Tag: Carbon Emissions

The Green New Deal

Now here is one of those topics that can be lied about for political gain. Most conserv carve out one small piece and make it the center of attention…..

I will admit that it is intended to fight the effects of climate change but there is more to the “Deal” than just that…….there is an infrastructure bill in there as well…(remember that promise by our Supreme Leader?)

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan introduced by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey to mobilize every aspect of American society toward 100% clean and renewable energy, guarantee a good job to all members of our society, and create economic prosperity for all. The goals of the Green New Deal are:

  • to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

  • to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

  • to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

  • to secure clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all people of the United States for generations to come; and

  • to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, de-industrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.

You can bet that this proposal will be hit by all sorts of claims from both sides…the corporatists will fight it tooth and nail (watch who gets the most cash from corporations)…..

Soon to be released research from the United Nations is expected to place species loss, a/k/a mass extinction, as an environmental threat equal to or greater than climate change. Industrial agriculture— vast expanses of monoculture crops managed with chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, will feature prominently as a cause. This plant agriculture supplies people with increasingly toxic and processed food and antibiotic and hormone dependent factory farms with animal feed.  Together, these link the model of capitalist efficiency economists have been selling for the last two centuries to environmental crisis.

Understanding the theoretical precepts of Western economics is crucial to understanding these crises. Capitalism is scientific economic production, a method in search of applications. Its object is to maximize profits, not to growth nutritious food sustainably. As industrial agriculture has demonstrated, these objectives are antithetical. Crop yields have increased as the nutritional value of the food produced has declined. But far more troublingly, the narrow focus on profits has led to a form of environmental imperialism where interrelated ecosystems are viewed atomistically.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/re-the-green-new-deal-first-shoot-the-economists/

(It is a shame that a disclaimer had to be inserted at the beginning of the above piece)

Are the media making a big deal out of the Green New Deal?

Nope!  They are not making much of something that is overwhelmingly desired by Dem voters…….

The global climate crisis and Medicare for All are top issues for a large majority of Democratic voters, according to new polling results published Tuesday by CNN.

The survey (pdf), conducted last week, asked Democrats and left-leaning Independents how important they considered certain policy items.

Most people polled said it is somewhat or very important that the Democratic candidate for president in 2020 support party priorities like stricter gun laws, tuition-free public college, impeaching President Donald Trump, paying reparations to slaves’ descendants, and restoring voting rights for all convicted felons.

But two issues stood out at the top.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/30/more-90-democratic-voters-want-2020-candidate-make-climate-action-and-medicare-all

And yet there are Dem reps that will not sign on to these bills and are always looking for ways to protect their donors in the corporate sphere (cowards in my book)……

Time for both these ideas to get the media they deserve and the media that the voter deserves.

One last thought…….

7000 Times More Potent!

This week with our hard working Congress in recess until the new year (that was sarcasm in case you missed it) I have decided to focus on the issues.  Issues that we will hear about hourly next year, I after all it is an election year and the BS artists will be out in force.

Today’s topic will be climate change……I know we all do not agree on what is going on with our climate….but reputable research into the effects of CO2 on the environment is overwhelming and it will depend on how it is spun as to whether it is pro or con……that in itself is a sad indictment to our mental capacities……

AS dangerous as CO2 is there is something worse…far worse….and it has been pumped into the atmosphere for decades………

(Newser) – Canadian researchers have detected another greenhouse gas—and its global warming potential is extreme. Over the course of a century, “a single molecule of PFTBA has the equivalent climate impact as 7,100 molecules of CO2,” says a lead author of the study that identified perfluorotributylamine. “We claim that PFTBA has the highest radiative efficiency of any molecule detected in the atmosphere to date,” Angela Hong adds. Electrical items, including transistors and capacitors, have used PFTBA since the middle of the last century, the Guardian reports, though its impact on climate was only now established.

And like certain other industrial chemicals, “it is not being regulated by any type of climate policy,” says Hong. The study’s silver lining: The researchers found that compared to carbon dioxide, there’s relatively little of the stuff in the atmosphere: 0.18 parts per trillion around Toronto, where the study was conducted, versus 400 parts per million of CO2. But while trees and oceans act as carbon sinks, researchers say no one knows how to rid the atmosphere of the chemical, AFP notes, which could stick around for as long as 500 years. “We have to make sure it doesn’t grow and become a very large contributor to global warming,” an expert tells the Guardian.

Sorry but time has long past for the bullshit……and I am sure that this will be a well contested issue come elections…….and I would bet that there will be NO debate among the pros and the cons except in 30 minute statements on competing media outlets…..as Nero fiddled while Rome burned….our politicians are snoozing while the planet is set ablaze in the coming future……I am so proud to be a human it is most unbearable……once again…SARCASM!

Dumping For The Sake Of Dumping

Today is Friday and I decided to make it a Earth Day….I try to keep to a theme as best I can daily…but since I will not lower myself to posting on the ACA I guess I will give you all the info that you cannot use……you’re welcome!

Whether you are a proponent of climate change or not…matters not…..there is a problem with the emissions of plants in this world…..these places are dumping lots of crap into the atmosphere…..

Newser) – Want to personally thank those largely responsible for putting greenhouse gases into the air? Fewer than 100 phone calls will do the trick. According to new research, 90 companies have produced 63% of the emissions of carbon dioxide and methane since the dawn of the industrial age. Chevron, BP, and Exxon together caused more than 9% of emissions alone, the Guardian reports. All but seven offenders on the list are oil, gas, and coal producers—roughly 30% are state-owned—while half the emissions were produced in the last 25 years, the analysis shows.

“There are thousands of oil, gas, and coal producers in the world,” says a climate researcher. “But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil, if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two.” Al Gore calls the research a “crucial step forward,” one that he sees as spreading the onus of taking action from governments to corporations. “Those who are historically responsible for polluting our atmosphere have a clear obligation to be part of the solution,” he says. The analysis will be published in Climatic Change.

There is a problem……and NO one wants to handle it or find a solution that will benefit the world……companies do not want to pay for the trash they produce…..let ask the disbelievers…..do you pay monthly for the pick up of the trash you produce?  If so, why can’t these polluters do the same without some PR nightmare of how it would screw the consumer….these companies have been doing just that for decades, if not longer……but as usual…Americans will wait until there is NO hope to try and repair the damage they have made….. so typical!

The Forgotten Debate

In case you are not sure it is the Cap and Trade debate.  Actually, cap and trade is only a part of the entire package, but it gets all the press.  Kinda like the health care issue only part of it is news worthy, or at least it seems.  But this issue is being beaten out of the news by the drama that is the health care debate.  The energy bill the Dems reads like this:

Amends the Federal Power Act to require FERC to adopt electricity grid planning principles derived from a federal policy (established by this Act) on electric grid planning that facilitates the deployment of renewable and other zero-carbon energy sources for generating electricity to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) while ensuring reliability, reducing congestion, ensuring cyber-security, and providing for cost-effective electricity services.
Amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to revise: (1) rules regarding improving energy efficiency in industrial equipment; (2) efficiency standards for electric motors; (3) conservation standards for lighting and appliances; and (4) the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.
Requires the Secretary to establish Clean Energy Innovation Centers to promote commercial deployment of clean, indigenous energy alternatives to fossil fuels, to reduce GHG emissions, and to ensure that the United States maintains a lead in developing and deploying state-of-the-art energy technologies.
Amends the Energy Conservation and Production Act to revise energy conservation standards for new buildings. Requires the Administrator to establish: (1) standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for residences; and (2) a building energy performance labeling program. Establishes a rebate program to assist low-income households residing in pre-1976 manufactured homes in purchasing new Energy Star qualified manufactured homes.
Designates carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from a chemical manufacturing process at an industrial stationary source, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride as GHGs and establishes a carbon dioxide equivalent value for each gas. Prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, or emitting a significant quantity of certain fluorinated gas that is generated as a byproduct during the production or use of another fluorinated gas.
Requires the Administrator to establish specified emission allowances (annual tonnage limits) for: (1) each of 2012-2049; and (2) 2050 and thereafter. Provides for the establishment and distribution of compensatory allowances for the destruction and conversionary use of fluorinated gases and the nonemissive use of petroleum-based or coal-based liquid or gaseous fuel, petroleum coke, natural gas liquid, or natural gas as a feedstock.
This is not the whole act but it is the parts that I thought were the most essential to a clean environment…..the bill number is HR 2454…in case you would like to read the whole thing….my bad….
Now we have the cowards of Washington, the Blue Dog Democrats, that have their own agenda pertaining to energy.  Their statement is called the “Blue Dog Coalition Energy Principles” and it states:
I summarize:  The Blue Dogs say that a long term solution should be considered.  And that all domestic energy should be considered biomass, alt energy, other (nuke?).  Veiled wording for off shore drilling.  They are pushing energy efficiency to include buildings, appliances, lighting and fuel standards.  And of course their normal “pay-go” philosophy.
And then the debate turns to the GOP and their normal solutions to ALL problems.
New and Expanded Technologies: The bill creates a Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund to provide funding for energy programs authorized by federal law, such as biomass, hydroelectric, clean coal, solar, wind, geothermal and other forms of renewable energy. The fund will encourage the development of renewable, alternative and unconventional fuels, and new energy sources, using receipts from the new federal and oil gas leasing in the Arctic Coastal Plain and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Alternative Fuels: The bill spurs the development of America’s alternative fuels by repealing the “Section 526” prohibition on government purchasing fuels derived from sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to liquid technology. The bill also encourages the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology by allowing federal agencies to enter into long-term contracts to buy coal-derived fuel and by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects.
Tax Provisions for New and Expanding Technology: The bill encourages new and expanding energy technologies by making permanent tax credits for the production of renewable electricity, like wind, solar, and biomass. The bill also makes permanent investment tax credits for solar energy and for fuel cell properties and extends the biodiesel and renewable diesel tax credits.
And there it is the BIG answer from the GOP–TAX CUTS!  Since Ronald Reagan let Dr, Arthur Laffer use his Laffer Curve theory, which states, simply, if you give the rich a tax cut then the economy will flourish.  It was BS in th 80’s and it is BS today.  But the GOP keeps using the Laffer Curve every chance they get and the people should know that it is a discredited theory.
There you have it everybody in Washington has an opinion on the environment and energy.  Will the environment win in the end or will the corporations?  If history is any indication, then the corporations will have the inside track.

Emissions Trading: The Con

For a week or more I have been seeing an ad on the tube urging me to urge my Congressional team to support and pass the Waxman-Markey Bill.  At first I was not sure what it was but I did a little research and found my answer.  It is the new climate change bill.

The new Climate Change Bill is working its way through the Congress at its usual slow pace, but is it the answer to the problem?

The bill would require polluters to obtain “allowances” — permits allowing them to emit a given amount of a greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide or methane.  This bill would put a price on them.

To satisfy Democrats from states with coal mines or heavy industry that would be hit hard, committee leaders dropped their target for emissions reductions by 2020, from 20 percent to 17 percent. And they agreed that, instead of all credits being sold to the highest bidder, 85 percent would be given away.

The Green Party has responded to the proposal:

Greens have criticized emissions trading (‘cap and trade’), calling it a concession to polluting industries that will impede efforts to curb global warming. In many instances, emissions trading encourages greenhouse gas emissions, since companies with low pollution will be able to sell their conservation credits to the highest bidders, giving major polluters a license to maintain or increase pollution levels. Party leaders called emissions trading schemes like the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” a capitulation to polluting industries.

“Democratic leaders in the US House are planning to give away 85% of the greenhouse gas emission credits. Giveaways bypass the trading and auction strategies that cap and trade advocates have promoted as a free market solution. Such allowances are a signal that Congress is more willing to satisfy industry demands and ‘grandfather’ polluters than to demand the necessary extensive reductions,” said Tony Gronowicz, political historian and 2005 New York City Green Party mayoral candidate.

The whole idea of the cap and trade was to make those pay for the emissions they produce that in turn are damaging the planet.  Looks like that will be just another pipedream of actually doing something constructive to protect the planet.

2009 Anal-Ocity

Holy crap!  The GOP needs to muzzle this idiot, she is giving all Republicans a bad name.  They really did not need the help, but she takes stupid to a whole new level.

On Earth Day, she said on the floor of the House of Representatives:

Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

Think about what she has said……(time for reflection)……she must have missed the report that states:

Sixty percent of Americans live in areas with unhealthy air pollution levels, despite a growing green movement and more stringent laws aimed at improving air quality, the American Lung Association said in a report released Wednesday.

The public-health group ranked the pollution levels of U.S. cities and counties based on air quality measurements that state and local agencies reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency between 2005 and 2007.

Overall, the report found that air pollution at times reaches unhealthy levels in almost every major city and that 186.1 million people live in those areas. The number is much higher than last year’s figure of about 125 million people because recent changes to the federal ozone standard mean more counties recognize unhealthy levels of pollution.

Health effects from air pollution include changes in lung function, coughing, heart attacks, lung cancer and premature death.

I guess that ignorance goes along with the earth being only 5000 years old too.

If I were a Repub, which thank God I am not, I would be embarrassed by the words of this moronic broad.  But as I always say, Repubs will not let facts get in their way.

She keeps spouting and lying…there is now a website where you can track her outlandish statements:

http://www.dccc.org/page/content/bachmannwatch

Could There Be A Greenhouse Gases Plan?

In a landmark move that countered eight years of inaction by the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency determined yesterday that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare because they contribute to climate change.

The ruling set the stage for the agency to regulate emissions from a spectrum of sources, including automobiles, ships, airplanes, power plants, oil refineries, steel mills, and more.

The finding, which includes carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, is subject to a period of public comment, after which the agency has no timetable and broad leeway in how to proceed.

“This finding confirms that greenhouse-gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday.

Sen. James Inhofe (R, Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee and a leading skeptic on global warming, said the decision would “unleash a torrent of regulations that will destroy jobs, harm consumers, and extend the agency’s reach into every corner of American life.”

The EPA’s analysis also found that climate change has “serious national-security implications” because of the potential for political and social upheaval related to food shortages, environmental refugees, and clashes over fuel, water, and other resources.

The Obama Admin has made a first step…..will they keep walking or is it just that …one lone step?

China’s New Carbon Proposal

I have been writing for many years and this is one of the best stories I have ever seen.

China has proposed that importers of Chinese-made goods should be responsible for the carbon dioxide emitted during their manufacture.

China’s top climate change negotiator, Li Gao, said his country should not pay for cutting emissions caused by the high demands of other countries.

China’s latest suggestion would see its own huge export sector be exempted from any new treaty.

Beijing argues that rich nations buying Chinese goods bear responsibility for the estimated 15-25% of China’s carbon emissions that are created by its production of exports.

“It is a very important item to make a fair agreement,” Mr Li said in Washington.

He argued that it was unfair to put the highest burden on China.

“We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries, especially the developed countries. This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers but not the producers,” he said.

Mr Li also criticized proposals by the US to place carbon tariffs on goods imported from countries that do not limit those gases blamed for a rises in global temperatures.

Mr Li also criticised proposals by the US to place carbon tariffs on goods imported from countries that do not limit those gases blamed for a rises in global temperatures.

Working out quite how to put Mr Li’s suggestion into practice would be a logistical nightmare, other delegates in Washington said, even if the idea was ever agreed in principle.

Asking importers to handle emissions “would mean that we would also like them to have jurisdiction and legislative powers in order to control and limit those,” top EU climate negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger said.

I am still trying to digest the idea….what would be next…..China could not be held responsible for faulty or dangerous products?  This seems a bit silly….but if they get their way then I will look a bit silly, huh?

Now The Bad News

Climate change is “largely irreversible” for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study’s authors said there was “no going back” after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are “largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped.”

The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions.

The authors emphasized that increases in CO2 that occur from 2000 to 2100 are set to “lock in” a sea level rise over the next 1,000 years.

Rising sea levels would cause “irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged,” the study said.

Decreases in rainfall that last for centuries can be expected to have a range of impacts, said the authors. Regional impacts include — but are not limited to — decreased human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts.

Carbon Trading: Crisis In Waiting

The plan, at first glance, seems simplicity itself: by charging companies for the right to emit CO2, the government hopes to encourage them to switch to cleaner and greener technologies. It is the latest development in a global campaign to save the planet by making polluters pay.

We are witnessing the birth of the greatest and most complex commodity market the world has seen. Last year alone, permits worth more than £55 billion were traded on the world’s carbon markets – but future trading volumes, if all goes global according to plan, will dwarf these.

Carbon trading schemes originate from the Kyoto protocol on climate change agreed under the auspices of the United Nations in 1997. Governments adhering to Kyoto accept limits on the CO2 their countries can emit. To meet their pledges, they put caps on the carbon outputs of domestic companies, which have to buy annual permits to exceed them.

Permits are bought from governments or from carbon traders, who, naturally, charge a commission. For the City the arrival of carbon trading is a bonanza. The sector already employs about 3,000 people and has created a few dozen new millionaires.

It sounds good news for everyone: governments, taxpayers, City boys and the environment. The reality is a great deal less rosy – indeed some of those closest to the carbon markets say openly that the system is doomed to failure.

Many carbon traders believe they could make the system work but fear the politicians who oversee it will never dare put a sufficiently high price on carbon emissions to make a difference.

The idea is certainly appealing: if a company is emitting too much CO2 it can either make cuts or pay other companies to cut their emissions instead. If it turns out to be cheaper to pay someone in China to plant a forest to absorb carbon dioxide, or a factory in India to install clean technology to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases, then this is allowed, provided the project has been approved under the UN framework convention on climate change. For each tonne of CO2 saved, the convention issues a certified emission reduction certificate, or CER. These are valuable: indeed, they are the nearest thing to currency that the carbon markets acknowledge. Each one is worth about £14.

The original plan was to create a system for transferring wealth from developed countries such as Britain and America to the Third World, hence killing two birds with one stone: cutting emissions and helping international development.

Greed—the buzz kill–will rear its ugly little head and then this will become just another crisis waiting to happen.