View post:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
“The Butler,” a film about a man who served eight presidents in the White House, opens this weekend. But wait. That’s not its full title. It’s actually called “Lee Daniels’ The Butler.” Is Lee Daniels an insane egomaniac? Nope:
First a word about the title’s clumsiness, and the story’s provenance. The director, Lee Daniels, is no stranger to clumsy titles. Four years ago he was nominated for an Oscar for “Precious,” a film whose contractual title was “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire.” His name appears in this contractual title because of a legal dispute over “The Butler,” a silent comedy released by Warner Brothers 97 years ago.
I figured there must be some fascinating backstory here, but in the end, not really. Those of you who have followed this all along should feel free to add interesting tidbits in comments, but as near as I can tell this really is just a lunatic Hollywood dispute based on bad blood between a couple of moguls over some previous deals. In the end, though, they really did have to change the title because Warner Bros. claimed exclusive rights to it based on a short silent film released in 1916. Don’t you just love Hollywood?
Jump to original –
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
This story and video first appeared on the Atlantic website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Crude oil is far from being one homogenous substance. Its physical characteristics differ depending on where in the world it’s pulled out of the ground, and those variations determine its usage and price.
A Brief Backgrounder on US Energy
A Very Short History of How Americans Use Energy at Home
Who’s to Blame for Climate Change?
The Complexities of Climate Change
What’s in Crude Oil and How Do We Use It?
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) puts it succinctly: “not all crude is created equal.” Some has a lot of sulphur, and it’s called sour. Oil with less sulphur is called sweet. Crudes also vary in how dense they are. Sweet, light crude is the most valuable type of oil. Sour, heavy oil fetches the lowest prices. Here’s why:
This is partly because gasoline and diesel fuel, which typically sell at a significant premium to residual fuel oil and other ‘bottom of the barrel’ products, can usually be more easily and cheaply produced using light, sweet crude oil. The light sweet grades are desirable because they can be processed with far less sophisticated and energy-intensive processes/refineries.” (EIA)
Depending on these characteristics, crude ends up at different refineries:
Refining capacity in the Gulf Coast has large secondary conversion capacity including hydrocrackers, cokers, and desulfurization units. These units enable the processing of heavy, high sulfur (sour) crude oils like Mexican Maya that typically sell at a discount to light, low sulfur (sweet) crudes like Brent and Louisiana Light Sweet. Many East Coast refineries have less secondary conversion capacity, and in general they process crude oil with lower sulfur content and a lighter density. (EIA)*
The refining process itself—fractional distillation, followed by further reprocessing and blending—is how we extract from crude to create the different petro-products that we use:
Crude oil is made up of a mixture of hydrocarbons, and the distillation process aims to separate this crude oil into broad categories of its component hydrocarbons, or ‘fractions.’ Crude oil is first heated and then put into a distillation column, also known as a still, where different products boil off and are recovered at different temperatures. Lighter products, such as butane and other liquid petroleum gases (LPG), gasoline blending components, and naphtha, are recovered at the lowest temperatures. Mid-range products include jet fuel, kerosene, and distillates (such as home heating oil and diesel fuel). The heaviest products such as residual fuel oil are recovered at temperatures sometimes over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. (EIA)*
That’s the rough overview of how crude gets from the ground to the gas station. In recent years, new extraction methods have made more crude available.
Due to controversial techniques pioneered in the natural gas industry and high oil prices providing incentives for oil companies, more oil is being extracted from previously unviable fields. Estimates of US proven reserves have risen as a result:
In 2011, oil and gas exploration and production companies operating in the United States added almost 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves, an increase of 15 percent.” (EIA)
This has also led to a turn-around in US oil production, which, according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), may even exceed Saudi Arabia within five years. Kevin Bullis at the MIT Technology Review summarizes some of the key figures:
US production had fallen from 10 million barrels a day in the 1980s to 6.9 million barrels per day in 2008, even as consumption increased from 15.7 million barrels per day in 1985 to 19.5 million barrels per day in 2008. The IEA estimates that production could reach 11.1 million barrels per day by 2020, almost entirely because of increases in the production of shale oil, which is extracted using the same horizontal drilling and fracking techniques that have flooded the US with cheap natural gas.
Energy researcher Vaclav Smil suggests in The American that these developments should mean the end of “peak oil” anxieties:
Obviously, there will come a time when global oil extraction will reach its peak, but even that point may be of little practical interest as it could be followed by a prolonged, gentle decline or by an extended output plateau at a somewhat lower level than peak production.
But others like journalist Chris Nelder argue that we’ve increased spending on oil production by tremendous amounts only to see global oil production edge up a bit. Older, cheaper oil fields are declining, and their oil is being replaced by crude from far more expensive sources. Nelder made his numerical case to the Washington Post like this:
In 2005, we reached 73 million barrels per day. Then, to increase production beyond that, the world had to double spending on oil production. In 2012, we’re now spending $600 billion. The price of oil has tripled. And yet, for all that additional expenditure, we’ve only raised production 3 percent to 75 million barrels per day since 2005.
And Bryan Walsh at Time notes that, while expanded oil production will be good for the economy and the trade balance, it doesn’t mean the US will be insulated from global crude prices:
The one thing politicians most want is the one thing the US still won’t be: energy independent. That’s because no matter how much additional oil the US is able to pump in the years to come, the global oil market is just that—global. Oil is the ultimate fungible commodity, able to be shipped and piped around the world.
* For more in-depth explainers on the individual refining and secondary processes, the EIA article on the distillation technique contains more links.
Original source:
Steve King knows that cantaloupes don’t grow in seawater.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has, shall we say, a vivid oratorical style.
Last month, he noted that not all of the young immigrants who would benefit from the DREAM Act are star students. “For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” he said.
This week, he turned his eloquence to the topic of climate change. Here’s what he said on Tuesday at an event sponsored by the Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity, as reported by The Messenger of Fort Dodge, Iowa:
King said efforts to fight global warming are both economically harmful and unnecessary.
“It is not proven, it’s not science. It’s more of a religion than a science,” he said.
Which kinda sounds like a slam not just on people who believe in climate change but on people who believe in God. As Daily Kos put it, “So to recap, global warming is bullshit, like religion.”
It’s not the first time King has made the religion comparison. He said something similar in 2010, and added that concern about climate change “might be the modern version of the rain dance.”
After his religion comment on Tuesday, King got all science-y:
He said that even if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm, environmentalists only look at the bad from that, not the good.
“Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in (environmentalists’) analysis,” he said. “There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer. … And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.”
He said sea level is not a precise measurement.
“We don’t know where sea level is even, let alone be able to say that it’s going to come up an inch globally because some polar ice caps might melt because there’s CO2 suspended in the atmosphere,” he said.
Because King is unable to distinguish science from religion, he may be unaware that we do, in fact, know where sea level is. Scientists have “instruments” that “measure” it. Spoiler: It is rising.
Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.
Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Original source:
Steve King insults climate scientists and religious Americans simultaneously
Mother Jones
On Wednesday, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), last seen evaluating the leg muscles of undocumented immigrants, told a town hall audience in Iowa that we have nothing to fear from climate change—we probably won’t even notice it. Per the Fort Dodge Messenger:
“Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in (environmentalists’) analysis,” he said. “There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer. … And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.”
He said sea level is not a precise measurement.
“We don’t know where sea level is even, let alone be able to say that it’s going to come up an inch globally because some polar ice caps might melt because there’s CO2 suspended in the atmosphere,” he said.
One reason Steve King probably might not notice four inches of sea level is that he lives in northwest Iowa. But Iowans are already beginning to feel the effects of anthropogenic climate change—hard. According to the Iowa Flood Center at the University of Iowa, climate change has dramatically increased the impact of flooding and drought in the region, with serious economic consequences. But it’s a not a question of seas rising four to six inches, as serious as that might be. As my colleague Chris Mooney reported, humans have already set in motion about 69 feet of sea level rise, with devastating consequences for such sparsely populated areas as New York City, New Orleans, and the entire nation of Bangladesh.
View post:
Mother Jones
This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.
We cautiously ascend the staircase, the pitch black of the boarded-up house pierced only by my companion’s tiny circle of light. At the top of the landing, the flashlight beam dances in a corner as Quafin, who offered only her first name, points out the furnace. She is giddy; this house—unlike most of the other bank-owned buildings on the block—isn’t completely uninhabitable.
It had been vacated, sealed, and winterized in June 2010, according to a notice on the wall posted by BAC Field Services Corporation, a division of Bank of America. It warned: “entry by unauthorized persons is strictly prohibited.” But Bank of America has clearly forgotten about the house and its requirement to provide the “maintenance and security” that would ensure the property could soon be reoccupied. The basement door is ajar, the plumbing has been torn out of the walls, and the carpet is stained with water. The last family to live here bought the home for $175,000 in 2002; eight years later, the bank claimed an improbable $286,100 in past-due balances and repossessed it.
It’s May 2012 and we’re in Woodlawn, a largely African American neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago. The crew Quafin is a part of dubbed themselves the HIT Squad, short for Housing Identification and Target. Their goal is to map blighted, bank-owned homes with overdue property taxes and neighbors angry enough about the destruction of their neighborhood to consider supporting a plan to repossess on the repossessors.
“Anything I can do,” one woman tells the group after being briefed on its plan to rehab bank-owned homes and move in families without houses. She points across the street to a sagging, boarded-up place adorned with a worn banner—”Grandma’s House Child Care: Register Now!”—and a disconnected number. There are 20 banked-owned homes like it in a five-block radius. Records showed that at least five of them were years past due on their property taxes.
Where exterior walls once were, some houses sport charred holes from fires lit by people trying to stay warm. In 2011, two Chicago firefighters died trying to extinguish such a fire at a vacant foreclosed building. Now, houses across the South Side are pockmarked with red Xs, indicating places the fire department believes to be structurally unsound. In other states—Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New York, to name recent examples—foreclosed houses have taken to exploding after bank contractors forgot to turn off the gas.
Most of the occupied homes in the neighborhood we’re visiting display small signs: “Don’t shoot,” they read in lettering superimposed on a child’s face, “I want to grow up.” On the bank-owned houses, such signs have been replaced by heavy-duty steel window guards. (“We work with all types of servicers, receivers, property management, and bank asset managers, enabling you to quickly and easily secure your building so you can move on,” boasts Door and Window Guard Systems, a leading company in the burgeoning “building security industry.”)
The dangerous houses are the ones left unsecured, littered with trash and empty Cobra vodka bottles. We approach one that reeks of rancid tuna fish and attempt to push open the basement door, held closed only by a flimsy wire. The next-door neighbor, returning home, asks: “Did you know they killed someone in that backyard just this morning?”
The Equivalent of the Population of Michigan Foreclosed
Since 2007, the foreclosure crisis has displaced at least 10 million people from more than four million homes across the country. Families have been evicted from colonials and bungalows, A-frames and two-family brownstones, trailers and ranches, apartment buildings and the prefabricated cookie-cutters that sprang up after World War II. The displaced are young and old, rich and poor, and of every race, ethnicity, and religion. They add up to approximately the entire population of Michigan.
However, African American neighborhoods were targeted more aggressively than others for the sort of predatory loans that led to mass evictions after the economic meltdown of 2007-2008. At the height of the rapacious lending boom, nearly 50% of all loans given to African American families were deemed “subprime.” The New York Times described these contracts as “a financial time-bomb.”
Over the last year and a half, I traveled through many of these neighborhoods, reporting on the grassroots movements of resistance to foreclosure and displacement that have been springing up in the wake of the explosion. These community efforts have proven creative, inspiring, and often effective—but in too many cities and towns, the landscape that forms the backdrop to such a movement of hope is one of almost overwhelming destruction. Lots filled with “Cheap Bank-Owned!” trailers line highways. Cities hire contractors dubbed “Blackwater Bailiffs” to keep pace with the dizzying eviction rate.
In recent years, the foreclosure crisis has been turning many African American communities into conflict zones, torn between a market hell-bent on commodifying life itself and communities organizing to protect their neighborhoods. The more I ventured into such areas, the more I came to realize that the clash of values going on isn’t just theoretical or metaphorical.
“Internal displacement causes conflict,” explained J.R. Fleming, the chairman of the Chicago Anti-Eviction Campaign. “And there’s no other country in the world that would force so much internal displacement and pretend that it’s something else.”
Evictions at Gunpoint
It was three in the morning when at least a dozen police cruisers pulled up to the single-story, green-shuttered house in the African American Atlanta suburb where Christine Frazer and her family lived. The precise number of sheriffs and deputies who arrived is disputed; the local radio station reported 25, while Frazer recalled seeing between 40 and 50.
A locksmith drilled off the home’s locks and dozens of officers burst into the house with flashlights and handguns.
“Who’s in the house?” they shouted. Aside from Frazer, a widow with a vocal devotion to the Man Above, there were three other residents: her 85-year-old mother, her adult daughter, and her four-year-old grandson. Things began to happen fast. Animal control rounded up the pets. Officers told the women to get dressed. Could she take a shower? Frazer asked. Imagine there’s a fire in your house, the officer replied.
“They came to my home like I was a drug dealer,” she told reporters later. Over the next seven hours, the officers hauled out the entire contents of her home and cordoned off the street to prevent friends from helping her retrieve her things.
“I have no idea where some of my jewelry is, stuff I bought when I was 30 years old,” said Frazer. “I am sixty-three. They just threw everything everywhere, helter-skelter on the front lawn in the dark.”
The eviction-turned-raid sparked controversy across Atlanta when it occurred in the spring of 2012, in part because Frazer had a motion pending in federal court that should have stayed the eviction, and in part because she was an active participant of Occupy Homes Atlanta. But this type of militarized reaction is often the outcome when communities—especially those of color—organize to resist eviction.
When Nicole Shelton attempted to move back into her repossessed home in a picket-fence subdivision in North Carolina, the Raleigh police department sent in more than a dozen police officers and an eight-person SWAT team. Officers were equipped with M5 submachine guns. A helicopter roared overhead. In Boston, one organizer with the community group City Life/Vida Urbana remembers the police acting so aggressively at an eviction blockade in a Haitian neighborhood that the grandmother of the family had a heart attack right in the driveway.
And sometimes it doesn’t require resistance at all. On the South Side of Chicago, explained Toussaint Losier, a community organizer completing his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, “They bust in the door, and it’s at the point of a gun that you get evicted.”
Exiles in America
There have been widespread foreclosures—and some organized resistance—in predominately white communities, too. Kevin Kirkman, captain of the civil division of the Lee County sheriff’s office, explained, “I get so many eviction papers in here, it’s unbelievable.”
Visit source –
The Great Eviction: Black America and the Toll of the Foreclosure Crisis
President Obama doesn’t seem sold on the economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry carbon-intensive tar-sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast for export.
In his most extensive public comments to date on Keystone, made during an interview with The New York Times, he stressed the neutral or negative economic aspects of the proposed project.
First, he pointed out that Keystone would create few permanent jobs:
Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that’s true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline — which might take a year or two — and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in a economy of 150 million working people. … that is a blip relative to the need.
In fact, the draft environmental impact statement released by the State Department in March estimates that the pipeline would create just 35 permanent jobs [PDF]. As of June 2013, there were 11.7 million Americans unemployed. After Keystone’s built, we’d be 0.0003 percent of the way toward solving that problem.
Second, Obama noted that the bulk of the oil that would travel through the pipeline would be shipped abroad, providing no benefit to Americans.
[T]hat oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets.
Yep. Earlier this month, a report from the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog found that Keystone could raise gas prices by as much as 40 cents a gallon in the Midwest. A report released last year by the Natural Resources Defense Council and two other groups also found that the pipeline would raise gas prices for North American drivers.
As for the climate impacts of the project, Obama’s message was more muddled.
NYT: … You’ve said that you would approve [Keystone] only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?
MR. OBAMA: … there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I’m going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.
NYT: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself?
MR. OBAMA: We haven’t seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry’s decision or recommendation on this issue.
There’s that word again, “significantly,” the same word Obama used in his big climate speech a month ago, when he first said that climate would be a factor as his administration decides whether to approve the pipeline. At that time, he said he would only OK it “if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” That statement can be, and has been, interpreted in many different ways. As our David Roberts wrote, it “has proven a kind of Rorschach blot for the energy world.” Obama’s new comments do nothing to de-Rorschach the matter.
It’s notable that the president is trying to counter the GOP’s rah-rah rhetoric about how Keystone will create tens of thousands of jobs and make the U.S. more energy secure. It shows, if nothing else, that Keystone opponents are making their case heard and changing the debate.
Maybe Obama is laying the groundwork for putting the kibosh on Keystone. Or maybe he’s not.
Bottom line: We still don’t know what he’s going to decide. And we probably won’t know for months.
Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.
Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
See original:
Mother Jones
A judge in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is allowing a defamation suit that climate scientist Michael Mann filed against conservative commentators to move forward.
Last year, Mann sued the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute over blog posts accusing him of lying about climate science. The NRO post called his research “fraudulent,” and the CEI post accused him of “scientific misconduct.” NRO also twice quoted another blogger who referred to Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” comparing him to the Pennsylvania State University football coach convicted of child molestation last year.
Blue Marble readers have certainly heard Mann’s story before. The Penn State climate scientist has been the subject of a relentless assault from climate skeptics over the years, largely tracing back to a chart of global temperature records that he coauthored that showed a sharp uptick in the industrial era.
The judge issued two decisions on July 19 allowing Mann’s suits to go forward. The plaintiffs had each filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the First Amendment protects their right to say that sort of stuff online. But the judge didn’t agree. Here’s a key part of the decision on the CEI suit (via Climate Science Watch) in which the judge asserts that the blogger was not just stating opinions, but that he was making factual claims about Mann’s work that could be proven false:
Defendants argue that the accusation that Plaintiff’s work is fraudulent may not necessarily be taken as based in fact because the writers for the publication are tasked with and posed to view work critically and interpose (brutally) honest commentary. In this case, however, the evidence before the Court, at this stage, demonstrates something more and different than honest or even brutally honest commentary.
The judge continued:
Plaintiff has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the CEI Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the CEI Defendants. Thus, it is fair to say that the CEI Defendants continue to criticize Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth. Criticism of Plaintiff’s work may be fair and he and his work may be put to the test. Where, however the CEI Defendants consistently claim that Plaintiff’s work is inaccurate (despite being proven as accurate) then there is a strong probability that the CEI Defendants disregarded the falsity of their statements and did so with reckless disregard.
The full National Review ruling is here and the CEI ruling here. The parties are scheduled to be back in court on September 27.
Excerpt from:
Climate Scientist Prevails in First Round of Defamation Suit Against Conservative Bloggers
The Mendenhall Glacier’s sudden surges of icy water threaten people and property in nearby Juneau.
Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice. Alaska, by the looks of it, is on track for a double apocalypse.
The home of Sarah “global warming my gluteus maximus” Palin faces a daunting confluence of climate-related challenges, from rising seas to gushing glaciers to massive wildfires. Even Mayor Stubbs (who we’d expect to be cool about this kind of thing) won’t answer questions about the state’s fate.
Raging blazes in Arizona and Colorado have dominated wildfire news in recent years, but the biggest fires of the past decade burned in Alaska, which is warming twice as fast as the lower 48 states. There, flames have swallowed more than a half-million acres at a time (that’s 781 square miles) of boreal forest, the landscape of spruce and fir trees dominant below the Arctic Circle. And a new study says that this fiery phase is here to stay. From the L.A. Times:
A warming climate could promote so much wildfire in the boreal zone that the forests may convert to deciduous woodlands of aspen and birch, researchers said.
“In the last few decades we have seen this extreme combination of high severity and high frequency” wildfire in the study area of interior Alaska’s Yukon Flats, said University of Illinois plant biology Prof. Feng Sheng Hu. …
Accelerated wildfire could also unlock vast amounts of forest carbon, contributing to greenhouse gases. “The more important implication there is [that] you’re probably going to release a substantial fraction of the carbon that has been stored in the soil,” Hu said.
In contrast, Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier, outside Juneau, threatens to wreak chilly destruction, reports The New York Times:
Starting in July 2011, and each year since, sudden torrents of water shooting out from beneath the glacier have become a new facet of Juneau’s brief, shimmering high summer season. In that first, and so far biggest, measured flood burst, an estimated 10 billion gallons gushed out in three days, threatening homes and property along the Mendenhall River that winds through part of the city. There have been at least two smaller bursts this year. …
Water from snowmelt, rain and thawing ice are combining in new ways, researchers said — first pooling in an ice-covered depression near the glacier called Suicide Basin, then finding a way to flow downhill.
What prompts a surge … is pressure. As water builds up in the basin and seeks an outlet, it can actually lift portions of the glacier ever so slightly, and in that lift, the water finds a release. Under the vast pressure of the ice bearing down upon it, the water explodes out into the depths of Mendenhall Lake and from there into the river.
The phenomenon is not unique to Alaska. Scientists call it jokulhlaup, an Icelandic word meaning “glacier leap.” Though the name suggests an eccentric backcountry sporting event or maybe an elfin dance move, there’s nothing jolly about it. Mendenhall, unlike most glaciers, is far from isolated: 14 miles from downtown Juneau, it’s one of the most visited glaciers in the world, attracting 400,000 tourists a year. That means that its tendency to leap poses huge risks to people and property, and local officials are scrambling to keep a close eye on it. The city of Juneau kicked in part of the cost to install a pressure transducer, which gauges water buildup and transmits real-time results back to monitors via satellite. Meteorologists say the warmer, wetter weather the Juneau area could see in coming decades could increase runoff and spur more frequent surges.
If only there were a way to make these glaciers leap on over to the burning boreal forest, where they could actually do some good. I’d suggest some kind of pipeline, but I think they’re all in use.
Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.
Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
View post:
Alaska’s latest climate worries: Massive wildfires and gushing glaciers
Libros
