Tag Archives: france

European leaders let cap-and-trade flounder

European leaders let cap-and-trade flounder

Shutterstock

Europe: Not so into that carbon-trading thing anymore.

The world’s foremost carbon cap-and-trade system is floundering, and members of the European Parliament on Tuesday voted to keep it that way.

About 12,000 power plants and factories operating across the 27 countries that make up the European Union must purchase allowances to release greenhouse gases. The eight-year-old cap-and-trade program, designed to rein in carbon emissions and slow down climate change, is the world’s biggest and oldest international carbon-trading scheme.

But there’s a problem. Greenhouse gas–producing industrial activity has been slowed down by sour economies across Europe, which has left the market awash with a glut of carbon allowances. The price to buy the right to release a tonne of carbon on the E.U. Emissions Trading Scheme has dropped below $6.50 — well down from highs of more than $39 in 2006.

That means the system has stopped working. At least, it’s not working as planned: The price of carbon is now so low that it provides very little disincentive to release greenhouse gases, which means that it’s doing very little to combat climate change. Naturally, some of the businesses that must buy the allowances disagree with that logic, saying the price reflects the true price of carbon emissions in a stagnant European economy.

In a bid to revive the system and reduce Europe’s carbon emissions to lower levels than previously planned, the European Commission proposed cutting back on the number of allowances sold into the open market during the next couple of years. If the supply of allowances is pushed down, the commission reckons that economic forces would push prices up.

The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. It’s a bureaucracy that represents the region as a whole — it’s not meant to be distracted by any parochial concerns of the 27 nations that are members of the E.U. It produces recommendations that are voted on by politicians in the European Parliament.

The European Parliament is made up of hundreds of elected officials from the E.U.’s member states. Europe’s parliament doesn’t always agree with the commission: National interests and domestic election campaigns can color the outcomes of its votes. And so it was this week when the parliament voted down the commission’s proposal to withhold around 900 million allowances over two years. From the BBC:

Despite political backing from the UK, France and Italy, [members of the European Parliament] voted against the proposal by 334 votes to 315 with more than 60 abstentions. It will now go back to the Parliament’s environment committee for further consideration.

Poland’s minster for the environment, Marcin Korolec, welcomed the move in a tweet.

“The vote of reason,” he wrote.

From Reuters:

Traders took the lack of political support as a signal to sell, driving the market down to its lowest yet. Immediately after the vote, carbon prices dropped by around 40 percent to [$3.43] a tonne. They were trading at [$4.10], down 34 percent, by [3:41 p.m.] GMT.

“The carbon market is now in a coma, until a clear intervention takes place,” an emissions trader said.

Bummer. And the bummer moments kept coming Tuesday for those who want to force polluting industries to rein in their carbon emissions through trading schemes.

The European Parliament voted Tuesday to continue to exempt international flights from the carbon-trading scheme for a year. That was a victory for political leaders and airlines from the U.S. and other non-European countries, which argued that subjecting businesses outside the E.U. to the carbon-trading scheme would violate international law.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie 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

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original: 

European leaders let cap-and-trade flounder

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on European leaders let cap-and-trade flounder

CHART: How Climate Change and Your Wine Habit Threaten Endangered Pandas

green4us

Global warming is shifting wine country straight onto sensitive habitats. Conservation International One group that’s been keeping a close eye on climate change is wine growers. Since a 2006 study predicted global warming could fry over 80 percent of the US’s wine grapes, vinters have been planning new heat-resistant varietals, adopting big-data-driven water saving techniques, and mapping out what could become the new Napa Valleys of a warming world. That last trend is the focus of a new study out today that examines how shifting wine cultivation geography could have implications for endangered species. Lee Hannah, an ecologist at Conservational International, used a suite of global climate models to plot where ideal wine conditions will migrate to as temperatures warm and precipitation patterns fluctuate. “In a lot of these places, what’s there now is good wildlife habitat,” Hannah said. Chart by Tim McDonnell Up to 73 percent of the area currently suitable for wine cultivation could be lost by 2050, according to the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. While temperate places like inland California and Mediterranean Europe lose good wine country, other, cooler or higher elevation areas, like the Northwest US and mountainous parts of China, are likely to open up for cultivation. Unfortunately, Hannah and his colleagues found, some of those areas are already home to animals like grizzly bears and pandas, respectively, that already have enough conservation issues on hand without having to negotiate a sprawling new vineyard in the middle of their migration path. The problem goes the other direction, too: Stick a winery in the middle of a moose’s stomping grounds, Hannah said, and he’d “love to go in and eat wine grapes.” By 2015, global wine consumption is expected to rise by nearly two billion bottles, an increase of 4.5 percent since 2006, with China’s growing middle class boosting the country into the top five world wine markets. And while China now imports most of its wine from France, Australia, and the US, Hannah predicts the Chinese could be sipping more home-grown wine within a few decades. But, he said, “turns out the best place to produce wine in China is exactly the mountains that harbor pandas.” Hannah’s study also examined the impact of decreasing rainfall on an industry that, in many places, already exacerbates water shortages. In California, for example, total wine-suitable area could decrease by as much as 70 percent in the next four decades—but declining precipitation could still leave more than 30 percent of that smaller area under water stress. Conflict between wine and wildlife is already being addressed by groups like the World Wildlife Fund’s Biodiversity and Wine Initiative, which pairs conservationists with wine growers in South Africa’s ecologically rich Cape Floral Region. But Hannah said the wine industry globally will need to pay more attention to the issue in the future, and work together to ensure the world’s appetite for reds and whites doesn’t drive any critters to extinction. “This is not under the control of any one vineyard,” Hannah said. “This is the next natural step for the industry, and it takes collaboration to consider how they might protect wildlife.”

Credit – 

CHART: How Climate Change and Your Wine Habit Threaten Endangered Pandas

Share this:

Visit source:

CHART: How Climate Change and Your Wine Habit Threaten Endangered Pandas

Posted in Citadel, Dolphin, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LG, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on CHART: How Climate Change and Your Wine Habit Threaten Endangered Pandas

U.S. nuclear companies fight new safety measures

U.S. nuclear companies fight new safety measures

Constellation Energy Group

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in New York could use a couple radiation filters.

How much should a nuclear power plant operator spend to prevent radiation from spewing into the air during an accident, à la Fukushima and Chernobyl?

The answer, according to staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is $20 million per reactor. That’s the price tag for a filter that could be fitted to a reactor’s vent to capture radiation during an accident.

Many reasonable people might think that $20 million is a reasonable price to pay to prevent the potential contamination of the air and land with deadly radiation. Germans apparently think so: Such filters are installed at all nine of that country’s nuclear reactors. Japan gets it: After the Fukushima meltdown, the nation is requiring radiation filters to be installed on all reactors. All quite reasonable.

But the executives running America’s nuclear power plants don’t seem to be so reasonable. As NRC commissioners prepare to vote as soon as this week to adopt or reject their staff’s recommendation that they mandate the use of such filters in some of the nation’s oldest reactors, industry is lobbying in opposition. The problem? Companies don’t want to spend the money. From Bloomberg:

A proposed requirement that U.S. nuclear-power plants add $20 million devices to prevent radiation leaks, one of the costliest recommendations stemming from meltdowns in Japan two years ago, has attracted a flurry of last-minute lobbying.

The U.S. nuclear industry opposes the rule, which would require almost a third of the nation’s reactors to install a special filter on vents designed to prevent an explosive buildup of gases. Exelon Corp., which owns more U.S. reactors than any other company, estimates each filter would cost $20 million, meaning the Chicago-based company could end up paying $220 million to equip its units. …

The industry prefers a plant-by-plant approach to the question of whether filters are necessary.

Needless to say, not everybody thinks that power plant operators should be allowed to save money at the potential expense of human health and lives. From the same article:

Supporters of the measure say it is overdue and consistent with what the rest of the world is doing. Japan announced last year that filtered vents will be required on its reactors. Other nations that use or are considering filtered venting systems on their reactors include Taiwan, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, France and the Netherlands, according to the NRC.

“The tens of millions of Americans who live near the affected reactors located in 15 states should not face additional delays,” a dozen Democratic senators led by Barbara Boxer of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote in a Feb. 20 letter [PDF] to NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane.

So stay tuned to find out whether the NRC, under the new leadership of Macfarlane, will prioritize energy-company penny pinching or protection of humanity.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Originally from:

U.S. nuclear companies fight new safety measures

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, ATTRA, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.S. nuclear companies fight new safety measures

Monsanto CEO acknowledges climate change, open to GMO labels, thinks veggies suck

Monsanto CEO acknowledges climate change, open to GMO labels, thinks veggies suck

The Wall Street Journal sat down with Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant in what were probably some very nice chairs for this comfy little edited Q&A. The global agriculture giant is “battered, bruised, and still growing,” according to the WSJ, whose cup runneth over with pathos for poor Hugh. The interview kicks off with: “What’s the harm in disclosing genetically modified ingredients to consumers?” Yes, Hugh, please tell us about the harm.

Grant says California’s Proposition 37 — which would have required GMO foods to be labeled, and which Monsanto spent millions to defeat (weird, WSJ, y’all left that bit out!) — “befuddled the issue.” But Grant says he’s personally “up for the dialogue around labeling.” Why? Because he thinks GMOs are so great of course! (Come on, you knew that answer.)

They’re the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen. Europe set up its own Food Standards Agency, which has now spent €300 million ($403.7 million), and has concluded that these technologies are safe. [Recently] France determined there’s no safety issue on a corn line we submitted there. So there’s always a great deal of political noise and turmoil. If you strip that back and you get to the science, the science is very strong around these technologies.

GMO haters gonna GMO hate! And Grant would rather be in the future than in the past. “I think some of the criticism comes with being first in a lot of these spaces. I’d rather be there than at the back of the pack.” On the whole, Monsanto has “mended a lot of fences” and “turned things around” recently with the general public, according to Grant, in part because of “consistent messaging.” I will give him that!

One of Grant’s and Monsanto’s messages, apparently: Vegetables taste crappy. This should definitely help the company with the 18-and-under crowd, at least.

Fresh fruit and high quality vegetables are becoming more important than they ever were. So we see an opportunity there, but the opportunity in veggies is going to be driven by where we are spending our money. We are spending our money on nutrition and taste. A lot of veggies look great, but they don’t taste like much. We think the consumer will pay a premium for improved nutrition and improved taste.

Grant says Monsanto spends a billion-and-a-quarter dollars a year on research and development but only “took a look at” climate change a couple years ago (!!), asking scientists if it was “fact or fiction?”

The conclusions that came back were, ‘There’s definitely something there. This isn’t an anomaly. There’s enough evidence to suggest that it’s getting warmer.’ For agriculture that’s going to absolutely present challenges, at the very time we need to produce more, it’s an environment that’s heated. In the much longer term, we’re going to have to focus on breeding to accommodate those temperature shifts.

Climate change: It’s bad for business. That’s actually not a terrible slogan to reach right-wing climate deniers. Thanks, Monsanto.

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

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the article here:  

Monsanto CEO acknowledges climate change, open to GMO labels, thinks veggies suck

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Monsanto CEO acknowledges climate change, open to GMO labels, thinks veggies suck

Exxon makes up with Iraq just in time for the discovery of a billion barrels of oil

Exxon makes up with Iraq just in time for the discovery of a billion barrels of oil

expertinfantry

An American soldier stands near a 2006 oil field fire near Kirkuk.

Tensions between the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq and that country’s government are high — in large part thanks to oil. ExxonMobil’s recent agreement to explore drilling within Kurdish territory sparked a ferocious response from Iraq. One military officer suggested that exploration would be “a declaration of war.”

It’s no secret what prompts such fury. There’s an enormous amount of money in the Iraqi oil fields; some of those disinclined to be generous to our former president suggest that opening Iraq’s oilfields to American companies was a motive for Bush’s initial invasion of the country. Both Kurdish and Iraqi leaders would like to maintain control over those inky streams of money, reinforcing ExxonMobil’s tricky position.

Last week, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson sat down with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in an effort to repair relationships between the two. It’s an important consideration. When Chevron announced an extraction deal in Kurdistan, Iraq banned the company from exploration elsewhere. From the Associated Press:

Iraq announced the meeting between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Exxon Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson in a brief statement following the talks in Baghdad. It offered few specifics, saying that the men discussed the company’s activities and working conditions in Iraq.

Tillerson said Exxon was eager to continue and expand its work in Iraq and “will take important decisions in this regard,” according to the statement. …

A spokesman for the Kurdish regional government, Safeen Dizayee, downplayed the significance of Monday’s meeting.

“What is important is the results of this meeting, not the meeting itself,” he said. “We have not seen any change in Exxon Mobil’s policies regarding its work in Kurdistan.”

Another recent announcement provides additional incentive for ExxonMobil to mend fences. From Agence France-Presse:

Iraq said on Sunday it has discovered deposits of crude equivalent to one billion barrels of oil after the first exploration work by state-owned firms in almost 30 years.

The deposits were found after exploration in Maysan province, in southern Iraq near the border with Iran, and could potentially make a significant addition to Baghdad’s already substantial reserves.

There’s no indication that ExxonMobil knew about the new discovery prior to Tillerson’s meeting. But it reinforces the value to the company in staying on the Iraqi government’s good side. ExxonMobil’s politics are the same in the Middle East as they are here: work with and support anyone that makes it easier to suck oil out of the ground. Civil wars are bad for business.

Update Patrick Osgood, correspondent for Iraq Oil Report, clarifies (and takes issue with) the report above.

We’re working to verify Osgood’s assertion that the billion-barrel find has been misreported.

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

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original article: 

Exxon makes up with Iraq just in time for the discovery of a billion barrels of oil

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Exxon makes up with Iraq just in time for the discovery of a billion barrels of oil

Did removing lead from gasoline cause crime rates to plummet?

Did removing lead from gasoline cause crime rates to plummet?

Researchers have proposed many theories to explain the huge drop in crime that started in the early 1990s. Some cite the legalization of abortion. Some think maybe it was cell phone use. Rudy Giuliani credits Rudy Giuliani.

At Mother Jones, Kevin Drum presents a strong case for another contender: lead.

stevendepolo

The biggest source of lead in the postwar era, it turns out, wasn’t paint. It was leaded gasoline. And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early ’40s through the early ’70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted.

Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the ’60s through the ’80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early ’90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.

Mother Jones

Your first reaction to this may be similar to mine (and to Jess Zimmerman’s) — those graphs are a rough correlation, not a surefire link between lead and crime. Drum addresses that concern by citing research that isolated lead legislation and abatement, sometimes down to a city-block level.

Sure, maybe the real culprit [behind the crime drop] in the United States was something else happening at the exact same time, but what are the odds of that same something happening at several different times in several different countries?

[Economist Rick] Nevin collected lead data and crime data for Australia and found a close match. Ditto for Canada. And Great Britain and Finland and France and Italy and New Zealand and West Germany. Every time, the two curves fit each other astonishingly well. When I spoke to Nevin about this, I asked him if he had ever found a country that didn’t fit the theory. “No,” he replied. “Not one.”

Just this year, Tulane University researcher Howard Mielke published a paper with demographer Sammy Zahran on the correlation of lead and crime at the city level. They studied six US cities that had both good crime data and good lead data going back to the ’50s, and they found a good fit in every single one. In fact, Mielke has even studied lead concentrations at the neighborhood level in New Orleans and shared his maps with the local police. “When they overlay them with crime maps,” he told me, “they realize they match up.”

Drum then goes one step further, noting that the areas of the brain that lead affects are those that one might associate with criminal behavior: aggressiveness, impulsivity. With that, he rests his argument.

The argument isn’t a new one; we covered it in 2011. The argument presented by Drum is more robust, even if still not entirely persuasive.

The most important point comes last. Lead, in its various forms, is still a widely present pollutant, one that significantly impairs cognition and bone strength, particularly in pregnant women and young children. Regardless of how strong the link between crime and lead, there is a massive health benefit in reducing exposure. There’s an urgent need to curtail ongoing lead pollution.

A decade ago, I worked with a team that did lead abatement, repainting walls covered in lead paint and clearing the dust and chips that had flaked off. Even these small measures were considered to be crucial for the health of the often-low-income kids living in the homes.

Did cutting lead in gasoline spur a huge drop in crime? Possibly. Whether it did or not, there’s nonetheless huge value in removing lead from our environment.

Source

America’s Real Criminal Element: Lead, Mother Jones

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

Read more:

Cities

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Credit: 

Did removing lead from gasoline cause crime rates to plummet?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did removing lead from gasoline cause crime rates to plummet?