss points out that in truly competitive markets, “technologies that enjoy widespread and rapid adoption” — like GM seeds — “typically experience precipitous declines” in price. But between 2000 and 2008, Moss writes, “real seed costs [for farmers] increased by an average annual rate of five percent for corn, almost 11 percent for cotton, and seven percent for soybeans.”

MONSANTO SMASH FARMERS. MONSANTO HAVE NO REGRETS.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

Food

Justice Department ditches Monsanto investigation

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More here –

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged agency, cagle, company, food, grist, institute, king, monsanto, mother, politics, technology, twitter | Comments Off

EPA: No new contracts for you, BP (but keep the old ones)

by Myrna Posted on November 28, 2012

EPA: No new contracts for you, BP (but keep the old ones)

If you walked into your place of employment one day and — oops — were to blame for a massive explosion that killed a number of employees and which led to a months-long toxic spill killing an uncountable number of animals and crippling the local economy — how long do you think it would take for you to be fired? Fourteen seconds? Fifteen?

Well, if you’re an oil company who does business with the government, you’ll be fine for years. But then you should expect a severe slap on the wrist.

“Hey, sorry. My bad.”

From Bloomberg:

BP, which pleaded guilty to criminal charges after the worst U.S. oil spill in 2010, will be temporarily suspended from winning new contracts from the federal government, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement today.

The EPA said the ban was imposed because the company’s conduct during the Deepwater Horizon disaster showed a lack of integrity. The action, which doesn’t affect existing contracts, will stand until BP can demonstrate it meets business standards set by the government, the EPA said.

BP is one of the largest suppliers of fuel to the U.S. Department of Defense.

So, the government didn’t really fire BP as such, it just blocked new business. That massively lucrative contract with the DoD isn’t touched.

The Hill has a longer quote from the EPA:

“EPA is taking this action due to BP’s lack of business integrity as demonstrated by the company’s conduct with regard to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, explosion, oil spill, and response, as reflected by the filing of a criminal information,” EPA said in a Wednesday statement.

This is the key point. It’s not the explosion and deaths and the spill and the economic damage — it’s how the company responded to those events. The motivation for this action appears to be the deception and spinning during the spill and attempts to gloss over that behavior during the criminal trial.

Which is like you going into work, bearing responsibility for those deaths and that destruction, and then not getting a promotion because you tried to downplay it. Harsh.

Update: Here is the full statement from the EPA.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

EPA: No new contracts for you, BP (but keep the old ones)

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See more here:

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged action, agency, animals, business, climate & energy, department, energy, environmental, epa, federal, politics | Comments Off

U.K. flooding prompts now-standard question: How will we pay for this?

by Myrna Posted on November 27, 2012

U.K. flooding prompts now-standard question: How will we pay for this?

Last week’s E.U. report on anticipated effects of climate change made one point clearly: The United Kingdom can expect to see a lot more flooding. In case the Brits didn’t read the report, Mother Nature decided to make that point directly.

From the Capital Weather Gang:

A weather double whammy has smacked the United Kingdom (UK) with flooding rain and powerful winds. The first wave struck this weekend, with the follow-up blow [Sunday] night into [Monday].

The storm that struck over the weekend was the more powerful of the two. The BBC reports more than 800 homes were flooded by the storm in England and Wales, and two people were killed. The worst weather was focused in South West England. The UK Met Office reports 40-60 mm of rain (1.5-2.5 inches) were common through Sunday morning while wind gusts reached 55-70 mph Saturday night. Prime Minister David Cameron described “shocking scenes of flooding” in Cornwall where rainfall reached 3.7 inches according to AccuWeather.

There are any number of photo galleries of those “shocking scenes,” including this one of an elderly man being rescued from his car. Both The Guardian and the BBC had live blogs reporting damage, rescues, and anticipated further flooding. Britain’s Environment Agency has a map of flood warnings that it has updated regularly over the past few days.

Even before the waters have stopped rising (northern England and Wales are being drenched today; one river has already overflowed its levees), the inevitable debate has arisen: How will these floods affect insurance costs?

samsaunders

A warning near Bristol.

Businessweek reports that the estimated damage could top $800 million. According to the Daily Mail (so: grain of salt), homes in high-risk areas may no longer be considered insurable.

Under a previous deal, most homes which will never experience floods pay a ‘small sum’ on their insurance premiums to subsidise cover for high-risk homes.

But this is due to expire next year. …

If no new agreement is reached, households in flood-risk areas would be left at the mercy of the market and around 200,000 homeowners would not be able to secure or afford any insurance at all leaving them unable to sell or re-mortgage their homes.

The U.S. debated this same topic over the summer, eventually deciding to increase flood insurance rates after years of rates so low that the National Flood Insurance Program ran at a deficit. (In the aftermath of Sandy, the program will likely need an additional infusion of funding to pay out claims.) Higher insurance rates have two benefits: They allow the program to better pay for itself and, more importantly, act as a disincentive to build in areas that are more likely to be flooded.

As we noted last week, these maps show how climate change over the next 90 years will affect the U.K. — far more “100 year” floods, like those that are right now swamping the country.

Click to embiggen.

There will be a cost paid. The only question: Will it be paid on the front end in cash or on the back end in much more cash — and lives?

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Living

U.K. flooding prompts now-standard question: How will we pay for this?

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged agency, environment, kingdom, living, mother, nature, office, politics, program | Comments Off

Your local beach may be getting slightly cleaner, or maybe not

by Myrna Posted on November 27, 2012

Your local beach may be getting slightly cleaner, or maybe not

Dehk

Just in time for summer (in Australia), the EPA released new water quality standards for beaches yesterday.

The new guidelines lower the allowable levels of Enterococci and E. coli bacteria — if states choose to participate. From the Los Angeles Times:

The new guidelines, which update standards issued in 1986, may not immediately mean safer beaches and coastal waters. States have the authority to set their own water quality standards.

But federal environmental officials said they hoped the suggested guidance would prompt state leaders to toughen their own oversight of recreational waters where people swim, surf and go boating. California is among the states that may tighten standards. …

The tougher guidelines are expected to keep illnesses down to 32 per 1,000 people, compared with 36 illnesses for the lower standard, the agency said.

So, in short: If states apply the new guidelines, it will potentially reduce illness by about 11 percent. That’s … a little underwhelming? Come on, EPA, Obama won reelection. This is the moment to be bold!

According to the Times, the Natural Resources Defense Council is similarly unimpressed.

“It’s an odd approach,” said Steve Fleischli, the council’s director of water programs.

Fleischli said the two standards could perpetuate inconsistencies between states that adopt the tougher guidelines and those that opt for the more lenient ones.

The NRDC produces an annual report listing the dirtiest beaches in America, which is always a disconcerting read. In its report released this past June, outlining water quality in 2011, the organization found that Delaware and New Hampshire — those oceanside favorites — had the lowest levels of pollution. The most polluted water in 2011 was found in Louisiana — but we’re sure the state will jump at the optional chance to crack down on water pollution.

There is one group that will be pleased about the update: those four people out of 1,000 who don’t become sick because their state chose to allow only a lower level of E. coli at their favorite swimming hole. Yaayyy.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Living