Tag Archives: sierra

The Bay Area could get a whole new kind of climate tax

The Bay Area could get a whole new kind of climate tax

By on May 11, 2016Share

Residents of the Bay Area will soon have a chance to vote on a new tax to fight the effects of climate change. But while many environmentalists support the tax, critics say it unfairly disadvantages the poor.

Measure AA would impose a property tax of $12 a year on homeowners to address forthcoming problems associated with climate change. The fund — which would raise an estimated half billion over the next 20 years — would be used to restore tidal marshes to help mitigate flooding from rising sea levels.

And the threat is significant. Eighty percent of tidal marshes in the area have already been lost to development, reports KQED. Scientists predict that the sea level could rise as much as 4.5 feet by 210o, which stands to wreak havoc on the low-lying areas of San Francisco. One study estimated there’s $62 billion worth of property at risk from climate change in Bay Area.

This includes property owned by some very wealthy businesses in the area, like Facebook, whose new Menlo Park headquarters is directly on San Francisco Bay. And that’s what critics are taking issue with: The tax, the first of it’s kind, hits everyone at the same level instead of tying the tax to property values.

“Whether it is a struggling farm worker family in a very modest bungalow in Gilroy, or the Apple campus there in Silicon Valley [the tax is the same],” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a group that lobbies against property taxes, told KQED. “So obviously there are equity issues.”

Despite critics’ concerns, the measure, which will also help protect wildlife and reduce pollution in the area, has been endorsed by environmental groups like the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy.

Regardless, it has a high bar to pass: The measure requires approval by two-thirds of voters, who will cast their ballots June 7th.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

See more here – 

The Bay Area could get a whole new kind of climate tax

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Oster, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Bay Area could get a whole new kind of climate tax

California’s Snow is Finally Back—But the Drought Is Far From Over

Mother Jones

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

Ninety miles east of Sacramento in the Sierra Nevada mountains, snow surveyors plunged aluminum rods into the snow on Wednesday morning and recorded quite a different number than they did the year before: 58.4 inches.

The March 30 measurement is welcome news for drought stricken Californians, and a stark contrast from 2015’s record low of zero inches, the lowest number the Sierra had seen since measuring began in the 1940’s. This year’s snow pack is just about equal to the annual average—but that still won’t provide enough melt water to say the drought is over.

Snowpack in March 2015, the lowest ever recorded LA Times

Snowpack in March 2016, recorded at nearly 60 inches. LA Times

“This was a dry, dusty field last year, so it’s a big improvement but not what we had hoped for,” Frank Gehrke, chief of the California Cooperative Snow Surveys Program, said just after taking the measurement. “This is going to improve conditions for both reservoir storage as well as stream flow, but there’s still going to be some ongoing effects from the past years of…way-below-average snow pack.”

Frank Gehrke, Gov. Brown, and DWR Director Mark Cowin address the media after 2015’s dire snow survey. Florence Low/Department of Water Resources

Throughout the winter months, snow surveys are taken at various points in the Sierra Nevada. The measurement near the first of April is the most significant historically and hydrologically, because it’s the time of year when snowfall typically begins to melt, providing 30 percent of the state’s water.

In addition to the traditional aluminum pole method, surveyors from the state’s Department of Water Resources conducted aerial surveys and analyzed data from snow pillows, flat sensors put on the ground that measure the weight of accumulated snow.

See original article here:

California’s Snow is Finally Back—But the Drought Is Far From Over

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California’s Snow is Finally Back—But the Drought Is Far From Over

Colorado considers bill to make it easier to sue Big Oil over fracking earthquakes

Colorado considers bill to make it easier to sue Big Oil over fracking earthquakes

By on 18 Mar 2016commentsShare

If you were under the impression that ordinary people couldn’t do much to hold Big Oil companies directly accountable for the environmental havoc they wreak, you definitely weren’t alone. But, if a bill currently making its way through Colorado’s state legislature becomes reality, Coloradans harmed by quakes linked to the fracking boom may be able to sue frackers.

The bill, HB16-1310, would hold companies liable for physical injuries and damage to property caused by the recent spate of unusual earthquakes in the West. Researchers from the University of Colorado and Stanford University determined last year that the increased seismic activity in the region was caused by the industry’s practice of injecting massive amounts of toxic wastewater from oil and gas operations — primarily from hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — into underground wells. In its current incarnation, the bill would lower the burden of proof for plaintiffs, who’d have grounds for a case so long as they could demonstrate that oil and gas operations had occurred in the area where the injurious earthquake had occurred. That would make it increasingly difficult for companies to get a case thrown out of court right off the bat.

The bill cleared the Democratic-led House on Thursday and now heads to the Republican-led Senate, where its fate is less certain. But a fracking backlash is picking up steam in the Centennial State: Colorado’s secretary of state gave organizers of a ballot initiative to ban fracking throughout the state the OK to start circulating petitions on Thursday.

A decade into America’s fracking boom, Big Oil is being taken to court in several states. Homeowners in Oklahoma — a state that has recently broken records for its frequent earthquake activity — are already suing companies for damages relating to earthquake-induced injuries and property destruction. And last month, Sierra Club sued three energy companies with operations in Oklahoma and in Kansas, not to seek damages but rather a ruling that would force the defendants to immediately curb wastewater disposal. The personal-injury lawsuits in Oklahoma came after the state’s Supreme Court ruling last July that “rejected efforts by the oil industry to prevent earthquake injury lawsuits from being heard in court,” as ThinkProgress reported at the time; the industry was hoping that such disputes would be handled by a state regulatory agency.

If the HB16-1310 bill becomes Colorado state law, a person injured because their ceiling collapses from an earthquake — in, say, Durango — could potentially hold an oil company with a drilling operation in Durango liable. “This bill is about protecting homeowners and protecting people and it’s about protecting individuals,” Democratic state Rep. Joe Salazar told Colorado’s Daily Sentinel. “Oil and gas should be acting with the highest degree of care because this activity is very dangerous and it’s happening.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue at source:  

Colorado considers bill to make it easier to sue Big Oil over fracking earthquakes

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Colorado considers bill to make it easier to sue Big Oil over fracking earthquakes

All Trump-ed out, Chris Christie goes home to block funding for lead-poisoned families

All Trump-ed out, Chris Christie goes home to block funding for lead-poisoned families

By on 7 Mar 2016commentsShare

Chris Christie’s bad month keeps getting worse: he dropped out of the presidential race after an abysmal finish in New Hampshire, he endorsed Donald Trump to the Republican establishment’s revulsion, and six of his home-state newspapers called on him to resign. You’d think that, at this point, the New Jersey governor’s parade of missteps would be over.

But lo and behold, Christie can’t help himself. This week, he’s back home, spending his time blocking Democratic legislators’ efforts to clean up high levels of lead in New Jersey cities.

On Monday, New Jersey’s legislature reviewed two bills meant to alleviate lead poisoning, which affects children’s development, by funneling $10 million into the state’s Lead Hazard Control Assistance Fund, which would provide financial aid to homeowners who wanted to safely remove lead paint and earmark money to relocate families whose children have high lead levels. The fund has spent $16.5 million since its creation in 2004, based off a  50-cent-per-gallon fee on paint sales. The newly proposed bill would obtain funding through this fee.

Advertisement – Article continues below

Christie has opposed efforts to earmark funding in the state’s budget in the past, vetoing another version of the same bill in January. It was the third year in a row that the bill has failed to make it through. The last time Christie vetoed it, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club Jeff Tittel said the move was akin to “stealing money that would keep lead out of our homes and protect our children from lead poisoning.”

“First of all this has been an over-dramatized issue,” Christie told reporters last Thursday, according to NJ Spotlight. His reasoning: “You cannot fund everything. So make some choices and I will certainly be willing to consider that along with everything else that comes about.”

Christie’s argument is that New Jersey has seen success with reducing lead poisoning, with the number of children with unsafe levels of lead dropping by 70 percent from 1997 to 2013. He also argues that the state funds existing lead programs — after Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey earmarked $7 million a year for lead abatement, and receives $5 million in federal funding to fix damaged properties yearly. But the bill’s advocates say that more funding is needed. Due to the Centers for Disease Control stricter limit on what level of lead in children’s blood is considered “safe,” the number of children in New Jersey considered to have an unsafe level of lead in their blood jumped from 800 children in 2012 to more than 5,000 in 2013.

Lead poisoning has been a national topic the past few months, after Flint’s 100,000 residents found a high concentration of lead in their water supply. Most lead poisoning comes from contaminated water sources, soil in places where cars relied on lead-based gasoline, and, more rarely, from consuming or inhaling lead-based paint particles. Flint isn’t the only place with a lead problem, either. Across the country, nine counties report that 10 percent or more of their population tested positive for lead poisoning, according to 2014 CDC data. Research by public health advocacy groups show that 11 New Jersey cities and two counties have higher lead levels than those in Flint, Michigan.

Though he’s now stumping for Trump, Christie may have more something in common with another one of his one-time presidential opponents. At the most recent Republican debate last week, Florida Senator Marco Rubio said that Flint’s water crisis a tragedy, yet still defended Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. “The politicizing of it, I think, is unfair, because I don’t think someone woke up one morning and said “let’s figure out how to poison the water system to hurt someone, but accountability is important,” Rubio said.

Snyder agrees:

But it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Christie is following in-step with other Republican politicians — after all, it’s clear that at this point, he’ll follow anyone into hell.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

View original:  

All Trump-ed out, Chris Christie goes home to block funding for lead-poisoned families

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on All Trump-ed out, Chris Christie goes home to block funding for lead-poisoned families

Almonds Are Getting Cheaper, But Here’s the Catch

Mother Jones

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

Ye almond-loving hipsters, rejoice! The revered—and lately quite expensive—nut is likely to get cheaper soon. The wholesale price for almonds—the one paid by supermarkets to stock their bulk bins, or by processors to make their trail mixes—has fallen from a high of $4.70 last August down to $2.60, reports the Financial Times.

And the reason has nothing to do with a viral screed against almond milk penned by a certain wag in 2014. Rather, it’s the same set of forces that triggered California’s massive almond boom in the first place: the vagaries of global demand.

The state’s growers, who churn out 99 percent of almonds grown in the United States, have rapidly expanded their almond groves over the past decade and a half.

But that expansion didn’t happen just to satisfy your trendy almond-milk latte habit. California farmers are almond growers to the world: They supply about 80 percent of the almonds consumed globally, and export demand has risen steadily for most of the past 15 years. About 70 percent of California’s almonds are exported. According to the Almond Board of California, the great bulk of this massive outflow goes to Asia, the destination of 44 percent of California’s almond exports, and Western Europe, which gets about 40 percent.

As a result of that booming global demand, the price farmers get for almonds has risen dramatically despite the big acreage expansion.

But in recent months, the global appetite for almonds has plunged. Here’s the Financial Times:

Last year’s surge in prices depressed demand, and buyers in China, the Middle East and India, who have led consumption over the past three to four years, have disappeared. Trading has ground to a halt as prices continue to decline and the number of rejected containers by buyers refusing to honor contracts has jumped.

“It’s a bloodbath,” one California-based nut trader told the Financial Times. What happened was that California’s multiyear drought took a bite out of crop yields, making almonds more scarce and pushing up their price. And then, in 2014, the US dollar began to rise in value against major Asian currencies and the euro, making US exports, including almonds, even more expensive in those regions.

To make matters worse, the European economy stagnated, and China—the globe’s biggest almond importer—saw its economic growth slow and its stock market tumble. Snack makers in Asia and Europe began to balk at pricey almonds, putting fewer in nut mixes and reducing the portion size of almond offerings, the FT reports. In 2015, almond exports to Asia and Western Europe fell 12 percent and 7 percent, respectively, according to the Almond Board of California.

And now, with a historic El Niño triggering a wet and snowy winter in California, the market expects a big harvest in 2016. Econ 101 tells us that abundant supply and weak demand means lower prices going forward. That likely means you’ll soon be getting at least a slight break on that bag of salty roasted almonds you keep at your desk. But what does it mean for California’s almond boom?

In previous posts, I’ve questioned whether the state has the water resources—or access to sufficient bee hives for pollination—to continue devoting ever more land to the crunchy treat. Unlike, say, vegetables or cotton, which can be fallowed during dry years, planting an almond grove requires farmers to commit to finding a steady water source for about 20 years, or risk losing a very expensive investment. (According to the Almond Board of California, establishing an almond grove—paying for land, saplings, an irrigation system, etc.—costs about $8,700 per acre, or about $2.6 million for a new 300-acre grove.)

During the drought, water from California’s massive irrigation projects, which deliver melted Sierra Nevada snow to the state’s farms, was largely cut off. Farmers responded by fallowing a portion of annual crops like cotton and vegetables and irrigating the rest—including their ever-expanding almond groves—with water drawn from finite underground aquifers. While the current El Niño might spell the end of a drought that has haunted California since 2012, California agriculture has gotten so ravenous for water that aquifers in its largest (and most almond-centered) growing region, the Central Valley, have been declining steadily for decades.

For my deep dive into the almond boom last year, I asked David Doll, an orchard adviser with the University of California Cooperative Extension, how long growers could keep devoting ever more land to almonds despite the long-term water crunch. He told me it would only stop “when the crop stops making money.”

I checked back in with him to see what he thought about the current price drop. He said under normal conditions, when water is flowing from the state’s irrigation projects, the break-even farmer price for almonds is about $1.45 per pound—at that price, farmers neither lose nor make money. But when water is scarce, farmers face higher irrigation costs, and the break-even price rises to somewhere between $2.60 and $2.85—roughly where prices are now. So even with the current price drop, most almond growers are breaking even. But if we get another wet winter this year, water prices could drop by 2017 and almond farmers will be right back to profitability.

If the Asian and European appetite for almonds returns to normal growth rates, Doll added, the almond expansion will likely continue unabated, which will in turn limit large upward price swings as supply rises to meet demand. The limiting factor, of course, is water. Back in 2014, California shook off a history of Wild West aquifer stewardship and passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which requires that by 2025, the state’s aquifers can’t be drawn down faster than they’re recharged—a dramatic reversal of the status quo. “From my observations, there are many almond operations that are not planning for this policy,” Doll said, meaning they’re not prepared for a future when aquifers can’t be tapped at will.

But 2025 is nearly a decade away. Enjoy those relatively inexpensive almonds, you ignorant hipsters.

View the original here: 

Almonds Are Getting Cheaper, But Here’s the Catch

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Almonds Are Getting Cheaper, But Here’s the Catch

The Raging Future of American Wildfires

The risk of major blazes could increase 600 percent by mid-century, say scientists. Tom Reichner/Shutterstock On the one hand, the warming atmosphere is predicted to drench many parts of the U.S. with extreme rain. On the other, for much of the year it’ll likely desiccate vast areas into brittle tinder, setting the stage for more frequent and powerful wildfires. Increasingly balmy temperatures and a steady lengthening of the wildfire season (peep what’s happening this year in Alaska and Canada) will light a flame under America’s fire potential. By mid-century, large hunks of the country—including the West, the Gulf Coast, and the forested Great Lakes—could see a sixfold increase in weeks with a threat of major fires, according to researchers at the University of Idaho, the U.S. Forest Service, and elsewhere. Using climate models, the scientists project a future where “very large fires” have ample opportunity to explode, according to a paper in the International Journal of Wildland Fire. This class of conflagration is responsible for charring most of the land in many parts of the nation. Aside for the above-mentioned places, the researchers say, the risk of large fires could intensify in Northern California’s Klamath Mountains and Sierra Nevada and from Florida up the East Coast. Read the rest at CityLab. See more here:  The Raging Future of American Wildfires ; ; ;

Source: 

The Raging Future of American Wildfires

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Raging Future of American Wildfires

Big Coal is freaking out over this latest Obama move

Big Coal is freaking out over this latest Obama move

By on 16 Jul 2015commentsShare

The Obama administration’s less-than-stellar relationship with the coal industry is about to get worse. The Interior Department is rolling out new rules to protect waterways and groundwater from the various toxic messes made by coal mining companies.

The proposed regulations are aimed at the controversial process of mountaintop-removal mining, a way of getting at coal seams by lopping off mountaintops and dumping them into valleys, thereby burying the waterways that run through those valleys. More than 2,000 miles of waterways have been destroyed through the practice, which also leads to substances like selenium, iron, and aluminum showing up in streams and causing significant health problems for humans and wildlife.

The proposed rules would require mining companies to test water quality before they start mining, as they mine, and after they mine, creating a data set showing how their operations affected the area. It would also require the companies to restore streams that were “mined-over,” and replant areas with native trees and vegetation, and to put up bonds to make sure there’s funding for restoration.

Interior’s new proposal has been in the works for years, ever since the department admitted in 2009 that Bush-era rules were flawed. Those rules were struck down in 2014, so the regulations currently in place date from 1983.

The coal industry — which is suing the EPA over the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan and recently won a sort-of victory with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the EPA’s mercury regulations — is real upset about all this, and so are its allies in Congress.

“It’s outrageous that less than a month after being rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court for ignoring the costs of its regulations, the administration is doing it again with this job-crushing, anti-coal rule,” said Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso (R). “It’s no secret that this overreaching rule is designed to help put coal country out of business.”

National Mining Association President Hal Quinn hit the same no-jobs line. “This is a rule in search of a problem,” he told The Washington Post. “It has nothing to do with new science and everything to do with an old and troubling agenda for separating more coal miners from their jobs.”

Green groups, meanwhile, welcomed the long-overdue proposed regulations, but said they don’t go far enough to fix this problem, and will in fact weaken existing requirements barring mining activities within 100 feet of a stream.

“Appalachian communities rely on the rivers and streams covered by these protections, and today’s proposal doesn’t adequately safeguard those communities,” said Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club. “We need the federal government to create thoughtful stream protections that ban valley fills and ensure an end to this destructive practice.”

The rules aren’t a done deal yet. There will be a 60-day public comment period and five public hearings, after which the proposal could be revised. Final rules might be put in place next year.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work. A Grist Special Series

Meat: What’s smart, what’s right, what’s next

Get Grist in your inbox

Link:  

Big Coal is freaking out over this latest Obama move

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Coal is freaking out over this latest Obama move

The Supreme Court just punched a hole in Obama’s plan to clean up power plants

The Supreme Court just punched a hole in Obama’s plan to clean up power plants

By on 29 Jun 2015commentsShare

The Obama administration has had a pretty good week at the Supreme Court, but that changed this morning when the court ruled, 5-4, that the EPA had gone about the process of regulating power plant pollutants incorrectly. The decision is a blow to the administration’s efforts to clean up America’s energy economy.

The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia on behalf of the court’s five conservatives, claimed that the EPA hadn’t correctly considered the cost of cracking down on mercury and other toxic pollutants, one of Obama’s signature environmental efforts. “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits,” wrote Scalia. For the time being, the regulation will stay in effect while the case goes back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges there may order the EPA to conduct additional cost-benefit analyses, or they may rule that the EPA overstepped its authority and strike down the regulation entirely.

Environmental groups expressed their outrage in unison. In a statement, Sierra Club attorney Sanjay Narayan accused the court of placing the public “at risk of unnecessary deaths, asthma attacks, and neurological damage.” Advocates argued that the whole cost-vs-benefits discussion is absurd: Even though the coal industry would have to pay an estimated $9.6 billion a year to clean up its operations, the EPA estimated (belatedly) that the monetary benefits of a healthier population were far greater, from $26 billion to $89 billion per year. And, treatment costs aside, how does one quantify the value of protecting children from mercury poisoning?

On the bright side, the rule may have already had much of its intended effect. Brad Plumer notes at Vox:

Even if the rule does get struck down, however, the practical impact on mercury pollution may be relatively limited. Ever since the rule was finalized back in 2012, electric utilities have spent billions installing scrubbers at coal plants and retiring a number of their oldest units in order to comply. While a handful of coal plants may get a reprieve from this ruling, many of the investments in pollution control spurred by the rule have already gone forward.

As this decision comes in, Congress is moving toward dismantling other aspects of Obama’s environmental agenda. Last week, the House voted to allow state governors to opt out of the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s push to limit CO2 pollution from electric plants. And similar legislation is working its way through the Senate, though Obama would, obviously, veto such a bill. The Clean Power Plan also faces its own slew of legal challenges, which will take years to play out. So it’ll be a long time before we know what Obama’s environmental legacy ultimately looks like.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link – 

The Supreme Court just punched a hole in Obama’s plan to clean up power plants

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court just punched a hole in Obama’s plan to clean up power plants

The Richest Countries on Earth Just Agreed to Stop Your Great-Grandchildren From Using Fossil Fuels

Mother Jones

This story originally appeared on Grist and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The global economy must be completely fossil fuel–free by the end of the century. That point of climate consensus came out of a meeting today between the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the European Union, which make up the G7.

In the interest of preventing the planet from warming by more than 2 degrees Celsius, the nations said in a joint statement, “we emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century.” To that end, the nations agreed to work toward cutting emissions by between 40 and 70 percent by 2050.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also announced that the G7 countries would raise $100 billion by 2020 to help poorer nations adapt to climate change. Those funds, she said, would come from public and private sources. Financing to help the developing world confront climate change has long been a point of contention in climate negotiations, and past efforts to get rich countries to pony up have been a bit rocky.

Environmental groups praised the G7 announcement, which they had worried would be derailed by dissent from Japan and Canada. “The decisions made by the G7 today indicated an acknowledgement that there needs to be a phase-out of climate-killing coal and oil by 2050 at the latest,” said Greenpeace’s head of international climate politics, Martin Kaiser. “Merkel and Obama succeeded in not allowing Canada and Japan to continue blocking progress towards tackling climate change.”

After the Fukushima disaster, Japan backed away from nuclear energy, and has drawn criticism for favoring coal over renewables. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s administration has leaned heavily on Alberta’s tar sands as a potential economic boon for the country, and has been notoriously unfriendly to climate campaigners who disagree.

In a statement, the Sierra Club called today “the first time that the leaders of the world have made clear with one voice that we must get off fossil fuels completely.”

Though this announcement doesn’t require these countries to actually do anything specific, green groups see it as an encouraging indicator of momentum as we approach December’s UN climate summit in Paris, where 200 countries will commit to specific plans for how to green their economies. If, six months before diplomats sit down with pens in hand, the leaders of the world’s major economies are making announcements that involve words like “decarbonisation”—well, greens see that as a good thing.

Visit site:  

The Richest Countries on Earth Just Agreed to Stop Your Great-Grandchildren From Using Fossil Fuels

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Richest Countries on Earth Just Agreed to Stop Your Great-Grandchildren From Using Fossil Fuels

Breaking: California Farmers Agree to Water Cuts

Mother Jones

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

As California endures its fourth year of grueling drought, officials are getting more serious about mandatory water cuts. Gov. Jerry Brown imposed the state’s first-ever water restrictions last month, ordering cities and towns to cut water by 25 percent. But the vast majority of water in California goes not to homes and businesses but to farms, which so far have suffered minimal cuts.

Today, the state’s Water Board approved a deal with farmers in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in which some farmers will voluntarily reduce water use by 25 percent in exchange for assurances that they won’t suffer reductions later in the growing season. “We’re in a drought unprecedented in our times,” said Board Chair Felicia Marcus. “The action we’re announcing today is definitely unusual, but we are in unusual times.”

Here’s a primer on how farms are using water now, who holds rights to it, and what restrictions may come next.

How much water do California farms use?

Farms consume about 80 percent of the state’s water supply, and use it to grow half of the fruits and veggies that are produced in the United States. Almonds and alfalfa (cattle feed) use more than 15 percent of the state’s water.

What are water rights?

Water rights enable individuals, city water agencies, irrigation districts, and corporations to divert water directly from rivers or streams for free. The rights are based on a very old seniority system: “Senior” water rights holders are the first to get water and the last to suffer from cuts. There are two primary types of these senior holders: Those who started using the water before 1914 (when the water permit system was put in place), and “riparians,” who own property directly adjacent to streams or rivers. Water rights often, but don’t always, transfer with property sales.

Who are senior water rights holders?

Senior water rights holders are the corporations, individuals, or entities who either staked out the water before 1914, when the state started requiring permits and applications for water; those who live directly adjacent to a river or stream; or those who have bought property with senior water rights. This system made sense in the era of pioneers settling the Wild West: As the Associated Press recently put it, “Establishing an early right to California water was as simple as going ahead and diverting it. Paperwork came later. San Francisco got the Sierra Nevada water that turned its sand dunes into lush gardens by tacking a handwritten notice to a tree in 1902.” Today, there are thousands of senior water rights holders; most of them are corporations, many of which are farms. The holders include utilities company Pacific Gas and Electric, the San Francisco water agency, a number of rural irrigation districts, and Star Trek actor and rancher William Shatner.

What water cuts were announced today, and what’s coming next?

Today, the Water Board announced that it would accept a voluntary deal in which riparians in the 6,000-acre Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (shown in the map below) would reduce their water use by 25 percent, or fallow 25 percent of their land. In exchange, the Water Board promised them that they wouldn’t suffer cuts in the coming year. There are about 1,000 water holders in the area who could be candidates for the deal, which will be enforced by a combination of a complaint system, satellite imagery, and spot checks.

In addition, the Board will announce mandatory curtailments to other senior water holders next week for the first time since the 1970s. The Board is still figuring out the location and percentage of these cuts.

So before today’s cuts, farmers were just using as much water as they wanted?

Well, not exactly. Farmers with “junior” (post-1914) rights in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River basins, home of the normally fertile Central Valley, were ordered to stop using the river’s water a month ago. But the regulations are enforced by the honor system and reported complaints; so far, only a fifth of junior water holders in the area have confirmed that they are complying.

The Department of Water Resources has also made substantial cuts to the state’s two major water projects—a system of aqueducts, dams, and canals across the state that distributes water from water-rich Northern California to the water-poor Central Valley. Growers who use water from the Central Valley Water Project are only receiving 20 percent of their allocated water, and farmers of the State Water Project aren’t receiving any at all.

All of this has led more and more farmers to rely almost exclusively on groundwater, but it’s undeniable that the drought has led to less farming overall: Last year, five percent of irrigated cropland went out of production, and officials expect that number to rise this year.

What is groundwater, and how much of it are farmers using?

Groundwater is the water that trickles down through the earth’s surface over the centuries, collecting in large underwater aquifers. It’s a savings account of sorts—good to have when it’s dry but difficult to refill—and it wasn’t regulated until last year, when Gov. Brown ordered local water agencies to come up with management plans. The water agencies are still in the process of implementing those plans, and in the meantime, no one knows exactly how much groundwater is being used. We do know this: Groundwater usually makes up about 40 percent of the state’s total freshwater usage, but lately, the state has been running on it. It made up 65 percent of freshwater use last year, and may make up as much as 75 percent this year. As a result of overpumping, the land is sinking—as much as a foot a year in some areas—and officials are worried that the changing landscape threatens the structural integrity of infrastructure like bridges, roads and train tracks.

Visit source – 

Breaking: California Farmers Agree to Water Cuts

Posted in Anchor, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Breaking: California Farmers Agree to Water Cuts