Tag: Environmental Policies

Sista Sarah Tackles The Climate

No matter how one tries to ignore the obvious….you just cannot….not when it attacks you mentally every waking moment of every day…..our Sista Sarah is just such a venue…..just when you thought there was a lull in the amazing story of Sista Sarah….she drags you back in….yelling and screaming……No matter how hard one tries to let that story or chapter die….it is not physically possible for it to die……

The saga begins in the early hours of 8 Dec 09 when our heroine said:

that President Obama “boycott” an international conference on climate change underway in Copenhagen, because some hacked e-mails questioning the ethics of some scientists at a university in Great Britain have given the obstinate opposition to the concept of global warming.

We all know that she thinks that climate change is a made up story and went so far as to call Gore on it in an op-ed in the WaPo when she said the climate change was like “gravity.  It exists”.

Gore to Palin:

“The north polar ice cap has been there for 3 million years, the size of the continental United States, and it is disappearing before our very eyes. What do the skeptics think is causing that? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that we are putting 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere here every 24 hours and that these consequences have been predicted for decades by the scientists?”

To which Palin tweeted:

“amazing 2 see Al Gore’s denial of the controversy–it’s like denying gravity”

Okay the media game of tag….the gotcha of politics……and then Laura Ingraham of FOX News brought up the prospect of a debate between Palin and Gore…..to which the reply was:

Oh my goodness. You know, it depends on what the venue would be, what the forum. Because Laura, as you know, if it would be some kind of conventional, traditional debate with his friends setting it up or being the commentators I’ll get clobbered because, you know, they don’t want to listen to the facts. They don’t want to listen to some reasonable voices in this. And that was proven with the publication of this op-ed, where they kind of got all we-weed up about it and wanted to call me and others deniers of changing weather patterns and climate conditions. Trying to make the issue into something that it is not.

So far that is the story…..it is she said…he said…..and the prospect of a debate on the issue of climate change is not an option…..well, we could have the debate but it would have to be by Sista Sarah’s rules….meaning that she can go off topic whenever she wanted but her opponent could not.

Personally, I would enjoy the debate and I think it would either make or break Sista Sarah in the process…..but of course….no matter what she does the people that love her will continue to do so and vice versa…..you betcha!

I Have Gas!

Quick run to the car!

This is a novel idea to help break the dependence on foreign oil or coal, for that matter.  Reuters is reporting a innovated idea.

Manchester’s toilets will soon be contributing to the local gas network under a green energy project planned by United Utilities Group Plc and National Grid Plc.In a UK first, the two companies plan to turn a by-product of the wastewater treatment plant at Davyhulme in Manchester, northwest England into gas for the local network and fuel for a fleet of sludge tankers.

The Mancunian biogas will be upgraded to remove carbon dioxide and trace elements, leaving biomethane which will be conditioned with propane and odorants before being pumped into the network and back into their homes.

“Biomethane is a fuel for the future,” Janine Freeman, head of National Grid‘s Sustainable Gas Group said. “Not only are we reusing a waste product, but biomethane is a renewable fuel, so we helping to meet the country’s target of 15 percent of all our energy coming from renewable sources by 2020.”

Biogas is produced through a process called “anaerobic digestion” when wastewater sludge is broken down by the action of microbes.

“It is a very valuable resource and it’s completely renewable. By harnessing this free energy we can reduce our fuel bills and reduce our carbon footprint.”

One of United Utilities’ sludge tankers has already been converted to run on the gas and the company expects to save hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in fuel costs with the 24 tankers it aims to convert initially.

It was not clear whether Manchester’s home-made gas suppliers will get a discount on their own bills for their efforts.

IMO, this is an excellent idea….any idea that can generate enough product to keep the use of foreign oil down; is an excellent idea.

How About Greenhouse Gases?

Jake Tapper reports on the discovery of an internal EPA memo that admits what everyone knows about cap-and-trade systems and regulation of CO2.  The memo advises the White House that any attempt to regulate output of CO2 in energy production will likely have “serious economic consequences.

This memo destroys the argument made by Obama often over the last two years that cap-and-trade would wind up being an economic boon.  Obama had argued that a renewed emphasis on green energy production would be akin to landing on the moon, a big government program that boosted employment in pursuit of an ambitious goal.  The difference between the two is that the space program didn’t impose massive burdens on the airline industry to pay for it, or on the auto industry, or Amtrak.

Since the discovery of the memo there has been movement in the Congress.House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.) has been negotiating with a group of Southern and Midwestern Democrats on his committee who have withheld support for his bill because they feared it would hurt the economies in their states.

Mr. Waxman’s bill calls for capping emissions of greenhouse gases, and requiring companies to hold permits in order to emit such gases. But the original version of the proposal was silent on the degree to which companies would have to pay for those permits, versus being given them free. Utilities dependent on coal and other carbon-intensive industries such as steel plants or oil refineries have been lobbying Congress to give them the permits for free, at least initially.

Republicans and other interest groups were already turning up the heat on Democrats and the Obama administration ahead of Tuesday’s deal. Earlier in the day, Republicans pounced on a White House document that says regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act “is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said the OMB memo “suggests that a political decision was made to put special interests ahead of middle-class families and small businesses struggling in this recession.”

So the compromises have begun and most of the pie in the sky bills that have been promised will become a watered down pale reflection of any real change.  People!  The planet is dying, now is NOT the time for lame ass compromises!

Is The Environment As Important As They Say?

With the win of Obama last November I have heard many in the environmental movement say that a better day was coming for the planet and for programs to save us from ourselves.  I pray all are correct…but so far I have not seen that change that was coming.
In his budget, Obama included a serious proposal for a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon dioxide emissions. While a cap-and-trade system at best can only slow the rate of increase, it can be one important part of a more broadly-based climate change program. This is one of the proposals expected to have the most difficulty passing Congress this year. As a kicker, however, the Environmental Protection Agency has finally declared that global warming is a hazard to human health and welfare and that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity should be regulated. Even if the cap-and-trade system doesn’t pass Congress, the EPA can play a crucial role in starting to tackle climate challenges. (In one of the more ridiculous examples of Bush White House bumbling, the White House dealt with an earlier EPA report on carbon, which had been ordered by the Supreme Court, by refusing to open the e-mail to which the report was attached!). It will be possible for the EPA to take a larger role on these issues due in part to a large increase in its budget, another policy Obama deserves major credit for.

The commitment to “clean coal,” something which we should indeed put money into researching but which for the present is just an illusion. His administration also leans too much toward the development of more nuclear power plants, even though there is no realistic plan to deal with nuclear waste, not to mention the potential for accidents (like the Japanese nuclear reactor which was damaged in an earthquake recently), and not to mention the health risks for miners and their families and communities who dig up and process the uranium.
We also need to be mindful that ice at the poles is melting faster than the worst predictions of a few years ago, carbon dioxide emissions worldwide are still increasing, and that no president or administration by itself can accomplish what needs to be done. The environmental movement and organizations, in alliance with labor, civil rights, and other mass movements, need to apply pressure on Congress, including on many Democrats, to get with the program, to seriously tackle the life-threatening nature of the environmental challenges that face the whole world. The Obama administration does not act in a vacuum, it acts based in part on public understanding, public pressure, international pressure, and the necessity of saving humanity.

The Dems have the power to make a difference in climate change–will they do the right thing or the most profitable thing?

The Lie Of “Clean Coal”

We are hearing a lot in the media about the use of “clean coal”; even the president is pushing this concept…but people…that is all that it is…a concept…..and above all it is a lie…there is NO such thing as “clean coal”.

The project’s goal is to test and develop affordable technology, on a commercial scale, that can remove 90 percent of emissions produced by coal plants. Chu said he thinks that the plant — which would be built with a group of private coal and utility companies known as the FutureGen Alliance — will move forward with some changes that have not yet been determined and will become a part of larger “portfolio” of research plants developed with other countries.

The FutureGen plant is expected to create jobs, and backers are currently pushing it as a stimulus project that could employ as many as 11,000 workers. The alliance must compete for the stimulus funds, but Chu’s support adds significant momentum to the effort.

There are a few testing ways to clean coal emissions, but that does not make coal a clean source of energy.  One technique is called carbon sequestration and storage (CSS).
CCS technologies attempt to capture carbon dioxide (CO2)from the waste stream of coal power stations and transport and bury it in underground reservoirs.

The problem with CCS, in a nutshell, is that it is too little, too late, too expensive, too risky, and it displaces other solutions that can do the job.

CCS has very few of the attributes needed to provide a solution and moves us in the wrong direction. CCS is still in the testing phase and will take a decade or two before it can be implemented in actual working power plants, and then still further decades before it could be scaled up to operate on large numbers of coal plants around the globe. That is too late to change the course of our energy system away from carbon, and too late to prevent emissions crossing a tipping point.

Demonstration CCS projects all plan to operate close to underground storage sites. One of the problems of scaling up CCS is that most coal power plants are not near appropriate storage sites and so very expensive infrastructure would need to be built to transport the captured carbon dioxide. This means that costs of CCS will increase as it is scaled up and the transport infrastructure costs mount.

CCS is too expensive. It will substantially increase the cost of building coal plants (perhaps a near doubling of plant cost, according to the US Department of Energy) and therefore increase the cost of electricity also. The energy required to remove CO2 from the coal plant stream is also substantial and would consume up to 40% of the energy used by the plant.

Thus, coal plants fitted with CCS would require more fossil fuel inputs, and the prices of these inputs can only increase as time goes on and carbon is more fully costed.

The costs and risks of CCS will be passed on to the public, whereas renewables and efficiency aren’t exposed to these costs and risks. The costs of research and testing of CCS are being borne in substantial part by the taxpayer, not by the already heavily subsidised coal industry. Australia subsidises coal over renewables research by a huge margin and the gap is increasing. The risks of long-term storage of CO2 are so great that no company will take on the liability and many are seeking to limit their legal liability to a mere 10 years.
CCS provides a means for the coal industry to continue reaping the profits while passing on the risks and costs to the public.

CCS delays action to reduce emissions at a time when we can no longer afford to wait, and it displaces those solutions that can work now and have a lasting impact. WWF’s notion of so-called “clean coal” is an oxymoronic vision of Australia’s energy future that will derail real efforts to confront climate change if we let it.

Enough said?

Is Recycling Going To Survive?

Faced with a dramatic slump in the recycling market, the director of the Kanawha County Solid Waste Authority has cut 20 of his 24 employees’ work week to four days from five, shuttered six of the authority’s drop-off stations and is urging residents to hoard their recyclables after informing municipalities with curbside recycling programs that the center will accept only paper until further notice.

”The market is just not there anymore,” Steenstra said.

Just months after riding an incredible high, the recycling market has tanked almost in lockstep with the global economic meltdown. As consumer demand for autos, appliances and new homes dropped, so did the steel and pulp mills’ demand for scrap, paper and other recyclables

Cardboard that sold for about $135 a ton in September is now going for $35 a ton. Plastic bottles have fallen from 25 cents to 2 cents a pound. Aluminum cans dropped nearly half to about 40 cents a pound, and scrap metal tumbled from $525 a gross ton to about $100.

It’s getting more difficult to find buyers in some markets, Steenstra said.

While few across the country appear to be taking such drastic measures as Steenstra, the recycling market has gotten so bad that haulers in Oregon and Nevada who were once paid for recyclables are now getting nothing or in some cases are having to pay to unload their wares.

Last year, Americans generated about 254 million tons of trash, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They recycled about 150 million tons of material — roughly 80 million of that in iron and steel — supporting an industry that employs about 85,000 with $70 billion in sales, said Bob Garino, director of commodities at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based trade association that represents more than 1,600 companies worldwide.

Most recyclables are shipped to Asian countries that use the material to make products that are shipped backed to the United States to be sold.

But the market shift is now jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of long-term contracts for scrap metal as some companies that signed when prices were high are trying to cancel or postpone deliveries to take advantage of the cheaper spot market, Garino said.

Maybe the US should try to recycle their own waste….just a thought.

Headed For The Glue Factory?

Wild horses have been living in the West for centuries, but their ever-growing numbers have led to many being fenced in. A recent government review of the cost of corralling them now has their admirers frantic that a slaughter is imminent.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says slaughter remains a possibility for some of the more than 30,000 wild horses and burros being cared for in government-run pens.

A Government Accountability Office report issued last week lent support to the agency’s assertion in June that the costs of caring for the animals have skyrocketed. The GAO said the agency should consider euthanizing some horses or selling them, likely to a slaughterhouse, as an alternative to keeping them in long-term holding pens for their entire lives.

Meanwhile, the cost to care for the animals for life rose from $7 million in 2000 to $21 million in 2007.

Critics accuse the agency of mismanaging the horse program and say the roundup is only made necessary because the BLM favors cattle ranching over wild animals in the competition for water and graze land.

After being passed up for adoption three times, horses are sent to long-term holding pens where they may live to as old as 25, far longer than they would in the wild, BLM spokeswoman Celia Boddington says.

“As horses get older, they are extremely challenging if not impossible to gentle,” she says.

In the wild, the horses reproduce at a rate high enough to double the herd in four or five years, the BLM says. With drought conditions in parts of the West, the agency says it cannot allow the herds to grow unchecked.

With the economy going into the crapper, I would say that even fewer horses will be adopted, which in return will increase the number that will be put down.  Horses are like the working class, it is a lose-lose scenario.

Eco-Friendly Living

Believe it or not, condominiums may be some of the most environmentally responsible housing out there today, especially since more and more developers are paying attention to sustainability from the get-go.

By their very nature, many condo complexes adhere to some of the most basic tenets of green housing: density, to maximize surrounding open space and minimize buildings’ physical and operational footprints; proximity to mass transit, given their typical location in urban areas; and reduced resource use per unit, thanks to shared systems, walls and common spaces. Builders can elect to layer on other green elements, such as high-efficiency appliances and HVAC systems, green roofs and organic landscaping.
But not all developers need to break the bank to go green on their condo and apartment projects. Two-thirds of the units in Harlem’s much-publicized 1400 Fifth Avenue building—touted as New York’s first green condominium, are considered affordable, priced at $50,000 to $104,000 and restricted to families of moderate income. Also in the New York metropolitan area, Habitat for Humanity recently announced it has assembled a green design team to build “real affordable condos” in New Rochelle and other parts of Westchester County

Court Sides With The Environment

In a blow to oil refiners, chemical makers and other polluting industries, a federal appeals court threw out a rule that prevented states from implementing tougher pollution-monitoring requirements.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could lead to higher compliance costs and give states, local authorities and environmentalists more data that could be used to prosecute polluters, environmentalists said.

The decision marks the latest instance in which a federal court has rejected the approach to regulating harmful emissions taken by the administration of President George W. Bush. “It is a pretty serious rebuke of the Bush administration’s efforts to tie the hands of states at the behest of industry,” said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The court found the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule under the Clean Air Act “is contrary to the statutory directive that each permit must include adequate monitoring requirements.”

The court’s decision was one in a string of rulings scrapping Bush administration air-quality policies. Last month, the same court struck down the administration’s signature air-quality program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule — one of the few Bush administration efforts applauded by the environmental community. The regulation, announced in 2005 and covering more than two dozen states, sought to slash emissions that contribute to respiratory illnesses by instituting a “cap and trade” system in which companies that exceed their emissions caps can buy allowances from companies that do not.

In February, the appeals court rejected the EPA’s decision to remove mercury from a list of pollutants the agency is required to control at each power plant. Last year, a divided Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that the Bush administration had wrongly refused to limit emissions of those gases.

At least someone is looking out for the environment, up until recently, NO one in Washington cared.

Here Is An Environmental Idea

Switzerland’s political system, like that of California and several other states and nations, allows for individuals to propose legislation upon the gathering of enough signatures to support the bill. One such proposition by the youth section of the Swiss Green Party would ban all vehicles weighing over 2.2 metric tons (4,820lbs) or emitting more than 250g/km of CO2, among other restrictions. The law would effectively eliminate the vast majority of the SUV and sports car market overnight.

Other elements of the bill that would make it among the toughest in the world if enacted include a speed limit of 100km/h (62mph) on cars ‘grandfathered’ in by being registered before the law goes into effect, a complete ban on diesel-powered cars without particulate filters and cars with front fascias deemed dangerous to pedestrians, reports the Swiss site Asphalte.

Examples of the cars that would be affected by the proposed law include the complete ban from sale of all but the Boxster and Cayman 2.7 (pictured) from Porsche’s lineup, all of the high-performance arms of the German carmakers, as well as most Italian cars such as Ferrari and Lamborghini and the majority of American muscle cars and SUVs. Essentially the only cars that would be allowed for sale would be highly efficient six-cylinders and four-cylinder cars, with very few high-performance or opulent and large vehicles remaining