GreenEnergy4.us

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

Climate change is messing with leaves, and leaves are messing back

From:

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, Northeastern, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged argentina, article, atmosphere, climate, karate, life, Ona, overall, power, university, world | Comments Off

How Coal-Loving States Are Waging War on Obama’s New Climate Rules

by JacintoHahn Posted on February 20, 2015

Mother Jones

This week, representatives from the state-level agencies that manage electric grids met in Washington, DC, for a collective freak-out about President Barack Obama’s flagship climate policy. The Clean Power Plan, as it’s called, aims to slash the nation’s carbon footprint 30 percent by 2030. It would require every state to reduce the carbon “intensity” of its power sector—that is, how much greenhouse gas is emitted for every unit of electricity produced.

There’s a unique reduction target for every state, and a likewise diverse array of things for state regulators to hate: They argue the plan is a gross overreach of federal authority; that it will bankrupt utility companies, drive up monthly bills for ratepayers, and lead to power shortages; that states won’t be adequately credited for clean-energy steps they’ve already taken; and that the deadlines for compliance are just downright impossible to meet. And coal companies are justifiably worried that the plan could kill their business.

More than a dozen states (mostly coal-dependent states in the South, which could be hit hardest by the rules) are already raising hell in what’s shaping up to be the environmental version of state-level challenges to Obamacare. As our friend David Roberts at Grist highlighted this week, a number of states have joined a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. And across the country in those states and others, bills are cropping up that could make it hard or impossible for individual states to meet their mandated carbon targets. The idea is effectively to stonewall the EPA and hope the regulations get killed in court.

The most recent battle is playing out this week in Virginia, where a state representative with ties to the coal industry wants to make it more difficult for the state’s Department of Environmental Quality to comply with the president’s climate goals.

First, a little background: The nation’s first anti-EPA bill came early last year in Kentucky, before the Clean Power Plan was even released. The proposed EPA rule would require Kentucky to cut its power-sector carbon emissions roughly 35 percent by 2030. That’s bad news for the coal industry, which supplies more than nine-tenths of the state’s power. So using a model bill developed by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (which has deep ties to the coal industry), Kentucky legislators passed a law that essentially prevents the state from complying with the Clean Power Plan. The new law bars the state from adopting any implementation plan that includes renewable energy or energy efficiency, or that encourages power plants to switch from coal to natural gas. With those restrictions, the EPA goal does indeed seem unreasonable; the state’s top climate official recently told Inside Climate News that he has no idea how to meet the EPA’s demands and stay within state law.

Continue Reading »

How Coal-Loving States Are Waging War on Obama’s New Climate Rules

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged american, clean, climate-change, environmental, exchange, governor, house, Mop, oven, power, southern | Comments Off

Would you rather swim in a river of ammonium or MDMA?

by GeraldiPenrod Posted on January 15, 2015

Raves and Graves

Would you rather swim in a river of ammonium or MDMA?

By Eve Andrewson 15 Jan 2015comments Share

Are you a fish? If yes, it’s crazy that you’re reading this with those gross eyes and tiny, futile brains of yours, but we’ll just move along. We have Grist’s official “hot or not” vacation roundup for you, and our theme this week is “Where to get high, and where to die!”

Hot: Taiwan, where the rivers now run with MDMA thanks to some hellscape of an EDM festival in Kenting National Park. From CityLab:

During one week in April 2011, the researchers identified in southern rivers the presence of not just ecstasy but ketamine, codeine, pseudoephedrine, caffeine, and prescription drugs for high cholesterol and urinary tract infections, according to a new paper in Environmental Science & Technology.

If you’re going to rave just by breathing, don’t forget your lip balm and water — OH WAIT, you’re a fish! You always have water! Otherwise, you would die.

Not: Speaking of dying, here’s where not to go — ever: Pennsylvania, New York, Arkansas, and anywhere else in proximity to a fracking site. A new and first-of-its-kind study to be published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology has found two toxic chemicals — ammonium and iodide — in the wastewater from oil and gas treatment plants. As you can probably imagine, fishy reader, this development is not in your favor. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Ammonium, when dissolved in water, can convert to ammonia, which is toxic to aquatic life. Sampling at wastewater discharge sites found ammonium concentrations up to 100 milligrams per liter or more than 50 times higher than the federal water quality limit for protecting aquatic life.

This adds an important piece of information to the bewildering debate of whether fracking has health and/or environmental impacts — namely: Yes, goddammit, those chemicals actually do get into the water.

So, my dear finned friends, would you prefer to roll or would you prefer to roll over? The choice is all yours! (Just kidding, it’s not, because you can’t travel internationally, because, once again, you’re a fish. I’m so sorry.)

Source:
Taiwan’s Rivers Are Flowing with the Drug Ecstasy

, CityLab.

Study: High levels of pollutants from drilling waste found in Pa. rivers

, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Use energy wisely and save money

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

Would you rather swim in a river of ammonium or MDMA?

Visit source:

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged alo, ammonium, article, environmental, federal, information, journal, national, Ona, power, science, technology | Comments Off

This water lawsuit could be huge and it’s happening in … Iowa?

by MirtaHaight Posted on January 13, 2015

This water lawsuit could be huge and it’s happening in … Iowa?

By Liz Coreon 12 Jan 2015comments Share

Ah, Iowa. Frequently confused with heaven, the Hawkeye State is a place of simple yet profound beauty: filled with pink-hued sunsets, rolling hills, golden corn fields, and strapping basketball players. Now, in an effort to preserve the purity of the state’s stunning resources (DON’T give me that look — beauty is in the eye of the freaking beholder, OK?), the state capital’s water utility company is facing off with farmers over fertilizer in an effort to curb water pollution.

Des Moines Water Works sent an intent to sue to three neighboring counties with high nitrate levels in the Raccoon and Des Moines rivers. The utility is fed up with filtering nitrate out of drinking water — it spent $900,000 on the issue in 2013. And the lawsuit just might finally make a difference in a nationwide issue that has been unregulated and out-of-control for years.

Farmers spread nitrogen fertilizer on their corn fields, which becomes nitrate — a colorless, odorless, tasteless compound. Nitrate becomes a problem when it leaks into streams and rivers. In Iowa, underground tile pipes drain the soil beneath farmers’ fields. Those pipes, which are often managed by county governments, bring polluted water to nearby rivers and waterways, and eventually into the unknowing Iowan’s cup of drinking water. Here’s more from NPR’s Dan Charles:

Too much nitrate can be a health risk, especially for infants under the age of 6 months, and it’s difficult to remove from water. …

Bill Stowe, general manager of the Des Moines Water Works, told Iowa Public Radio in an interview last week that “we are seeing the public water supply directly risked by high nitrate concentrations.” …

Des Moines Water Works is now proceeding on the theory that those governments can be held legally responsible for the pollution that their pipes carry.

“When they build these artificial drainage districts that take water, polluted water, quickly into the Raccoon River, they have a responsibility to us and others as downstream users,” he told Iowa Public Radio.

Polluted water is not only a risk to public health — high nitrate levels also wipe out aquatic life from Midwestern lakes all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico.

This isn’t the first attempt to limit run-off. State and federal governments already offer financial assistance to farmers who try to reduce nitrogen leaks. The government-issued dollars can go towards building pollution traps like sediment-trapping ponds and wetlands. (Not only do the wetlands decrease nitrate leaks, they also bolster dwindling waterfowl and bird populations.)

But not every farmer can qualify for the government programs, so Des Moines Water Works is starting to play hard ball. We’ll raise a glass of safe drinking water to that.

Source:
Iowa’s Largest City Sues Over Farm Fertilizer Runoff in Rivers

, NPR.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

In 2015, make a New Year’s resolution that will actually change the world

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

This water lawsuit could be huge and it’s happening in … Iowa?

Link:

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged cities, first, food, npr, Ona, power, pur, radio, theory, Works | Comments Off

Federal diet guidelines won’t mention food’s environment connection. Ugh.

by KlaraGuzm Posted on January 8, 2015

Federal diet guidelines won’t mention food’s environment connection. Ugh.

By Sam Blisson 8 Jan 2015comments Share

Well, shoot. Looks like the Department of Agriculture’s new Dietary Guidelines for Americans won’t mention anything about the environment, after all.

USDA nutritionist Eve Essery Stoody told Vice News that the federal food recommendations will be, as always, based on how diet affects human health, not the health of the planet.

In case you haven’t been following: The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the group charged with writing new eating instructions for the U.S. every five years, wanted to acknowledge that yes, food is produced on Earth and what we choose to eat plays a role in determining what food is produced and how. A few months back, Tufts University professor Miriam Nelson, a member of the committee, said to her colleagues, “In general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods is more health-promoting and is associated with less environmental impact.” That language was included in the draft report that the DGAC voted to submit at its Dec. 15 meeting.

Predictably, Big Meat wasn’t cool with mixing advice on what’s good for eaters with facts about what’s good for ecosystems, since large quantities of animal products are unhealthy for both. So the meat industry’s lobbyists saw to it that congressmembers attached some directives to a spending bill imploring that the new guidelines make clear that food has nothing (nothing!) to do with that thing out there called the environment.

Earlier this week, though, it still seemed possible that the USDA might include some remarks on our food choices’ impact beyond personal nutrition. John Light, who wrote for Grist about how the new guidelines might tell Americans to eat less beef for the sake of the environment, points out that taking earthly issues into account would go against the corporate-influenced history of the federal guidelines:

The beef industry has long held sway over the guidelines the USDA puts out, with unfortunate results for the environment — University of Michigan researchers found last year that if all Americans followed the USDA dietary guidelines, we’d see a 12 percent increase in dietary-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Once again, the ag department appears to have caved under intense political pressure. Now no Americans will ever know that what’s salubrious for them is also generally unhealthy for the climate, since everyone gets all their dietary advice from the government food pyramid!

Maybe they’ll sneak some green talk in the guidelines next time around, in 2020. Unless by then our laboratory-made food really is effectively disconnected from the biosphere.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

In 2015, make a New Year’s resolution that will actually change the world

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

Federal diet guidelines won’t mention food’s environment connection. Ugh.

More here:

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Wiley | Tagged agriculture, anchor, dietary-guidelines, earth, health, king, power, professor | Comments Off

Is this the end of Cape Wind?

by Travis6964 Posted on January 8, 2015

Is this the end of Cape Wind?

By John Lighton 8 Jan 2015 1:32 pmcomments Share

Cape Wind, the long-debated wind farm planned for waters off the coast of Nantucket, Mass., hit a huge setback this week. It was intended to be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. Now it might not even get built.

The state’s two largest utilities said they wouldn’t buy the power it generated after all. Why wouldn’t they buy it? The folks developing the wind farm had repeatedly missed deadlines. And why’d they miss them? Because of a well-orchestrated opposition campaign led by wealthy landowners who don’t want their sea views disrupted, including both Kochs and Kennedys.

From The Boston Globe:

A Cape Wind spokesman said the developer does not “regard these terminations as valid” because of provisions that, the company argued, would extend the deadlines.

In letters dated Dec. 31 to both utilities and state regulators, Cape Wind president James Gordon asked that the power companies hold off on voiding the contracts, citing “extended, unprecedented, and relentless litigation by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound,” a leading foe of the project.

Those lawsuits, Gordon said in his letter, had prevented Cape Wind from meeting the milestones laid out in the 2012 contract.

Together, the two utility companies had agreed to purchase more than 75 percent of the power the farm would generate. Their withdrawal might be the death knell for Cape Wind. “Presumably, this means that the project doesn’t go forward,” said Ian Bowles, former Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs.

But not everyone is writing Cape Wind off just yet. “It’s too early to offer a eulogy,” said Jon Mitchell, mayor of nearby New Bedford, Mass., noting that the project has overcome many previous obstacles — like the 26 lawsuits that have been filed against it since it was first proposed 14 years ago.

And even if Cape Wind doesn’t move forward, other offshore wind projects in the region are likely to, the Globe reports:

At the end of the month, the federal government will auction four offshore wind leases across 742,000 acres of sea south Martha’s Vineyard. Those waters would be well beyond the view from shore and allow for the use of much larger, more powerful turbines than Cape Wind has planned to build. The energy from those leases could power as many as 1.4 million homes, according to the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

“The future of offshore wind is still strong,” said Sean Mahoney, executive vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation.

Source:
Two utilities opt out of Cape Wind

, The Boston Globe.

Cape Wind’s future called into question

, The Boston Globe.

Mass. Utilities Back out of Plan to Buy Power Generated by Cape Wind

, The Wall Street Journal.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Get stories like this in your inbox

Is this the end of Cape Wind?

View article:

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged boston-globe-, climate & energy, globe, nantucket, Ona, power, president, project, utilities | Comments Off

Are you dumb if you buy a Prius when gas prices are this low? Um, no

by TrinaUccenoyuhd Posted on December 11, 2014

Are you dumb if you buy a Prius when gas prices are this low? Um, no

By John Lighton 11 Dec 2014comments Share

Time for us to talk about the media’s FAVORITE THING: gas prices. There’s like maybe a slim chance you’ve already read a story about how cheap prices are at the pump. They’ve hit a four-year low, an average of about $2.70 in the U.S. — and they might drop to $2.50 by Christmas. Maybe you’ve even been to one of said pumps and experienced for yourself just how cheap gas is! But there are some environmental implications. Let’s discuss.

First, as Heather Smith already noted, the low cost of fuel has brought gas-guzzling SUVs back from the dead. It’s also making people who drive more fuel-efficient cars look stupid in the mind of one cynical Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. See: “With $2 Gas, the Toyota Prius Is for Drivers Who Stink at Math.”

It would take almost 30 years of fuel savings from the hybrid Prius to cover its price premium over the little Chevy Cruze, although that doesn’t account for the Chevy buyer making savvy investments with her savings in the meantime. It doesn’t matter, since we will all be flying around in futuristic Teslas before the Prius pays off. The all-electric Nissan gets a lot closer: The Leaf, without any gas stops, takes just 3.8 years on the road to beat the cheaper sticker price of the Cruze.

Overall, because of people who think like the Businessweek reporter, plus people who get real excited about things that are huge and loud and rumble beneath them, the average fuel economy of vehicles being purchased is now falling flat, after years of rising. This chart, via Brad Plumer at Vox, shows that the stagnation is already apparent in the last few months’ sales.

Of course, there’s one market mechanism that does have the power to make driving something like, say, a Cadillac Escalade a stupid idea, even with low gas prices: carbon pricing. California’s carbon-pricing scheme will be extended to cover vehicle fuel on Jan. 1, and that could make a difference in the long-term economics of purchasing a big ol’ traditional car over a newer, greener model. The fossil fuel lobby has been pushing hard to cast this as a hidden gas “tax” on California drivers. Many fossil fuel companies accept, in their internal accounting, that such schemes are inevitable, but they’re still fighting hard to put them off as long as possible.

And with the low gas prices, the International Energy Agency is reminding world governments that now is the perfect time — a “golden opportunity” — to get rid of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and to put a price on carbon. From the British news site Responding to Climate Change:

Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency, said [policymakers] could consider measures that “would have been unthinkable a year ago”.

She was addressing media at the UN climate talks in Lima, where negotiators are considering a target of net zero emissions by 2050.

And while cutting fossil fuel–related emissions down to nothing by 2050 might be a long-shot scheme, world leaders are in a good place to receive this tidbit of IEA advice. It looks like diplomats will return home from the U.N. conference in Lima tasked with developing a plan for their own country to reduce emissions. Putting a price on carbon is an effective and increasingly popular way to do that.

Please

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox