Tag Archives: wind energy

U.N. report spells out super-hard things we must do to curb warming

Mission not-quite-impossible

U.N. report spells out super-hard things we must do to curb warming

Shutterstock

Hooboy, it’s gonna get hot. A U.N. climate panel on Sunday painted a sizzling picture of the staggering volume of greenhouse gases we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere — and what will happen to the planet if we keep this shit up.

By 2100, surface temperatures will be 3.7 to 4.8 degrees C (6.7 to 8.7 F) warmer than prior to the Industrial Revolution. That’s far worse than the goal the international community is aiming for — to keep warming under 2 C (3.7 F). The U.N.’s terrifying projection assumes that we keep on burning fossil fuels as if nothing mattered, like we do now, leading to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere of between 750 and 1,300 parts per million by 2100. A few centuries ago, CO2 levels were a lovely 280 ppm, and many scientists say we should aim to keep them at 350 ppm, but we’re already above 400.

These warnings come from the third installment of the latest big report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, compiled by hundreds of climate scientists and experts. (WTF is this IPCC? See our explainer. Feel like you’ve heard this story before? Perhaps you’re thinking of the first installment of the report, which came out last fall, or the second installment, which came out last month. Maybe the IPCC believes that breaking its report into three parts makes it more fun, like the Hobbit movies.)

Here’s a paragraph and a chart from the 33-page summary of the latest installment that help explain how we reached this precarious point in human history.

Globally, economic and population growth continue to be the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The contribution of population growth between 2000 and 2010 remained roughly identical to the previous three decades, while the contribution of economic growth has risen sharply … Between 2000 and 2010, both drivers outpaced emission reductions from improvements in energy intensity. Increased use of coal relative to other energy sources has reversed the long-standing trend of gradual decarbonization of the world’s energy supply.

IPCCClick to embiggen.

Of course, we could change our fossil-fuel-burning, globe-warming ways. It’s too late to avoid climate change — it’s already here — but the scientists who collaborated on the latest IPCC report think they know what it would take to keep warming within 2 degrees. It would require “substantial cuts” in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century “through large-scale changes in energy systems,” and maybe also changes in how we use land and protect CO2-slurping forests. By 2050, we would need to be pumping far less pollution into the atmosphere than we were in 2010 — perhaps 40 to 70 percent less. And by 2100, we would need to stop polluting the atmosphere entirely.

Achieving these seemingly impossible but utterly crucial reductions in greenhouse gas pollution will require international agreement, the report notes. The trans-boundary nature of the climate crisis means no one government or group can fix this problem on its own. So come on, everybody — let’s get to it!


Source
• Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change IPCC Working Group III Contribution to AR5, IPCC

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Read the article: 

U.N. report spells out super-hard things we must do to curb warming

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.N. report spells out super-hard things we must do to curb warming

Brits may ban new onshore wind power

That blows

Brits may ban new onshore wind power

Shutterstock

Britain’s conservative government is preparing to make an unusual pledge — a crackdown on clean energy.

Prime Minster David Cameron, leader of the bluntly named Conservative Party (aka the Tories), is overseeing the drafting of a “manifesto” ahead of next year’s national election. That manifesto might come dressed up in a stifling windbreaker. The Guardian explains:

The Guardian understands that Cameron has brokered a compromise between warring Tories by agreeing to include measures in the manifesto for next year’s general election that will in effect rule out the building of onshore windfarms from 2020. …

The Tories will be working out the details of the pledge, which could involve an absolute cap on the output from onshore turbines. Lesser measures, which would all come into force in 2020, would involve lower subsidies or introducing tighter planning restrictions.

The senior Conservative said it was important to act because onshore windfarms had become so unpopular.

But Cameron’s party understands that renewable energy in general is popular in the country, so the manifesto might offset the anti-onshore wind pledge with strong commitments to solar power and offshore wind farms.

“We are not going to allow the [opposition] to characterize us as anti-clean-energy just because we want to control the number of onshore windfarms,” one party source told the newspaper. “We are mindful that uncontrolled expansion of onshore wind is alienating people from the whole clean energy debate.”


Source
Conservatives to promise ban on new onshore windfarms, The Guardian

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

View original: 

Brits may ban new onshore wind power

Posted in Anchor, Brita, FF, Free Press, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Brits may ban new onshore wind power

Mexican gangs learn that lime pays (also crime)

Grocery cartel

Mexican gangs learn that lime pays (also crime)

Shutterstock

“I could just kill for a margarita right now,” you sigh, apparently ignorant of the fact that it is March, and the consumption of an iced beverage is nothing short of an act of insanity. It’s also probably the middle of the workday, so that in itself should be cause for concern in most circles.

You’re also probably unaware that someone may have actually killed – as in, committed murder – for the limes that go in your hypothetical margarita. Cartels are invading the Mexican citrus trade, hijacking trucks, and forcibly taking over farms to sell the now-valuable fruit. Another day, another ring of organized criminals making the transition from eight balls to tasty treats!

NPR reports that unprecedented rainfall in the states of Michoacán, Guerrero, and Veracruz and a widespread bacterial infection in the state of Colima have resulted in minimal lime yields this year. As a result, farmers can charge a high price for their harvest, no matter the quality.

The demand for delicious citrus fruit has not escaped the attention of former Mexican drug lords. Canadian CBC News reports that the Knights Templar (Caballeros Templarios) cartel, an offshoot of the defunct but infamously brutal La Familia Michoacana, has been forcing farmers in the Tierra Caliente region to pay “protection taxes” to the cartel, which drive up lime prices even further. In some cases, the Knights Templar will seize citrus farms and take over production, sometimes killing farmers in the process. And according to NPR, lime producers are starting to hire security details to protect shipments of limes from organized hijackers at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Knights Templar have been active in the region for years preceding this lime crisis, but it’s only provided further opportunity for them to profit. Organized crime in the Tierra Caliente region, which includes parts of Michoacán and Guerrero, has wreaked havoc on its agriculture. A recent evaluation by the National Chamber of Business, Services, and Tourism of Apatzingán, a central city in the Tierra Caliente valley, showed that the cost of restoring the local citrus farming industry alone would exceed $130 million (link in Spanish).

Raúl Millan of Vision Import Group expressed surprise to NPR that customers are still buying up limes at prices that are double or triple what they normally are. Have you ever tried to separate the average American from her guac, Raúl? Come on. You know better.


Source
In Mexico And U.S., Lime Lovers Feel Squeezed By High Prices, NPR
Mexican drug cartel behind increase in lime prices, CBC News

Eve Andrews is a Grist fellow and new Seattle transplant via the mean streets of Chicago, Poughkeepsie, and Pittsburgh, respectively and in order of meanness. Follow her on Twitter.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Living

Excerpt from:  

Mexican gangs learn that lime pays (also crime)

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, Free Press, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mexican gangs learn that lime pays (also crime)

Ohio lawmakers: All right, folks, we guess it’s OK for you to buy Teslas

Ohio lawmakers: All right, folks, we guess it’s OK for you to buy Teslas

Tesla

If you live in Ohio, your lawmakers are poised to allow you to purchase a Tesla from a sales center — without forcing you to drive outside the borders of the Buckeye State to do your eco-friendly spending.

But legislative efforts to placate the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association will nonetheless cap the number of sales offices Tesla is allowed to operate inside the state at three – and other auto manufacturers will be barred outright from hawking their wheel-spinning wares direct to buyers. Here’s the news, courtesy of NJTV:

An Ohio Senate committee approved a bill formally barring automakers from selling directly to consumers except for a maximum of three outlets for electric-car builder Tesla Motors Inc.

The measure was a compromise between the company and the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association, which had sought to block Tesla from selling without a middleman, according to state Sen. Scott Oelslager, the committee chairman.

Tesla, based in Palo Alto, Calif., operates Ohio stores in Columbus and Cincinnati and will be permitted to add a third as long as the company isn’t sold or acquired and doesn’t produce anything other than all-electric vehicles, under the legislation worked out yesterday.

Why are states getting into the strange business of banning a wildly hyped, pretty cool, awfully expensive electric car manufacturer? Tesla’s direct sales model has drawn opposition from car salesmen — middlemen who fear becoming superfluous as Tesla champions a direct-to-consumer auto-marketing model. That opposition has led to sales bans in five states and restrictions in two others.

In New Jersey, for example, Grist’s Ben Adler explains that Gov. Chris Christie’s administration is forcing the electric automaker to shut down its two sales offices. The promising news there is that a Democratic assemblymember recently introduced a bill that would unshackle Tesla from Christie’s new ban on its sales model.


Source
Tesla may be nearer to a compromise in Ohio, NJTV

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Living

Original article:

Ohio lawmakers: All right, folks, we guess it’s OK for you to buy Teslas

Posted in alo, Anchor, aquaculture, eco-friendly, FF, Free Press, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ohio lawmakers: All right, folks, we guess it’s OK for you to buy Teslas

The clean energy industry is turning Nevada green

The clean energy industry is turning Nevada green

Shutterstock

Few things could be less sustainable than an entertainment mecca in the middle of a desert. But there’s more to Nevada than the Vegas Strip, and investors in the Silver State are finding better ways of wagering their money than in slot machines.

On Thursday, leaders from both major parties joined forces to tout Nevada’s clean technology sector. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) held a press conference to laud the $5.5 billion that has been invested in the industry in the state since 2010.

The figure was calculated by the Clean Energy Project, a Las Vegas–based advocacy group for the renewables sector. The group credits state tax breaks for growing clean energy investment. From its new report:

Due to Nevada’s vast solar, wind, geothermal and biomass resources, the state has excelled at meeting demand in and out of its borders leading to significant clean energy capital investments. As of 2014, Nevada has 480 MW of clean energy developed or being developed to meet its energy demand and 985 MW of clean energy exported to other states.

The cumulative capital investments for both in-state and out-of-state clean energy projects, including transmission lines to move the clean electrons, total $5.5 billion since 2010. Nevada’s Investment of $500 million in tax abatements has attracted $5.5 billion of capital investment in clean energy projects to the state.

According to the report, $2.3 billion worth of solar projects are operating in Nevada, many of them installed by an 80-company-strong solar industry that employs 2,400 people. Geothermal energy has long been an important part of Nevada’s energy mix, and the report notes about $1 billion of investment in that sector since 2009. Wind energy remains nascent, though 66 turbines are spinning at the Spring Valley Wind project.

All of these projects will help Nevada meet its goal of getting 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. About two-thirds of the electricity sold in Nevada currently comes from natural gas, with a hefty dose of coal in there as well.

“Renewable energy is one of the focuses of our economic development,” Sandoval said Thursday against the backdrop of the solar-powered “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign. “I think that the taxpayers can be confident that they’re getting a good return on their dollar.”


Source
Going Green in the Silver State, KLAS-TV Las Vegas

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Food

,

Politics

Link:  

The clean energy industry is turning Nevada green

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The clean energy industry is turning Nevada green

India plans world’s biggest solar project, but money is a hurdle

India plans world’s biggest solar project, but money is a hurdle

Ashley Coates

The sun sets over the parched Indian state of Rajasthan, where the world’s biggest solar array is planned.

India has just 2,200 megawatts of grid-connected solar power — less than a quarter of the capacity in the U.S. But four years ago, the heavily coal-dependent country had only 18 megawatts, so it’s been quickly upping its game. 

And now it’s talking up plans to build the world’s biggest solar power plant in the desert-dominated state of Rajasthan, which abuts Pakistan’s border.

If built, the $4.4 billion solar array would cover an area larger than Manhattan and be capable of producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity — an amount that Nature compared with the output of four nuclear power plants. It’s proposed for an area near a government salt-mining operation.

A half dozen state-owned companies last month signed a memorandum of understanding related to the project. Financing such a mammoth project, though, will not be easy, so India is preparing to turn to the World Bank for assistance. domain-B, an Indian business magazine, explains:

The ministry of new and renewable energy has submitted a proposal to the department of economic affairs (DEA) for approaching the World Bank for loan assistance of $500 million for implementation of the 750 MW first phase of the proposed 4000 MW ultra mega solar power project to be set up on the vacant land of Hindustan Salts Ltd at Sambhar, Rajasthan, at a total estimated cost of $1.09 billion.

The DEA is evaluating the proposal and once it is forwarded, the World Bank is likely to consider financing the project, minister of new and renewable energy Farooq Abdullah informed the Lok Sabha in a written reply on Friday.

The World Bank decided last year to shift away from financing coal plants, so this big solar project should be right up its alley.

India has been a prickly negotiator during climate talks, frustrating other countries by stalling progress on emissions agreements. But at least it’s starting to walk the right walk on solar and wind at home.


Source
India to build world’s largest solar plant, Nature
World Bank loan sought for Rajasthan mega solar power project, domain-B

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

This article is from:  

India plans world’s biggest solar project, but money is a hurdle

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on India plans world’s biggest solar project, but money is a hurdle

Wind power kept the heaters working in Texas

Wind power kept the heaters working in Texas

Shutterstock

Wind power helped Texas avoid blackouts as residents and businesses turned on their heaters this week amid plummeting temperatures and dwindling electricity supplies.

On Monday morning, wind turbines provided 1,800 megawatts of the 56,000 megawatts of power available in most of Texas — which was just enough to avoid outages after several fossil-fuel power plants shut down due to weather-related problems.

But in an odd twist, that wind-based salvation has led some to complain that the Lone Star State is too dependent on the clean energy source.

Here’s ClimateProgress on how the state’s thousands of wind turbines, combined with emergency conservation measures, helped avert blackouts:

On Tuesday, frigid temperatures pushed Texas to a new winter record for power usage. But thanks in part to wind power, Texans were able to avoid major power outages, despite the stress on the grid.

On Monday, cold weather and shut downs of some power plants forced the Texas grid operator to begin implementing its emergency plan to meet demand. Demand remained high on Tuesday, but increased output from West Texas wind farms enabled the state to avoid an emergency scenario. It wasn’t the first time wind has helped Texas avoid power outages in extreme weather, either — in 2011, high wind outputs during peak demand helped Texas’s grid weather 100-plus temperatures.

Yay wind, right? Apparently not everybody sees it that way. From FuelFix:

[T]he close brush with blackouts Monday has some wondering if the state is depending too much on wind.

“The more the state relies on wind, there is a potential for having a very unstable grid,” said Ed Hirs, an energy economics professor at the University of Houston.

“Wind is not 100 percent reliable,” Hirs continued, “and the capacity variations across wind generation make it inferior to large base load generation facilities and natural-gas fired peaking facilities.” …

“It’s a nice story for wind, but it’s scary that they are relying on it in emergency situations,” said Adam Sinn, a Houston-based independent energy trader. “I think wind should be looked at as a buffer and that the grid should always have fossil fuel resources to prevent an event.”

Need we remind everybody that the weather knocked out fossil-fuel power plants, not wind turbines?

We aren’t the only ones questioning the strained logic of calling for more fossil-fueled generation after renewables saved the day.

“The wind is a variable resource, but the important thing is that it is not a random resource,” Jeff Clark, executive director of The Wind Coalition, told FuelFix. “It is highly predictable, it is forecastable, and in this situation, the forecast and the actual generation were very close together.”


Source
Role of Texas wind power debated after winter emergency, FuelFix
Thanks To Wind Energy, Texans Didn’t Lose Power During The Polar Vortex, ClimateProgress

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Visit site:  

Wind power kept the heaters working in Texas

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wind power kept the heaters working in Texas

Every “serious environmentalist” must support fracking? Seriously?

Every “serious environmentalist” must support fracking? Seriously?

Stop-CSG-Illawarra

If you oppose fracking, then you are not a “serious environmentalist.”

So say U.C. Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller and his daughter Elizabeth Muller in a new opinion paper with a none-too-subtle title: “Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favor Fracking.”

Until recently, Muller wasn’t much of an environmentalist himself. He was a prominent climate denier. But last year he wrote in The New York Times that he came to realize the error of his ways after an intensive review of the science.

Now this self-described “converted skeptic” has appointed himself the arbiter of serious environmentalism.

Richard Muller

The Mullers’ paper was published by British think tank. We read it so you don’t have to. Here are the main points: 1. Fracking is mainly used to extract natural gas. 2. Burning natural gas produces less soot than burning other fossil fuels. 3. Airborne soot is a major killer, especially in the developing world. Ergo, if you oppose fracking, then you support the deaths of millions of poor people. You monster.

In the Mullers’ minds, if you don’t like fracking, then you must prefer coal and oil. They imply that solar and wind energy will succeed only with government subsidies, ignoring the $544 billion that governments spent subsidizing fossil fuels last year. They also disregard the falling costs of renewables.

“The developed world has the financial resources to subsidise solar and wind,” the duo writes. “But developing countries are not wealthy enough to do that.” More from the paper:

Environmentalists who oppose the development of shale gas and fracking are making a tragic mistake.

Some oppose shale gas because it is a fossil fuel, a source of carbon dioxide. Some are concerned by accounts of the fresh water it needs, by flaming faucets, by leaked “fugitive methane”, by pollution of the ground with fracking fluid and by damaging earthquakes.

These concerns are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation.

For shale gas is a wonderful gift that has arrived just in time. It can not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduce a deadly pollution known as PM2.5 [tiny pieces of particulate matter, aka soot] that is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world. …

Europe can develop shale gas far more rapidly than it can move to solar and wind, largely because of the low cost, the absence of an intermittency problem, and good existing gas infrastructure. To the extent that shale gas replaces coal, it will save hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, lives that will be lost if we choose the slower and more expensive transition to renewables.

All this despite the conclusion of experts that America’s fracking boom is having only “modest impacts” on greenhouse gas emissions. That’s because it’s not just displacing coal but also holding back renewables.

And for anybody who thinks natural gas doesn’t contribute to air pollution, we would suggest a day trip to poor neighborhoods in Contra Costa County east of San Francisco, where growing clusters of gas-burning plants in already-industrialized areas are hurting residents’ health.

It turns out there’s more behind the Mullers’ paper than meets the eye. Elizabeth Muller has a clear financial stake in the fracking industry. She is managing director of the China Shale Fund, a venture capital fund set up to export American fracking technology to Asia.

The Mullers’ paper was published by the Centre for Policy Studies, which was cofounded in 1974 by Margaret Thatcher “to promote the principles of a free society.” Why would a British think tank be promoting the Mullers’ views? Because fracking is a white-hot issue in the U.K. right now. The conservative national government desperately wants to expand fracking, but many citizens remain unconvinced of its benefits.

A free society, hey? It would sure be nice to free our society from fracking industry propaganda.


Source
Why every serious environmentalist should favour fracking, The Center for Policy Studies

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Link to article: 

Every “serious environmentalist” must support fracking? Seriously?

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Every “serious environmentalist” must support fracking? Seriously?

Confirmed: Climate coverage fell after New York Times killed environment desk

Confirmed: Climate coverage fell after New York Times killed environment desk

Ralph Daily

The New York Times rang in the new year by disbanding its environment desk. Then in March it pulled the plug on its Green blog.

In doublespeak that would make any Times journalist scoff, newspaper management claimed at the time that the changes were being made in an effort to improve environmental coverage. “We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage,” the paper’s managing editor for news operations told Inside Climate News in January. “This is purely a structural matter.”

By killing the environment desk, other desks would take a heightened interest in such wonky issues as national climate policy, greenhouse gas emissions metrics, and adaptation challenges in the Philippines. At least, that was the idea — taking environmental coverage out of its “silo.” (That, and saving money.)

As the first anniversary of the Times’ environment desk-free approach to covering environmental news approaches, the paper’s public editor has called bullshit. Analysis indicates that the number of articles dealing with climate change in the New York Times has fallen by about a third. From a column published Saturday:

Beyond quantity, the amount of deep, enterprising coverage of climate change in The Times appears to have dropped, too. … With fewer reporters and no coordinating editor, what was missing was the number and variety of fresh angles from the previous year — such as a September article on what is being revealed beneath that Arctic ice melting at a record pace.

The Times, which has published many groundbreaking series on the environment, has not had such a series since Mr. Gillis’s “Temperature Rising” ended in January. Such series not only provide especially deep reporting, but their presence also shows the subject is a high priority.

Fortunately, a refreshing change in the weather appears to be undeway beneath the Grey Lady’s austere cloak. The public editor, Margaret Sullivan, notes the addition of three dedicated environment reporting roles, and she reports that a science desk editor was recently tasked with coordinating environmental coverage.

Meanwhile, climate scientist Michael Mann points to something that’s arguably more worrying than a decline in dogged environmental reporting at the New York Times. That’s a rise in the attention it’s paying to climate deniers. From Mann’s op-ed in the Huffington Post:

Rather than objectively communicating the findings of the IPCC to their readers, the New York Times instead foisted upon them the ill-informed views of Koch Brothers-funded climate change contrarian Richard Muller, who used the opportunity to deny the report’s findings.

In fact, in the space of just a couple months now, the Times has chosen to grant Muller not just one, but two opportunities to mislead its readers about climate change and the threat it poses.

The Times has now published another op-ed by Muller wherein he misrepresented the potential linkages between climate change and extreme weather–tornadoes to be specific, which he asserted would be less of a threat in a warmer world. The truth is that the impact of global warming on tornadoes remains uncertain, because the underlying science is nuanced and there are competing factors that come into play.

Meanwhile, do you know which newspaper has been boosting its climate and environmental coverage over the past year? The same one that clinched the Edward Snowden scoops — The Guardian. And if print isn’t your thing, Al Jazeera America has been widely praised for its coverage of climate change.


Source
After Changes, How Green Is The Times?, New York Times
Something Is Rotten at the New York Times, Huffington Post

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Jump to original: 

Confirmed: Climate coverage fell after New York Times killed environment desk

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Pines, PUR, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Confirmed: Climate coverage fell after New York Times killed environment desk

Wind Energy Company to Pay $1 Million in Bird Deaths

Duke Energy pleaded guilty to violating a law protecting migratory birds, and will pay its fines to conservation groups. Link to article: Wind Energy Company to Pay $1 Million in Bird Deaths ; ;Related ArticlesStrong Rules on Fracking in Wyoming Seen as ModelExperts Say Poaching Could Soon Lead to a Decline in the Rhino PopulationWorld Briefing | Europe: Russia: Most of Greenpeace Crew Have Now Been Released on Bail ;

Continue reading:  

Wind Energy Company to Pay $1 Million in Bird Deaths

Posted in alo, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, Hello Kitty, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, organic, organic gardening, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wind Energy Company to Pay $1 Million in Bird Deaths