Tag Archives: coal

Supreme Court’s Blow to Emissions Efforts May Imperil Paris Climate Accord

Polluters like China and India may balk at following through on the Paris Agreement on cutting emissions if the United States fails to carry out strong policies. Jump to original:  Supreme Court’s Blow to Emissions Efforts May Imperil Paris Climate Accord ; ; ;

Taken from:

Supreme Court’s Blow to Emissions Efforts May Imperil Paris Climate Accord

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court’s Blow to Emissions Efforts May Imperil Paris Climate Accord

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

green4us

Will the Paris Agreement be enough? There’s a deal. lexaarts/Shutterstock; NASA; Photo illustration by James West There was relief and celebration in Paris Saturday evening, as officials from more than 190 countries swept aside monumental differences and agreed to an unprecedented global deal to tackle climate change. The historic accord, known as the Paris Agreement, includes emissions-slashing commitments from individual countries and promises to help poorer nations adapt to the damaging effects of a warming world. Negotiators also agreed on measures to revise, strengthen, and scrutinize countries’ contributions going forward. However, the deal leaves some key decisions to the future, and it is widely recognized as not representing an ultimate solution to climate change. Instead, it sets out the rules of the road for the next 10 to 15 years and establishes an unprecedented international legal basis for addressing climate issues. Within the agreement, nearly every country on Earth laid out its own plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change impacts. Although those individual plans are not legally binding, the core agreement itself is. The deal sets a long-term goal of keeping the increase in the global temperature to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels and calls on countries to “pursue efforts” to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees C. It adds that “parties aim to reach a global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who has served as chair of the two-week summit, said the deal is the most ambitious step ever taken by the international community to confront climate change. In announcing the deal, President Barack Obama clinched a major foreign policy success years in the making and secured long-term action on climate change as a core part of his legacy, despite extraordinary opposition at home from the Republican majority in Congress. During the second week of the talks in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry was a driving force, delivering several high-profile speeches in which he sought to cast the US as a leader on climate action. For Kerry, who has been a prominent voice in climate summits for two decades, it was essential to craft a deal the US could agree to and not to return home empty-handed. The deal signals that world leaders are now committed to responding to the dire scientific warnings about the impacts of warming. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and other human activities are threatening to usher in an era of rising sea levels, sinking islands, scorching heat waves, devastating droughts, mass human migration, and destruction of ecosystems. Among the deal’s biggest successes is a commitment to produce a global review of climate progress by 2018 and to bring countries back to the negotiating table by 2020 to present climate targets that “will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then-current” target. In other words, countries are committed to ramping up their ambition in the short term. This was an essential item for many people here, since the current raft of targets only keeps global warming to 2.7 degrees C, not 1.5. The deal also promises to hold every country accountable to the same standard of transparency in measuring and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions; this was a provision that the US had pushed hard for in order to ensure that other big polluters such as China and India abide by their promises. “Countries have united around a historic agreement that marks a turning point in the climate crisis,” said Jennifer Morgan, global director of the climate program at the World Resources Institute. “This is a transformational long-term goal that should really send clear signals into the markets” about the imminent decline of fossil fuel consumption. The deal is expected to be a boon for the clean energy industry, as developing and developed countries alike increase their investments in wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. Early in the talks, a high-profile group of billionaire investors, including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, promised to pour money into clean energy research, and a critical component of the agreement is a commitment for developed countries to transfer clean technologies to developing countries. “If we needed an economic signal from this agreement, I think this is rather remarkable,” said Michael Jacobs, a senior advisor at New Climate Economy. Still, parts of the deal left some environmental groups unsatisfied, particularly with respect to financing for clean energy technology and climate change adaptation. The deal requires all developed countries to “provide financial assistance to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation.” Although the deal sets a floor of $100 billion for that assistance and calls for that number to be raised by 2025, it doesn’t specify a new higher target and does not commit any country, including the US, to any particular share of that. The deal also specifies that nothing in it can be construed as holding countries with the biggest historical contribution to climate change—most importantly the US—legally or financially liable for climate change-related damages in vulnerable countries. And it provides no specific timeline for peaking and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions; according to some scientists, that will need to happen within the next few decades for the 1.5 degrees C target to be achievable. “There’s not enough in this deal for the nations and people on the frontlines of climate change,” said Kumi Naidoo, international executive director of Greenpeace, in a statement. “It contains an inherent, ingrained injustice. The nations which caused this problem have promised too little help to the people who are already losing their lives and livelihoods.” The task of delegates at Le Bourget, a converted airport north of Paris, over the past two weeks was substantial. After all, more than two decades of UN-led climate talks had failed to produce a global deal to limit greenhouse gases. The Copenhagen talks in 2009 collapsed because officials couldn’t agree on how to level the playing field between rich and poor countries, sending negotiations into a morass of recriminations. Before that, the Kyoto protocol in 1997 also failed—the US and China didn’t ratify it, and it only covered about 14 percent of global carbon emissions. This year’s negotiations, the 21st in the series of UN climate talks, had to be different. One of the major reasons negotiators were able to reach a deal was that much of the work had been done in advance. By the time Paris rolled around, more than 150 countries had promised to change the way they use energy, detailing those changes in the form of individual commitments. Known as INDCs, these pledges formed the basis of Saturday’s deal. Of course, the INDCs won’t be legally binding, and even if most countries do manage to live up to their promises, they aren’t yet ambitious enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming. The latest estimate is that the INDCs will limit global warming to about 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That’s above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts of global warming—and far above the 1.5 degrees Celsius target that negotiators in Paris agreed to aim for. But it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would happen if the world continued on its present course. The Paris summit began as the largest meeting of government leaders in history (outside the UN building in New York) just two weeks after ISIS-affiliated terrorists killed 130 people across the city. While French officials immediately promised the talks would continue, they soon banned long-planned, massive climate protests, citing security concerns. That decision set the stage for several skirmishes between police and protesters, who remained committed to disrupting the talks in order to highlight issues such as sponsorship from big oil companies and the plight of poorer countries. At one protest, an estimated 10,000 people formed a human chain in the Place de la République, the site of a spontaneous memorial to the victims of the Paris attacks. There were scores of arrests. But the climate talks themselves went ahead as planned. Some 40,000 heads of state, diplomats, scientists, activists, policy experts, and journalists descended on the French capital for the event. Perhaps the biggest factor driving the negotiators’ unprecedented optimism was the fact that the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, and the world’s two biggest economies—the US and China—had made a public show of working together to get an agreement. A landmark climate deal between the two countries in November 2014 built critical momentum. China later promised to create a national cap-and-trade program to augment a suite of emissions-control policies. The Obama administration, meanwhile, pushed through its Clean Power Plan regulations, despite aggressive resistance from Republicans. Still, as the talks neared their conclusion on Friday, tensions were rising between the so-called “High Ambition Coalition”—a negotiating bloc including the US, European Union, and dozens of developing countries—and China and India. Nevertheless, a rare alliance between world leaders ultimately prevailed: Pope Francis, for one, campaigned tirelessly for a climate deal ahead of the talks, decrying the “unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem.” All of this cleared the way for large groups of developed and developing countries to cooperate at the talks. Bigger countries appeared ready to work with the 43-country-strong negotiating bloc of highly vulnerable developing nations. Recent changes of leadership in Canada and Australia, notable adversaries of climate action in recent years, switched these mid-sized players into fans of a deal before the talks. Even Russia’s Vladimir Putin seemed to have an eleventh hour change of heart—or, at least, of rhetoric—and called for action.

Read original article: 

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Related Posts

Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming
2014 Was the Year We Finally Started to Do Something About Climate Change
The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts
Leave Fossil Fuels Buried to Prevent Climate Change, Study Urges
Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year? Here’s Why It Doesn’t Matter.
Will the Planet Survive the Next 24 Hours?

Share this:






Link: 

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Landmark, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

A Massive Climate Summit Just Started in Paris. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Diplomats and scientists are descending on the French capital Monday. They’ll try to save the world. INTERPIXELS/Shutterstock On Monday, roughly 40,000 heads of state, diplomats, scientists, activists, policy experts, and journalists will descend on an airport in the northern Paris suburbs for the biggest meeting on climate change since at least 2009—or maybe ever. The summit is organized by the United Nations and is primarily aimed at producing an agreement that will serve as the world’s blueprint for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of global warming. This is a major milestone in the climate change saga, and it has been in the works for years. Here’s what you need to know: What’s going on at this summit, exactly? At the heart of the summit are the core negotiations, which are off-limits to the public and journalists. Like any high-stakes diplomatic summit, representatives of national governments will sit in a big room and parse through pages of text, word by word. The final document will actually be a jigsaw puzzle of two separate pieces. The most important part is the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). These are commitments made individually by each country about how they plan to reduce their carbon footprints. The United States, for example, has committed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, mostly by going after carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Nearly every country on Earth has submitted an INDC, together covering about 95 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. (You can explore them in detail here.) The video below, from Climate Desk partner Grist, has a good rundown of how this all really works. The INDCs will be plugged in to a core agreement, the final text of which will be hammered out during the negotiations. It will likely include language about how wealthy nations should help pay for poor nations’ efforts to adapt to climate change; how countries should revise and strengthen their commitments over time; and how countries can critically evaluate each other’s commitments. While the INDCs are unlikely to be legally binding (that is, a country could change its commitment without international repercussions), certain elements of the core agreement may be binding. There’s some disagreement between the United States and Europe over what the exact legal status of this document will be. A formal treaty would need the approval of the Republican-controlled US Senate, which is almost certainly impossible. It’s more likely that President Barack Obama will sign off on the document as an “executive agreement,” which doesn’t need to go through Congress. Meanwhile, outside the negotiating room, thousands of business leaders, state and local officials, activists, scientists, and others will carry out a dizzying array of side events, press conferences, workshops, etc. It’s basically going to be a giant party for the world’s climate nerds. But what about the terrorist attacks in Paris? Of course, all of this will be happening while the French capital is still reeling from the bombings and shootings that left 129 dead on November 13. Shortly after the attacks, French officials affirmed that the summit would still happen. But it will be tightly controlled, with loads of additional security measures. As my colleague James West has reported, many of the major rallies and marches that activists had planned will be canceled at the behest of French authorities. So the festive aspects of the summit are likely to be toned way down, with attention focused just on the formal events needed to complete the agreement. The summit could also direct a lot of attention to the links between climate change, terrorism, and national security. Is this actually going to stop climate change? Short answer, no. The latest estimate is that the INDCs on the table will limit global warming to about 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. As I wrote in October, “That’s above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts—but it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would happen if the world continued on its present course.” No one expects that this summit will be the end of the battle to stop climate change. As technology improves and countries get more confident in their ability to curb greenhouses gases, they’ll be able to step up their action over time. That’s why it’s essential for the agreement to include a requirement for countries to do so. In any case, even if the whole world stopped burning all fossil fuels right now, warming from existing greenhouse gas emissions would continue for decades, so adaptation is also a crucial part of the agreement. Some environmentalists have criticized that incremental approach as not urgent enough, given the scale of the problem. They could be right. But the fact is that right now, there’s no international agreement at all. The Paris talks will lay an essential groundwork for solving this problem over the next couple of decades. And there’s a pretty good chance the talks will be successful. At the last major climate summit, in 2009 in Copenhagen, negotiations crumbled because officials couldn’t agree on a set of global greenhouse gas limits that would hold most countries to the same standard despite differences in their resources and needs. That’s why, this time around, the approach is bottom-up: Because countries have already worked out their INDCs, there’s no ambiguity about what they’re willing to do and no need to agree on every detail. Meanwhile, the mere existence of the talks has already spurred a wave of new investment in clean energy, new commitments from cities and states around the globe, and other actions that aren’t part of the core agreement. And the international peer pressure around the INDCs has already made it clear that simply ignoring climate change isn’t a realistic geopolitical option, even for countries like Russia or the oil-producing Gulf states. That’s a significant change from what would be happening in the absence of the talks. In other words, it’s safe to say that the Paris summit has already been somewhat successful, and now we have the opportunity to see how far that success can go. So everything is peaches and cream? Not quite. There are some big remaining questions about how much money the United States and other wealthy countries will commit to help island nations, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and other places that are highly vulnerable to global warming. The international community is still far short of its goal of raising $100 billion annually by 2020 to fund adaptation. The legal status of the agreement remains unclear. We don’t know whether countries can agree on a long-term target date (say, 2100) to fully cease all greenhouse gas emissions. And it’s unclear how much tension there will be between juggernauts such as the United States, China, and the 43-country-strong negotiating bloc of highly vulnerable developing nations. At Climate Desk, we’ll have an eye on all these questions, and more—both from the ground in Paris and from our newsrooms in the United States. So stay tuned. Originally posted here –  A Massive Climate Summit Just Started in Paris. Here’s What You Need to Know. ; ; ;

View article: 

A Massive Climate Summit Just Started in Paris. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Paradise, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Massive Climate Summit Just Started in Paris. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Greenpeace wants to keep coal in the ground by buying up mines and power plants

Greenpeace wants to keep coal in the ground by buying up mines and power plants

By on 15 Oct 2015commentsShare

Cheap coal isn’t usually good news for the environment. When fossil fuel prices tank, it’s a lot harder to convince governments (and the private sector) to invest in renewables. But if you’re Greenpeace Sweden, cheap coal isn’t so bad. Cheap coal means you can afford to buy a German lignite mine and a handful of coal-fired power plants.

But wait, you’re thinking, Greenpeace hates coal. Lignite is brown coal. What are they going to do? Just let it sit there? Avast, fools!

Wily, discerning reader, that’s exactly what they’re going to do. And it’s not an awful idea. A good way to ensure dollars spent on “keeping it in the ground” actually go toward keeping fossil fuels unburned is to buy a bunch of fossil fuels and keep them in the ground.

The idea isn’t completely new. Bård Harstad of Northwestern University described a similar supply side solution in 2012, and data analyst Matt Frost proposed a related coal retirement plan in 2013. Frost suggested that one way for the U.S. to curb carbon emissions would be to allow activists and energy sector competitors to purchase coal reserves from the federal government — the largest owner of coal in the country — with the intent of letting the reserves remain untouched. He writes:

Strategically shrewd “investors” in unmined coal, motivated by the desire to prevent its mining and prop up its price, would start buying up tracts with the most economically viable reserves and continue down the supply curve, ideally until the spot price for coal meets that of natural gas. This would encourage the fuel-switching that is already underway in the U.S., thanks to the shale gas boom and recent regulations restricting coal.

Frost’s idea is slightly different from that of Greenpeace Sweden in that it’s slightly broader and more forward-looking. All else held constant, buying up coal reserves (and not doing anything with them) should result in higher coal prices — which makes things like natural gas (and renewable sources) more competitive. Of course, gas isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s certainly better than coal, and you can also imagine eventually applying the logic to shale fields, as well.

Greenpeace may not have an eye toward the macroeconomics at play, but the main thrust of the argument is the same: A dollar spent on literally keeping fossil fuels in the ground is a dollar well spent. Frost’s proposal continues:

Today, a climate activist who hopes to convert money into carbon mitigation can choose from among several different bank shots, such as political engagement, purchasing carbon offsets, or investing in alternative energy. In all these approaches, uncertainty and complexity dilute the carbon-reducing value of each dollar spent. Buying undeveloped fossil fuel and preventing it from ever being combusted results in both the direct benefit of sequestering the CO2 and the secondary effect of nudging prices upward by reducing coal available to other buyers. Private citizens and philanthropists could use their own funds to lock up coal reserves and corner the market, rather than lavishing money on political operatives and consultants and launching advocacy projects of dubious impact.

Of course, plenty of variables are relevant here. It’s not immediately obvious that the owners of coal — at least, the federal owners of coal — are the relevant players, for example. Peabody Energy doesn’t necessarily care about what the U.S. government does with the 88 billion tons of coal reserves that it owns, because Peabody already has 8.2 billion tons of coal reserves all to itself; unless, of course, the U.S. magically sells off the entirety of its reserves to Greenpeace for pennies on the dollar.

Which is also to say that the effectiveness of supply side coal retirement plans depends on their uptake at a pretty massive scale. We wouldn’t expect the purchase of a single coal mine or plant to affect the entire energy landscape.

If anything, though, the policy is worth a perusal — and in the meantime, it’s encouraging to see NGOs giving the concept a shot in other countries. If anyone wants to go halfsies on a German coal mine, let me know.

Source:

Coal Retirement Plan

, MWFrost.com.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Continue reading – 

Greenpeace wants to keep coal in the ground by buying up mines and power plants

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, Citizen, Cyber, FF, GE, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Greenpeace wants to keep coal in the ground by buying up mines and power plants

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

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

Why We Should Talk About Geoengineering Even If We Never Do It

“By talking about geoengineering, I get more people interested in talking about climate change.” Trifonov_Evgeniy/iStock Ben Kravitz has studied geoengineering for the past seven years and doesn’t plan to stop anytime soon, despite ongoing controversy around the issue. That’s because even if geoengineering never happens in the real world, the concept alone is already playing an important role in the climate change story. “[Theoretical geoengineering] has allowed us to ask questions about how the climate system works that we didn’t even know we wanted to ask,” says Kravitz, a researcher at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. “It’s actually in some ways changed the way I think about problems in climate science.” Kravitz’s interest in geoengineering began back in 2007, when he was a graduate student at Rutgers University. He attended a seminar on geoengineering by environmental scientist Alan Robock, and, immediately recognizing the importance of the work, asked Robock to take him on as a PhD student. Together, they started the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), an international collaboration that runs identical geoengineering simulations on some of the world’s most advanced climate models. Kravitz and Robock came up with GeoMIP after realizing that different models running different experiments were coming up with conflicting predictions—a problem if those predictions were ever going to inform real-world decisions. Read the rest at Grist. Read article here: Why We Should Talk About Geoengineering Even If We Never Do It

This article is from: 

Why We Should Talk About Geoengineering Even If We Never Do It

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why We Should Talk About Geoengineering Even If We Never Do It

Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution

green4us

The dirty fuels that cause pollution also cause global warming. hxdbzxy/Shutterstock Leaders of developing countries should take a look at a new study by professors and researchers at Harvard, Yale, and the University of Chicago, and keep it in mind when they go to Paris to discuss a global climate agreement this December. According to the study, published in the journal Economic & Political Weekly(EPW), “India’s population is exposed to dangerously high levels of air pollution.” Based on ground-level measurements and satellite data, the paper estimates that 660 million Indians live in areas exceeding the Indian government’s air quality standard for fine particulate pollution. The causes are the same as they are everywhere: cars, industrial activity, and electricity generation. Coal is India’s primary source of power, accounting for more than half of its energy portfolio. Car ownership is rapidly becoming more widespread, and Indian cars often run on diesel, which generates more particulate pollution than gasoline. While diesel emits less carbon, it may cause just as much global warming because the soot it creates is also a contributor to climate change. It’s not new news that India’s air pollution is terrible. The 2014 Yale Environmental Performance Index found India had the fifth worst air pollution out of 178 countries, and the World Health Organization ranked 13 Indian cities among the 20 in the world with the worst fine particulate air pollution. As The New York Times noted in a 2014 editorial, “According to India’s Central Pollution Control Board, in 2010, particulate matter in the air of 180 Indian cities was six times higher than World Health Organization standards.” Here’s why this matters for climate change: The dirty fuels that cause particulate pollution are the same dirty fuels that cause global warming. Cracking down on local air pollution will not only save lives, it will shift the economics of energy toward cleaner sources that produce less carbon. The willingness of India and other populous developing countries such as China, Brazil, and Indonesia to adopt such policies may determine the fate of the Earth. Read the rest at Grist.

Visit source – 

Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution

Related Posts

Some Climate Engineering Ideas Are Insane. This One Isn’t.
Obama Just Vetoed the GOP’s Keystone Bill, and This Democratic Presidential Hopeful Is Pissed
How Screwed Are Your State’s Oysters?
Scientists Are Pretty Terrified About These Last-Minute Fixes to Global Warming
China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando
Airpocalypse Now: Beijing’s Toxic Smog Measures “Beyond Index” Levels

Share this:






See the original article here:

Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, oven, OXO, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution

Stanford Professors Urge Withdrawal From Fossil Fuel Investments

Faculty members call on university to recognize urgency of climate change and divest from all oil, coal and gas companies. hanxu1011/Thinkstock Three hundred professors at Stanford, including Nobel laureates and this year’s Fields medal winner, are calling on the university to rid itself of all fossil fuel investments, in a sign that the campus divestment movement is gathering force. In a letter to Stanford’s president, John Hennessy, and the board of trustees, made available exclusively to the Guardian, the faculty members call on the university to recognize the urgency of climate change and divest from all oil, coal and gas companies. Stanford, which controls a $21.4 billion (£14.2 billion) endowment, eliminated direct investments in coalmining companies last May, making it the most prominent university to cut its ties to the industries that cause climate change. Months later, however, the university invested in three oil and gas companies. Read the rest at the Guardian. See the article here: Stanford Professors Urge Withdrawal From Fossil Fuel Investments ; ; ;

Read the article:  

Stanford Professors Urge Withdrawal From Fossil Fuel Investments

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Paradise, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stanford Professors Urge Withdrawal From Fossil Fuel Investments

Congress Stuffed Some Coal In Its Omnibus Package

The Export-Import Bank wants to stop financing coal plants. Congress has other ideas. Miloslav78/Thinkstock The 1,000-page omnibus spending package released Tuesday night is reigniting a fight over rules for U.S. financing of coal plants abroad. In October 2013, the Treasury Department announced that it would stop providing funding for conventional coal plants abroad, except in “very rare” cases. And in December 2013, the Export-Import Bank announced a new policy that would restrict financing for most new coal-fired power plants abroad. The bank, often called Ex-Im, exists to provide financial support to projects that spur the export of U.S. products and services. The change in coal policy aligned with President Barack Obama’s June 2013 call to end U.S. funding of fossil fuel energy projects abroad unless the products include carbon capture technology. But the language in the omnibus blocks both Ex-Im and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the U.S.’s development finance institution, from using any funds in the bill to enforce these new restrictions on coal projects. Read the rest at The Huffington Post. See more here: Congress Stuffed Some Coal In Its Omnibus Package ; ; ;

See original: 

Congress Stuffed Some Coal In Its Omnibus Package

Posted in Coby, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congress Stuffed Some Coal In Its Omnibus Package