Tag Archives: pollution

12 of the Biggest Threats Facing Our Oceans

As we spend our summer days enjoying beach days and fresh seafood, please considerthe biggest threats facing the health and future of this most important of ecosystems.

1. Ignorance

We know less about the oceans than we do about the moon. And yet, the oceans are far more essential to our survival.Less than 0.05 percent of the ocean floor has been mapped to a level of detail useful for detecting items such as airplane wreckage or the spires of undersea volcanic vents, reports Scientific American.

2. Indifference

Maybe it’s because they’re so big. Maybe it’s because they’re so deep. Or maybe it’s because things sink out of sight. Whatever the reason, people generally seem to worry less about the health of the oceans than almost any other ecosystem on Earth. Here are six reasons why you should be more concerned about ocean conservation.

3. Climate Change

The oceans are vast heat sinks that, despite their size, are highly susceptible to climate change. A “mere” 1 degree Celsius increase in ocean temperatures hascaused marine life to die, set off superstorms and hurricanes, and changed weather patterns around the globe. Climate change is among the most serious threats the ocean faces because it will take so long to reverse the impact it is having on the oceans. Even if today we stopped emitting the carbon dioxide, methane and other “greenhouse gases” that cause climate change, it would be decades before the ocean would benefit, because they are so large and in constant flux.

4. Trash and Toxic Runoff

Untreated sewage, garbage, fertilizers, pesticides and industrial chemicals are common on land, and sadly, they eventually find their way into the ocean, as well. Sometimes they’re deliberately dumped. Sometimes, they “run off” because they’re not contained properly when they’re disposed. TheGulf of Mexico suffers daily from the chemicals routinely carried into it by the Mississippi, says Ocean.org, especially the nitrogen and phosphorous doused on agricultural operations. Rivers carry these chemicals steadily to the oceans, creating “dead zones” in many gulfs, bays and estuaries all over the world.

5. Oil and Gas Development

Speaking of dead zones, when an oil spill happens, thousands of square miles of undersea life can be affected for decades.When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew up, it was called the”worst environmental disaster the U.S. has faced,” by White House energy adviser Carol Browner.The spill was by far the largest in U.S. history, almost 20 times greater than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Though disasters of that magnitude don’t occur regularly, smaller oil spills plus the oil that finds its way to the sea from improper disposal on land, still take a serious toll killing marine animals, polluting waters and reducing the productivity of fisheries.

7. Air Pollution

Just as air pollution causes smog in our cities and sends acid rain falling on our forests, it threatens the oceans, too.Ateam of climate scientists and coral ecologists from the United Kingdom, Australia and Panama discovered that pollution from fine particles in the air, like those emitted by coal-burning power plants as well as volcanoes, can shade corals from sunlight, which is needed for the coral to grow. Acid rain falling on coastal areas makes them more acidic, threatening the ability ofsea urchins, corals and certain types of planktons to create the hard outer exoskeletons they need to survive. And if these animals don’t survive, the entire oceanic food chain could be affected.

8. Plastic

From plastic microbeads to plastic bags, the amount of plastic filling up the oceans has reached epidemic proportions. Each year, 8 million tons of plastic are added to our seas,equivalent to one municipal garbage truck pulling up to the beach and dumping its contents every minute, reports Fortune magazine. Areport by the Ocean Conservancy, in partnership with the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, warns that by 2025, the ocean could contain one ton of plastic for every three tons of finfish.

9. Unsustainable Fishing

Ninety percent of the world’s fisheries are already fully exploited or overfished, while billions of unwanted fish and other animals die needlessly each year when they are trapped as the “by catch” of other fishing operations.

“Unsustainable fishing is the largest threat to ocean life and habitats … not to mention the livelihoods and food security of over a billion people,” says World Wildlife Fund. Greenpeace concurs. “Weve already removed at least two-thirds of the large fish in the ocean, and one in three fish populations have collapsed since 1950. Put simply, there are too many boats chasing too few fish.”

10. Lack of Protection

Though they cover over 70 percent of our planets surface, only a tiny fraction of the oceans has been protected: just 3.4 percent, reports Oceana. Even worse, “the vast majority of the worlds few marine parks and reserves are protected in name only. Without more and better managed Marine Protected Areas, the future of the oceans rich biodiversityand the local economies it supportsremains uncertain.”

11. Tourism and Development, Leading to Habitat Destruction

All over the world, our coastlines have become burgeoning sites for housing, vacationing communities, commercial development, and factories and refineries. Coastal wetlands are filled in, waste gets dumped into the seas, and habitat for fish, birds and other marine life gets destroyed.

12. Shipping

More freight is moved via ocean cargo vessels than any other method; more oil is carried on tankers than through pipelines. Unsurprisingly,oil spills, ship groundings, anchor damage and the dumping of trash, ballast water and oily waste are threateningmarine habitats around the world.

What Can You Do? Startwith these helpful articles from Care2.

5 Human Habits Harmful to Ocean Health
There’s a Better Way to Protect Our Ocean Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Continued here: 

12 of the Biggest Threats Facing Our Oceans

Posted in alo, Anchor, Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 12 of the Biggest Threats Facing Our Oceans

Now there’s one less way for Big Coal to screw over Americans

The spurn of the screw

Now there’s one less way for Big Coal to screw over Americans

By on Jul 1, 2016Share

The Obama administration took a small step on Thursday to prevent coal companies from fleecing taxpayers.

Until now, the biggest coal conglomerates were getting away with scamming the government by selling coal mined on federal land to their own subsidiaries for a discounted, below-market price. Since the government’s royalties from that coal are a percentage of the sale price, that meant the companies were paying lower royalties than they should have been. Forty-two percent of the coal produced in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin — the biggest coal-producing area in the U.S. right now — was being sold through these “captive transactions,” according to Public Citizen, a good government advocacy group.

On Thursday, the Interior Department issued a new rule that puts a stop to that practice.

“One of the things Cloud Peak [Energy] and other coal companies were doing is selling to an affiliate at the mine mouth and then selling it in the export market at a significantly higher price,” says Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program. This new rule will allow the department to more accurately calculate the “market value” of coal, oil, and gas extracted on public land and make sure it’s getting paid fair royalties. Slocum estimates that this could bring in an additional $300 million per year in royalties.

This is important for two reasons: Corporations should not be stealing from the public, and every penny we undercharge fossil-fuel companies is an implicit subsidy for the dirty fuels that cause climate change. Coal companies are struggling, and instead of throwing them a lifeline that will help them stay in the business of worsening global warming, we should be letting them sink.

Crucially, unlike many other rules issued by federal agencies, this new rule will apply not just to future leases but also to ones that already exist. So even under a coal lease bought five years ago, a company will now have to pay fairer royalty rates going forward.

This is just the beginning of reforms needed to the federal fossil-fuel leasing system. A bigger issue is that coal, oil, and gas lease rates have failed to keep pace with the market, and on top of that they do not factor in the social costs of pollution and climate change. If they did those two things, the cost of fossil-fuel leases would be prohibitive. As it is, the leasing program is a big money-loser for the federal government. Greenpeace estimates that coal leasing alone costs taxpayers some $50 billion per year.

Ultimately, of course, we should be keeping fossil fuels in the ground — especially on land owned by the public. Hillary Clinton has pledged to move toward that goal, but she hasn’t specified a timeline. President Obama and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell have only promised to ensure that the public gets a fair price for fossil fuels extracted from public land, and to align the leasing programs with the administration’s goal of combatting climate change. It’s not clear what exactly either of those things mean. But in January, the Interior Department put a moratorium on new coal leases pending the results of a multi-year environmental review of the leasing program.

Climate activists have made fixing the broken fossil-fuel leasing system their top priority, and clearly more changes will occur, but no one knows how far they will go.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read original article:  

Now there’s one less way for Big Coal to screw over Americans

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Now there’s one less way for Big Coal to screw over Americans

San Francisco Just Passed the Nation’s Toughest Ban on Styrofoam

Mother Jones

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

San Franciscans, bid adieu to Styrofoam. On Tuesday, the city unanimously passed an ordinance banning the sale of any product made from polystyrene, the petroleum-based compound that’s molded into disposable dishware, packing materials, and beach toys—among other things. Even though it’s commonly known as Styrofoam, that’s just a name-brand owned by the Dow Chemical Company.

It’s not SF’s first such restriction. In 2007, the city prohibited the use of polystyrene use in all to-go food containers. More than 100 cities, along with Washington, DC, now have similar laws in place. (The first Styrofoam ban was passed in 1988 by the city of Berkeley.) But San Francisco’s new ordinance, part of the city’s goal of “zero waste” by 2020, is the broadest yet. As of January 1, 2017, it will be unlawful to sell polystyrene packing materials (those infuriating foam peanuts, for instance), day-use coolers, trays used in meat and fish packaging, and even foam dock floats and mooring buoys.

Polystyrene’s story begins in the first half of the 20th century, but it didn’t become a staple of our everyday lives until the second half, when world production of plastic resins increased 25 fold. Before long, polystyrene was synonymous with take-out food, barbeque plates, and disposable coffee cups—Americans today still use an estimated 25 billion foam cups each year.

This week’s ban is a victory for environmentalists, who since the late 1970s have been up in arms over polystyrene’s impacts on marine life and waterways. (Recent evidence suggests the resins may be problematic for human health.) Polystyrene breaks down into tiny pieces, easily blown into the sea, where birds and fish often mistake them for food. The nonprofit Agalita Marine Research and Education found that about 44 percent of seabirds have ingested plastic, and 267 species of marine life are affected in various ways by plastic trash. (Witness photographer Chris Jordan’s devastating bird photos.)

While polystyrene is said to never completely break down in landfills, it actually can decompose in the oceans. The stuff eventually sinks, which makes it difficult to know how much of it exists. And polystyrene contributes to the horrifying notion that by 2050, we may have more plastics in the ocean than fish.

Critics of the new ban are quick to point out that polystyrene is recyclable—a judge actually overturned New York City’s ban on to-go containers last year, ruling that the city could make big money recycling the stuff. But while San Francisco residents can bring large pieces of polystyrene to a transfer station free of charge, it rarely gets recycled. The problem, says Robert Reed, a local project manager for Recology, a company that helps cities manage solid waste, is that few people bother to bring in their Styrofoam, and when they do, it’s usually not in good enough condition to be repurposed. (It can be melted down and used as trim or molding for building construction.) “The few buyers who exist demand that the material be very clean,” Reed says in an email. “They don’t even want dust on it.”

The American Chemistry Council, the trade group for chemical makers, opposed the city’s ban, arguing that polystyrene’s light weight results in less carbon emissions when products are transported. The group urged the city to consider the environmental costs of all packaging materials, as polystyrene will likely be replaced with compostable foams. “All packaging leaves an environmental footprint,” Tim Shestek, the council’s senior director, said in a statement.

“Compostables are not the silver bullet,” concedes Samantha Sommer, a project manager with Clean Water Action California, which aims to curb single-use products. Even compostable products, she says, “come from resources; it takes resources to produce, it produces energy and water emissions throughout its life cycle, and then becomes difficult to manage.”

But Styrofoam all the more so.

View article:

San Francisco Just Passed the Nation’s Toughest Ban on Styrofoam

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on San Francisco Just Passed the Nation’s Toughest Ban on Styrofoam

If U.S. health care were a country, it would rank 13th for emissions

If U.S. health care were a country, it would rank 13th for emissions

By on Jun 14, 2016Share

A visit to the doctor’s office or hospital evokes images of cleanliness: sterile countertops, white walls, and sleek tools. But any given hospital needs to run lights and heat 24/7 and energy-hungry machines. All this winds up making America’s massive healthcare system a big source of the pollution that makes some patients sick.

According to new research from Yale University, if the U.S. healthcare system were a country, it would rank 13th in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. That means it emits more than the entire United Kingdom, contributing to climate change and harming public health. U.S. healthcare is also responsible for 12 percent of acid rain, 10 percent of smog, and 9 percent of respiratory diseases from particulate matter.

And the portion of our emissions generated by the health industry is steadily expanding: The Yale study reported an increase from 7 percent of the United States’ total emissions in 2003 to nearly 10 percent in 2013, over a period when the health care industry grew as a whole. The United States also spends nearly twice the average of what other developed countries spend on health care in terms of GDP.

While doing vital work to make us healthier, the industry could also be doing more to avoid the pollution that makes us sick.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read the article – 

If U.S. health care were a country, it would rank 13th for emissions

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If U.S. health care were a country, it would rank 13th for emissions

Crude oil is flooding Texas rivers

Flooding in Brookshire, Texas, U.S. April 20, 2016. Handout via REUTERS TPX IMAGES

Crude oil is flooding Texas rivers

By on May 2, 2016Share

Dramatic, deadly flooding is the new normal for parts of Texas and Louisiana this past year. This weekend, a single flash flood killed six people. But the damage often doesn’t end when the skies are finally clear. In Texas — a state dotted with oil wells — extreme flooding can also mean contaminated water.

According to El Paso Times, chemicals and oil from overfilled wells and fracking sites have flushed into majors rivers. Texas officials have reportedly taken dozens of images of waterways polluted with crude oil and fracking chemicals, which show the “sheens and plumes spreading from tipped tanks and flooded production sites.” Affected waterways include the Sabine River on the Texas-Louisiana border, which flooded in March, and the Trinity, Red, and Colorado rivers, which flooded last year.

“That’s a potential disaster,” Dr. Walter Tsou, a physician and past president of the American Public Health Association, told the El Paso Times. “I’m sure it will get into the groundwater and streams and creeks.”

Fracking, of course, is the inherently toxic and increasingly common industry practice of injecting massive amounts of water laced with cocktail of chemicals into the earth to fracture underground shales with deposits of oil or natural gas. Crude oil spills are never pretty, least of all when they destroy habitats.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article:  

Crude oil is flooding Texas rivers

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Crude oil is flooding Texas rivers

Pollution is now coming from Donald Trump’s golf course, in addition to his mouth

Pollution is now coming from Donald Trump’s golf course, in addition to his mouth

By on 31 Mar 2016commentsShare

Donald Trump has been spewing forth a stream of repugnant verbal pollution for months. Now he stands accused of producing a more literal kind of pollution — one that could contaminate the source of drinking water for the city where he so badly wants to live.

In 2009, the Trump National Golf Course 15 miles outside Washington, D.C., cut down an estimated 465 mature trees along the banks of the Potomac River, which provides drinking water to 5 million people. The head of the nonprofit Potomac Conservancy, Hedrick Belin, is now charging that the removal of trees along that 1.5-mile stretch could be worsening erosion and runoff into the river.

“It’s the single largest stretch of river upstream of D.C. without any trees on it whatsoever,” Belin told Grist. “If you’re flying into the National Airport in D.C., you can see it from the air. The contrast is so stark.” And those missing trees matter for water quality: “Trees are nature’s Brita filter,” he says, noting that they capture pollutants before they enter waterways. “When Trump makes an egregious move like this, we’re gonna call it out.”

Advertisement – Article continues below

Ed Russo, who has overseen environmental work on Trump’s golf courses, said that some of the trees were weak and susceptible to disease. Russo, who has been identified in the past as a special projects manager, spokesman, environmental consultant, planning consultant, and project director for the Trump Organization, also claimed that the trees were causing erosion, and that the grasses planted in their place are more environmentally beneficial. As The Washington Post sardonically put it in 2011, Russo’s ideas “often go against the grain of conventional scientific wisdom and soil conservation practice.”

Russo fired back against Belin’s allegations with bombast worthy of Trump himself: “This is a spectacular environmental net gain we did,” he told the Washingtonian this week. “Nobody required Donald Trump to do it. He did it because it was the right thing to do. Everyone agrees with me except Hedrick what’s-his-name.”

The shoreline of Donald Trump’s National Golf Course along the Potomac River.

It’s not the first time the Republican presidential front-runner’s golf courses have been targeted for poor environmental practices. In 2011, New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection cited the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., for a series of violations, including cutting down trees and fouling wetlands. And Scottish scientists reportedly criticized efforts to stabilize sand dunes at Trump’s course in Scotland, which was also the site of a bitter battle between the business mogul and proponents of a large coastal wind farm.

Trump, who has both touted his own “great environmental record” and pledged to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, has not weighed in on the tree-clearing himself. The Trump Organization, the Trump campaign, and Ed Russo did not respond to requests for comment.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit site:  

Pollution is now coming from Donald Trump’s golf course, in addition to his mouth

Posted in alo, Anchor, Brita, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pollution is now coming from Donald Trump’s golf course, in addition to his mouth

New Study Finds Persistent Peril from Urban Coal Soot in China and Indoor Smoke in India

In Chinese cities and India’s rural households, millions remain at risk from power plant pollution and smoky cooking and heating fires. Link:   New Study Finds Persistent Peril from Urban Coal Soot in China and Indoor Smoke in India ; ; ;

Excerpt from: 

New Study Finds Persistent Peril from Urban Coal Soot in China and Indoor Smoke in India

Posted in alo, alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Study Finds Persistent Peril from Urban Coal Soot in China and Indoor Smoke in India

Here’s One Issue Ted Cruz Actually Gets Right

green4us

And the Democrats get it wrong. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) navigate through an Iowa corn field during a 2013 hunt. Nati Harnik/AP With the Iowa caucuses just a week away, Ted Cruz is duking it out with Donald Trump. But Cruz is also taking a beating from a less well-known opponent: the biofuel industry. Apparently the ethanol folks don’t like Ted Cruz… pic.twitter.com/3OEYBUrOmY — David Biello (@dbiello) January 21, 2016 The problem is Cruz’s stance on the Renewable Fuel Standard, a federal mandate that requires fuels made from corn, sugarcane, and other biological sources to be mixed into the nation’s gasoline supply. The most prominent of these fuels is ethanol made from corn. Cruz wants to abolish the RFS (along with all government mandates and subsidies for energy, including for fossil fuels and renewables). Last week in New Hampshire he described the RFS as yet another way in which the government is “picking winners and losers.” That position sets him apart from the other Iowa front-runners, Republican and Democrat alike. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both expressed support for the RFS. Trump recently said he wants to increase the mandate. Cruz’s opposition to ethanol mandates puts him in a place you’d never expect to find him: on the right side of a debate about climate change. Cruz’s position could be a major liability in Iowa, where the RFS has become one of the most important corn-related federal programs and is a major fixture in the state’s politics. Iowa produces by far the most corn-based ethanol and thus arguably benefits more than any other state from the RFS. Last week, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) called for Cruz’s defeat in the caucuses, specifically citing Cruz’s “anti-renewable fuel stand.” (Branstad’s son works for the ethanol trade group America’s Renewable Future, the organization in the Twitter photo above.) Last week, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R), a longtime proponent of the RFS, said he agreed with Branstad’s criticism of Cruz. Of course, Iowa Republicans aren’t all single-issue voters, and it remains to be seen how much ethanol will matter to caucus-goers. Still, Cruz’s opposition to ethanol mandates puts him in a place you would never expect to find him: on the right side of a debate about climate change. Throughout the campaign, the Texas senator has been second only to Trump in his outspoken denial of mainstream global warming science. He has repeatedly used his Senate position to espouse blatantly misleading data that purportedly shows global warming stopped two decades ago. In August, he accused climate scientists of “cooking the books” and later told Glenn Beck that at this point climate change activists resemble a “religion.” But on ethanol, Cruz is on the right track. To understand why, let’s back up a bit. At the global climate talks in Paris in December, the United States committed to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. That goal mainly hinges on slashing pollution from coal-fired power plants. But the president’s plan also calls for filling the tanks of the nation’s cars and trucks with ever more fuel made from plants. The same day the Paris talks got underway, the Obama administration increased the requirements of the RFS. The new rules guarantee a growing market for corn-based ethanol, as well as for cutting-edge biofuels made of everything from grass to algae. Only about 5 percent of the country’s transportation fuel currently comes from biofuels (another 3 percent comes from natural gas, and the rest from petroleum). But that small number masks a rapid upward trend: Biofuel’s share has grown fourfold in just the last decade. Roughly 80 percent of that supply comes in the form of corn-based ethanol, production of which has skyrocketed 320 percent over that period. Today, one of every three bushels of corn grown in the United States ends up as ethanol. The remaining volume of biofuels comes largely from imported Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy-based biodiesel. A tiny splash comes from so-called “cellulosic” biofuels made from grass, cornhusks, and other nonfood sources (the term refers to lignocellulose, the material that comprises much of the mass of plants). The nation’s love affair with biofuels dates back to the final years of the George W. Bush administration, when Congress passed the current version of the RFS. That law set ambitious long-term targets for biofuels and tasked the Environmental Protection Agency with keeping the industry on pace—hence the new requirements announced in November. When corn ethanol started to take off in the mid-2000s, it was supposed to be an easy climate win, projected to have 20 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions per gallon than petroleum. But real-life experience proved murkier. By 2011, the EPA’s own estimates showed that corn ethanol production resulted in emissions that were anywhere from 6 percent to 66 percent higher than petroleum, depending on the kind of power source used to convert it from a cob into fuel. The original promise of biofuels was based on a basic accounting error, explains Tim Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University and the World Resources Institute. Burning biofuels still produces tailpipe emissions; the climate benefit was supposed to come from the carbon dioxide emissions sucked out of the air as the corn grew. But the EPA’s early estimates assumed that the corn diverted to biofuel wouldn’t be replaced in the food supply. In other words, Searchinger explains, “the offset is that people and livestock eat less.” Instead, the opposite happened: As ethanol boomed and corn prices climbed, farmers in Iowa and elsewhere planted millions of new corn acres, sometimes at the expense of grasslands and forests that did a better job of capturing carbon than rows of corn do. “If you have any amount of land use change to replace the crops, that wipes out the [climate] gain,” Searchinger says. A similar problem arose with soy-based fuels, as soy diverted from cooking oil to biodiesel was largely replaced with palm oil from Southeast Asia. Deforestation to produce palm oil is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Still, some energy analysts remain hopeful about the climate benefits of more advanced, cellulosic biofuels. “Definitely there are lots of environmental problems with corn ethanol, but turning back to oil isn’t the solution either,” says Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Advanced biofuels are an important part of a multipart strategy to cut emissions from the transportation sector.” Today, cellulosic biofuels are still a bit player, though they’re growing quickly; production is expected to double this year. But they’re still lagging far behind the production levels Congress first envisioned when it created the RFS. In 2015, production of cellulosic biofuels was 96 percent below the original target. Behind that delay is a complex blend of factors. The technology needed to produce cellulosic biofuels at an industrial scale took longer to develop than originally anticipated, in part because the EPA was so far behind schedule on its RFS planning that the 2014 requirement wasn’t even announced until 2015. Delays like that have spooked investors, who were left wondering what the future market for cellulosic biofuels would look like. Meanwhile, the 2008 recession led to an across-the-board dip in gasoline consumption, further reducing market opportunities. Cellulosic biofuels have also been crowded out by corn ethanol. Gasoline refiners are only required to mix their product with about 10 percent biofuels (the so-called “blend wall”), and they have fought vigorously against an increase in that requirement, claiming that most car engines aren’t equipped to handle anything more. Ethanol has taken up most of that share, leaving cellulosic biofuels with nowhere to go; new flex-fuel cars that can run on much higher volumes of biofuel are still a small market. “It’s challenging to market biofuels beyond 10 percent at the moment,” Martin said. “That probably more than anything caused the difficulty with how to proceed. Without a solution to the blend wall, that’s a real problem for the cellulosic plants.” One of the most promising developments for cellulosic biofuels is underway just outside Ames, Iowa, where Sarah Palin delivered her rambling endorsement of Trump last week. Here, one of the country’s first commercial cellulosic biofuel plants opened in October with much fanfare, including appearances by Gov. Branstad and Sen. Grassley. The plant, operated by chemical giant DuPont, aims to convert corn “stover” (husks and other nonedible byproducts left in the field) into a fuel that the company claims will have up to 90 percent lower emissions than petroleum. Jan Koninckx, director of biofuels at DuPont, says that after years of false starts his industry is finally poised to deliver, at scale, a biofuel with solid environmental credentials. “This is really the only realistic way in the foreseeable future to substantially decarbonize transportation,” he says. Of course, one of the most promising options for climate-friendly cars might not rely on liquid fuel at all. The market for electric vehicles is growing by leaps and bounds. And according to Searchinger’s research, an acre of solar panels can produce up to 300 times more energy for vehicles than the same acre planted with corn. Using electricity instead of gasoline could drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce America’s dependence on oil imports—without the concerns about land use. “Things that are slightly better than fossil fuels aren’t the solution,” Searchinger says. “You need things that are 100 percent better than fossil fuels.” Right, Senator Cruz?

Jump to original: 

Here’s One Issue Ted Cruz Actually Gets Right

Related Posts

72 Percent of Republican Senators Are Climate Deniers
Yup. A Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Texas City Opts For 100% Renewable Energy–to Save Cash, Not the Planet
Obama Blasts Climate Deniers and Calls for a Clean Energy Revolution
This Is Mike Huckabee’s Brain on Ethanol
One Weird Trick to Fix Farms Forever

Share this:






Visit link:  

Here’s One Issue Ted Cruz Actually Gets Right

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, Oster, OXO, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s One Issue Ted Cruz Actually Gets Right

New Paper Suggests More Smog = More Crime

Mother Jones

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

A reader draws my attention to some “@kdrum bait” by Chris Mooney in the Washington Post today. Mooney writes about a new study that investigates violent crime upwind and downwind of interstate highways in Chicago. The study’s conclusion: higher rates of tailpipe pollution (measured via carbon monoxide levels) lead to higher violent crime rates:

Moving from the median CO day to the 90th percentile (0.5 ppb increase) is associated with nearly 5% more violent crime. The analogous effect on property crime is statistically insignificant and small. This discrepancy across crime types may suggest that the primary mechanism is physiological; that is, the pollution might make people more irritable and impulsive, thus leading to more violent crime. As a point of comparison, the 5% increase in violent crime from a high-CO day is comparable to the estimated effect of moving from the 25-30°C (77-86°F) maximum temperature bin to the 30-35°C (86-95°F) bin (7% increase in violent crime). That is, the increase in violent crime when moving from a typical CO day to a high-CO day is comparable to the increase associated with moving from a warm day to a hot day.

….We estimate that the downwind side of interstates experience 2.2 percent more violent crimes than when the wind is blowing in the opposite direction. Although we estimate that the effect of pollution on crime is modest in magnitude, our conservative back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the cost of mobile pollution-induced crime in the United States is on the order of $100-200 million annually.

Of course, this isn’t really Kevin bait. Needless to say, I would expect higher crime rates downwind of urban highways because of lead emissions. However, this is an effect over the very long term. If you were born in a high-emission area during the era between 1950-1980 or so, you’re likely to suffer from lead poisoning that leads to a greater propensity for crime when you grow up. This explains the long-term rise and fall of violent crime over the past five or six decades.

However, this paper literally looks at violent crime rates from day to day. The authors conclude that, just as crime goes up during hot weather, it also goes up when pollution levels are higher. If this is true, it suggests that exposure to tailpipe pollutants has some kind of immediate, transient effect.

Why? The authors suggest several mechanisms. Pollution may have a direct effect on brain chemistry. Or it may simply be unpleasant and annoying, which can trigger aggressive behavior. Or it may have an effect on how many people are outdoors, which might indirectly affect the crime rate in some way. Since this is a brand new finding, it’s hard to say. Obviously it needs to be confirmed, and more research is needed before we understand the causal mechanism.

But interesting nonetheless.

From:  

New Paper Suggests More Smog = More Crime

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Paper Suggests More Smog = More Crime

How to sell the gas tax to people who hate taxes and love driving

How to sell the gas tax to people who hate taxes and love driving

By on 10 Nov 2015commentsShare

Trying to get Americans to raise the gas tax is like trying to get kids to eat healthy. Deep down, both suburban car lovers and sticky little humans know that their respective standoffs are nothing more than ideological grandstanding, and that paying a bit more at the pump and knocking back those peas and carrots won’t actually be the worst thing ever. But here we are, cruising around crumbling infrastructure with our cheap gasoline. And there’s little Joey, starving to death at the kitchen table.

Here’s Grist’s own Ben Adler laying out the very real problems with this standoff — the tax one, not the peas and carrots one:

There is perhaps no more vicious, self-reinforcing cycle in American life today than our dependence on automobiles. We subsidize suburban sprawl through favorable tax treatment, we mandate it through zoning codes, and we socialize the costs of the pollution it causes. We then end up with communities segregated into shopping, offices, and homes, so spread out and car-oriented as to make walking impractical.

… With so much driving necessary to get anywhere, and far too many SUVs on the road, it’s no surprise that Americans are averse to raising taxes on gasoline.

Gas taxes are how we fund federal transportation spending. Currently, the gas tax is just 18.4 cents per gallon, the same as it was in 1993 — and one-third less once adjusted for inflation. Because we haven’t raised it for two decades, we have developed a shortfall for currently authorized spending — and that doesn’t even begin to address the considerably larger amount we should appropriate to fix our crumbling transportation infrastructure.

But a new study published in the journal Energy Policy has revealed a glimmer of hope. Through a series of online surveys conducted between 2012 and 2014, two sociologists at Michigan State University found that people were significantly more likely to support a gas tax hike if they were told that a) the money would go toward energy-efficient transportation, b) the money would go toward infrastructure repair that current taxes couldn’t cover, or c) the money would be refunded equally to all Americans, rather than given to the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund.

(Note to Joey’s parents: One thing that didn’t work was telling survey respondents how much other countries paid for gas. So, you know, maybe stop talking about how much the neighbor girl loves her broccoli.)

To design these surveys, the MSU researchers used what’s called “fear appeal literature.” This is mostly worth pointing out because the world should know that such a thing exists. But also, it’s kind of important. According to the researchers, the findings of such literature show that: “for people to take action against a threat, it is not sufficient that they believe that the threat is severe and that they are susceptible to its consequences. They also must believe that there are practical ways of protecting themselves against the threat.”

Makes sense. People want to know that their sacrifices actually matter. That’s why if I ever have kids, I plan to convince them that we’re all constantly on the verge of spontaneous combustion and that a healthy diet is the only thing keeping the flames at bay. I’ll practically have to pry those Brussels sprouts out of their terrified little hands!

Source:

How voters would accept higher gas tax

, MSU Today.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.


Industrial Evolution: A Grist special seriesWe speak with the scientists, artists, and thinkers who see a high-tech, sustainable future on the horizon.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read more: 

How to sell the gas tax to people who hate taxes and love driving

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, organic, Radius, Sprout, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to sell the gas tax to people who hate taxes and love driving