Tag: coal

bookmark_borderHope Versus Climate Change

Posted on by admin

Global warming is a huge problem; however, we can make it much worse if we keep burning fossil carbon and killing ecosystems.

The hopeful bit is that:

  1. Coal is dead. The US energy information administration confirms coal production is declining across the country. Greenpeace reports that globally “coal is in terminal decline.”
  2. Solar and battery cost and efficiencies already make sense, so much so that utilities must embrace them or die.
  3. Electric cars are coming faster than we imagine.
  4. Nearly 200 countries have signed-on to the Paris Agreement. The aim of the agreement is:
      1. Holding the increase in the global average temperature, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
      2. Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;
      3. Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

    “Countries furthermore aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.”

  5. If we do all this and more, we might save East Antarctica (which is another 150-200 feet of sea level rise over Greenland and West Antarctica melt of 30 feet SLR or so. Many species that are probably crucial to our survival could be saved.)

As for hope, it was said in another war, “It is not necessary to hope, in order to persevere.”

By Sidd Mukherjee and Daniel Brouse 2016

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment

bookmark_borderSupreme Court Upholds Pollution

Posted on by admin

The Supreme Court over-ruled one of the Obama administration’s environmental protections — an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that limits emissions of mercury and other pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Writing for the majority, in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “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. Statutory context supports this reading.”

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “The agency acted well within its authority in declining to consider costs at the opening bell of the regulatory process given that it would do so in every round thereafter — and given that the emissions limits finally issued would depend crucially on those accountings.”

“The E.P.A. will have to do more homework on costs,” said Sean Donahue, representing environmental groups. “But I’m very confident that the final rule will be up and running and finally approved without a great deal of trouble. This is a disappointment. It’s a bump in the road, but I don’t think by any means it’s the end of this program.”