Jump to content

Climate Change?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

should not be a shock as the pattern of self serving has been around for many, many years. Just take a look at how some religions have grand churches along with a good life for their priests and then compare that against how the general population of that nation lives .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cap and trade: Here’s your no- brainer explainer

Do your eyes glaze over when you see the words "cap and trade"? Mine do. Cap and trade is a fancy scheme for cutting greenhouse gasses. It's so fancy that only the experts understand it.

That's fine with the ruling party in Ontario. If ordinary people understood what was going on, they'd rise up and march on Queen's Park with pitchforks.

So here's a brief explainer to clear things up.

Why should we care about this now?

Last week, Ontario, Quebec and California – three of the most righteous climate-change jurisdictions in the world – signed a new cap-and-trade deal that will come into effect on Jan. 1. 

Watch out. This is going to cost you.

Ontario, Quebec and California sign carbon market deal (The Canadian Press)
What's the difference between cap and trade and a carbon tax?
At their best, carbon taxes are simple, transparent and revenue-neutral. The government taxes carbon emissions, then rebates the money to taxpayers. Businesses and consumers are incentivized to cut down on emissions in whatever ways work best for them.

Cap and trade is a lot more complicated. It requires companies to buy so- called "permits to pollute" that are auctioned off by the government. It is neither simple, transparent nor revenue-neutral. In Ontario, it will raise billions in new revenue for the government to spend as it sees fit. In other words, it is a way for activist governments to dispense free allowances to certain industries, shower money on their favourite projects and generally meddle in the economy. In California, cap-and-trade money is being used to finance Governor Jerry Brown's notoriously expensive high-speed train to nowhere. 

No wonder the government of Kathleen Wynne loves it!

How much will it cost consumers?

The direct cost to consumers will be 4.3 cents a litre at the pump and around another $156 in home heating costs (rising to $210 in 2019), the government says. Extra indirect costs on goods and services might be another $75 a year. Critics argue that costs will be much higher as the costs of cap and trade on distributors are fully passed on to ratepayers.
That doesn't sound so bad. So how much will government raise, and where will the money go?

So far this year, the government has raised about $1.5-billion from the sale of cap-and-trade allowances. By 2020, it will raise $8-billion. The bulk of this money will go to a laundry list of emissions-reduction initiatives. These include schemes to increase the use of biogas, build regional transit, reduce the price of electricity, increase the use of green vehicles, improve energy efficiency in social housing, create a new government agency to help businesses adopt low-carbon technologies, conduct home energy audits and get people to walk and cycle more. There is also a vague promise to "collaborate with indigenous communities." The opportunities for new bureaucracies, consultants, advisers and boondoggles will be endless.
Will these initiatives actually achieve the government's emissions target for 2020?
No. The 2020 target is 15 per cent below 1990 levels. The auditor-general says that cap and trade will probably deliver less than one-fifth of the required reductions. On top of that, over the next three years, as much as $466-million will leave the Ontario economy – because it will be cheaper for businesses to buy allowances from Quebec and California than it will be to reduce emissions. The amount flowing out of the province could reach $2.2-billion by 2030.

Will the extra cost of cap and trade be broken out on your gas bill?
Of course not. If it was, people might get angry.

How well do cap-and-trade systems work?
In theory, they can work well. In reality, there's too much room for political manoeuvring and interference. How are the caps set for each industry? Who gets a break (for competitive reasons), and who does not? Administration is expensive. Higher costs for gas and fuel hammer the worst off. Worst of all, the Wynne government has no intention of putting the money it's raising back into people's bank accounts. Instead, the money will go into its pet projects du jour. It's also hard to see why we should siphon hundreds of millions of dollars to California, which is way richer than we are.
It certainly does seem like a lot of money for a negligible reduction in emissions.
 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/cap-and-trade-heres-your-no-brainer-explainer/article36389332/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Interesting article on China and how they will cutting down on the import of "Waste".  Note the number of jobs in the US directly associated with this.

The Chinese blockage in the global waste disposal system

By Jamie Robertson Business reporter, BBC News
  • 19 October 2017
 In Hong Kong, 2,500 tonnes of waste paper are piling up at its docks every day

Imagine the world as a global waste disposal system. Now imagine it with a blockage.

And what if that waste is backing up around the world, reappearing in places where you really don't want it to be.

That blockage is about to happen in China and the flood is going to start seeping out into waste disposal operations around the world.

Three months ago, China decided to ban 24 different grades of rubbish as part of its "National Sword" campaign against foreign garbage.

Until now China has been importing millions of tonnes of the world's waste every year to feed its recycling industry.

The Bureau of International Recycling China estimates that China last year imported 7.3 million tonnes of plastic scrap from Europe, Japan and USA, and 27 million tonnes of waste paper China's action in halting various categories of waste imports will hit recycling around the world

Robin Wiener, president of the US-based Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, said: "More than 155,000 direct jobs are supported by the US industry's export activities, earning an average wage of almost $76,000 and contributing more than $3bn to federal, state, and local taxes.

"A ban on imports of scrap commodities into China would be catastrophic to the recycling industry."

The new restrictions have yet to be agreed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and China could still change its mind, but the waste is already starting to back up.

Easy option

For China the problem is simply one of pollution. Its submission to the WTO reads: "We found that large amounts of dirty wastes or even hazardous wastes are mixed in the solid waste that can be used as raw materials. This polluted China's environment seriously." Mike Baxter says sending waste overseas was the easy option

Western recyclers admit that China has been a cheap and easy waste bin for their industry. In theory the rubbish from your recycling rubbish bin is meant to be treated or sorted before it goes in the container overseas, but the rules have too often been ignored and rarely enforced.

Mike Baxter, external affairs director at the recycler RPC Group, says: "The easiest option for years has been put it into a container and send it overseas where the labour is cheaper and it can be sorted by hand."

But with the ban expected to come into full effect by the new year, if not before, the UK industry has written urging the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to help with the expected overflow.

Even so, Robin Latcham, editor of the recycling industry magazine MRW believes the recyclers are not spelling out the problems loudly enough, and says: "Why no mention of growing domestic stockpiles of waste and the danger of more fires or incidents of waste crime?

"I don't think it is scare-mongering to set out such fears, along with concern that public perception of the recycling industry in its widest sense will be heavily scarred by greater fly-tipping, larger-scale dumping and more plumes of heavy black smoke crossing housing estates."Image copyright Getty Images

 Western recyclers admit that China has been a cheap and easy waste bin for their industry

No minister from Defra was available for comment, but a spokesman told the BBC: "We are aware of this situation and are looking into the potential implications."

Opportunities

But there is flip side to the problem - an opportunity for the recycling industry.

In the UK for example, a lot of the waste is high quality, such as off-cuts from plastic manufacturing and plastic bottles that have failed quality tests but can be reprocessed.

That presents "a great opportunity", says David Wilson commercial manager of Vanden Recycling, a Hong Kong-based company with a new plastics recycling operation in Peterborough, in the UK.

"China has voluntarily given up a six million tonne a year industry. We'll be selective about it and we'll go for materials we understand and markets we understand, but some of that lost capacity will be rebuilt here," he says.Image copyright Jamie Robertson

Vanden Recycling's David Wilson says the China ban creates new opportunities

Low quality waste is a different matter, however, and it requires some drastic rethinking of the whole supply chain.

As waste begins to back up through the system, like any commodity in oversupply, it loses value. In the UK, for example, local authorities have been able to generate useful income from selling that waste on to the recyclers. That income is going to fall sharply.

Andrew Bird, chairman of the UK's Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC) says as demand from China disappears, other markets are emerging, especially in India and wider Asia. Nevertheless, "there is going to be a little bit of pinch point, to say the least, and that will have an effect on price - that's the biggest risk for local authorities".

New technologies

One answer to tackling the global oversupply of low quality waste is the development of new technologies.

Recycling Technologies has developed a method of recycling the most unappetising mix of dirty plastic into something it calls Plaxx, a fuel oil which can be used for myriad applications, including as a source for new recycled plastic.Image copyright Jamie Robertson

 Adopting new technologies is one long-term solution, says Adrian Griffiths

Adrian Griffiths, the company's chief executive, admits there's no shortage of "feedstock" - the term for all the raw material that feeds the process.

"We chemically recycle plastic. We take it back to the original material so it can become more plastic again: plastic, back to oil, and back to plastic again. Anything that goes to landfill currently is feedstock for us, and since the recycling figures are so low the vast majority of the plastic we want is not in recycling use anyway."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“ Trudeau stubbornly keeps Canada standing with Paris as everyone else bails”

“  Unlike Trudeau, whose signature on the Paris climate agreement meant something — he has been nothing if not diligent in imposing climate action on provincial premiers — most signatories are ignoring, if not altogether abandoning Paris commitments, undoubtedly because voters in large part put no stock in scary global warming scenarios.

This week it was Australia’s turn to desert the cause, when it rejected its Clean Energy Target (CET), a much-anticipated 200-page-plus proposal that would have forced electricity utilities to rely on renewables and other low-emission sources for a substantial percentage of their production, all in aid of meeting the country’s Paris commitment to dramatically cut carbon use by 2030.” 

 

 

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trudeau-stubbornly-keeps-canada-standing-with-paris-as-everyone-else-bails

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now for some good news.


Only six countries have fewer pollution-related deaths than Canada: Lancet study  
  

President of Pure Earth, Richard Fuller says to see the large data numbers especially affecting children within Africa and India shocked him 
  
Lead author of the study, Dr. Phillip Landrigan says the data was very staggering and expects the actual number much higher in reality.
  
Pollution is killing millions of people around the world through heart disease, stroke and COPD. Pauline Chan reports.
 
   
.

 Jeff Lagerquist, CTVNews.ca Writer 

@jefflagerquist
.
 Published Friday, October 20, 2017 1:26PM EDT  
 Last Updated Friday, October 20, 2017 2:26PM EDT  

Canada is largely unscathed by the deadly consequences of pollution compared to its global peers, according to a major study that found more people around the world are killed every year from environmental factors than war, hunger, natural disasters and smoking combined.

The research published in The Lancet medical journal on Thursday suggests one out of every six deaths in 2015 – approximately 9 million -- was linked to pollution. Most were found to have died of non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The report marks the first attempt to examine the cumulative impact of all forms of pollution on death and disease.
Canada was found to have one of the lowest proportions of death attributable to pollution, 5.31 per cent in 2015. That ranks near the bottom, at number 185 out of 188 nations studied.

Air pollution was found to be the largest contributor to early death by far, accounting for 6.5 million fatalities in 2015. Water pollution, responsible for 1.8 million deaths, and workplace-related pollution (0.8 million), was also ranked among the most significant risks.

Canada was found to have one of the lowest proportions of death attributable to pollution, 5.31 per cent in 2015. That ranks near the bottom, at number 182 out of 188 nations studied.

“Canada is right down the bottom amongst the rest of the West. This is really a problem of low and middle-income countries,” Richard Fuller, co-chair of The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, told CTV News Channel in an interview from New York.

While the state of government stewardship over the environment, and regulation of the industries that cause it harm, are under constant public scrutiny in most western nations, Fuller said that is not the case in much of the world. He said Canadian and U.S. pollution policing policies are advanced in that respect.

“We’ve had great laws and great governance to manage them over the last several decades,” he said.

Only Brunei, Sweden, Finland, Barbados, New Zealand, and Trinidad and Tobago had lower percentages of pollution related deaths, according to the study. The U.S. ranks five nations below Canada at number 12.

The overwhelming majority of premature deaths, 92 per cent, impacted those living in low and middle-income nations. Rapidly industrializing states such as India, China, Bangladesh, and Kenya were also hard hit by the health impacts of contaminated water, air, and soil.

Bangladesh saw the largest proportion of deaths tied to pollution (26.57 per cent) in 2015, closely followed by Somalia, Chad, Niger, and India. The largest number of deaths attributable to pollution per 100,000 people was found in Somalia, followed by the Central African Republic, Chad, and South Sudan.

The report did not give Canada an entirely glowing review, highlighting pockets of concern in northern Alberta and Ontario that negatively impact First Nations communities through oil and natural gas exploration and production as well as chemical manufacturing.

Fuller said Canada’s admirable rank among the nations whose collective health is least affected by pollution should not be misinterpreted as proof that Canadians are immune to the consequences of environmental damage.

“These toxins, they don’t respect political boundaries. They travel the air and waters of the world,” he said. “As much as 20 per cent of pollution in Los Angeles is coming from coal fields in China.”
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since cutting down the forests is not a solution, I guess all we can do is watch and hope this is not a cycle that is on the increase.

 

The world just warmed on its own: NASA finds heat-blasted tropical forests emitted more carbon than China

 
‎Yesterday, ‎October ‎23, ‎2017, ‏‎11:01:24 PM | Tristin Hopper

Despite humans finally getting a grip on their carbon output, a cutting-edge, a new NASA study has found that the world’s El Nino-stricken forests single-handedly sent global emissions into overdrive in 2016.

In lush areas of Africa, South America and Indonesia, dried and rotting forests were responsible for the “largest annual increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration seen in at least 2,000 years,” reads an October statement issued by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

The forests’ final tally, as recorded by a new NASA earth satellite, was 2.5 billion tonnes of extra carbon emissions, putting them in close contention to beat China as the world’s heaviest emitter. f1-large.jpg?w=640&h=213

NASA map showing the areas of the world which became hotspots for 2016’s record-breaking release of carbon emissions.

For context, 2.5 billion tonnes is equivalent to 13 Canadas worth of emissions or 3.75 Indias.  The massive release singlehandedly raised global carbon emissions by more than 50 per cent, from an average of 4 gigatons to the record-breaking 6.3 gigatons seen in 2015/2016. 

“The CO2 growth rate in 2015 was the largest since CO2 (recording) started in 1958,” wrote lead author Junjie Liu in an email to the National Post. 

The study, published in the latest issue of Science, was possible thanks to a new NASA satellite, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2).

Launched in 2014, the 300-pound probe is designed to provide day-by-day observations on precisely where carbon is being emitted and where it’s being absorbed.

Using OCO-2 data, NASA scientists were able to zero in on three areas causing the unusual spike in emissions: the Amazon rainforest, Indonesia and a swath of tropical East Africa, including parts of Ethiopia and South Sudan.

As Scott Denning, an OCO-2 science team member, noted in an email to the National Post, each region had a “different problem.” The Amazon was unusually dry, which meant that heat-stressed plants weren’t consuming their normal diet of C02. Africa remained wet, but was unusually hot, which caused plant matter to rot quicker. Indonesia, meanwhile, was on fire.

Dry conditions caused Indonesia’s seasonal fires to spiral out of control in 2015, blanketing much of southeast Asia in a thick smoky haze.

The forests had all been hit hard by a particularly severe bout of El Nino, a naturally occurring period of global warm weather. However, it provides a clear example of what atmospheric scientists call a “feedback loop,” a phenomenon in which global warming can kick off natural processes that only serve to make the warming worse.

“Our study indicates a positive carbon-climate feedback: more CO2 will remain in the atmosphere during warmer and drier climate, which further warms up climate,” wrote Liu. 

The classic example of a feedback loop is the release of methane trapped in the Arctic. As the ice caps melt, tonnes of methane are freed from their prehistoric slumber, adding to the sum of greenhouse gases encircling the globe.

Ironically, the 2015/2016 spike in emissions occurred just as humans seem to be curbing their fossil fuel diet. Even as the global economy grew, human carbon pollution has only recently hit a plateau, fuelled in part by American and Chinese efforts to ditch coal.oco-2.png?w=640&h=454

The 300-pound OCO-2 satellite is designed to provide day-by-day observations on precisely where carbon is being emitted and where it’s being absorbed.

“This huge increase in atmospheric CO2 growth rate happened when emissions were basically flat for three years,” Dunning wrote. He added, “bummer!” 

The year 2016 was the hottest on record, and likely would have been even without El Nino. Still, scientists remain unsure as to how much the noted severity of the 2015/2016 El Nino was influenced by climate change.

The latest El Nino might have been no more intense than one seen in 1997/1998, but Liu said it is “difficult to quantify” for certain given the patchiness of 1990s emissions data. 

However, the NASA report hinted that the findings are likely a preview of coming attractions.

Many climate models anticipate a future of longer and more severe El Ninos. What’s more, with temperatures continuing their annual climb, even normal conditions could one day resemble the heat-wave afflicted world of 2015-16.

Normally, it’s the world’s tropical regions that are sucking in carbon, rather than emitting it. For every tonne of carbon released by burning fossil fuels, roughly half is neutralized by forests or the ocean, while the other half ends up in the atmosphere.

However, the NASA study noted that under present forecasts, “the role of the tropical land as a buffer for fossil fuel emissions may be reduced in the future.”

“The team’s findings imply that if future climate brings more or longer droughts, as the last El Nino did, more carbon dioxide may remain in the atmosphere, leading to a tendency to further warm Earth,” said Annmarie Eldering, a deputy project scientist with OCO-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we know from Fossil records and Ice Core surveys that we have been here before and that the cycle accelerates and slows.  It only make sense that it does.  It is a vicious cycle that will see the earth heat to a point then begin slowly cooling and eventually rapidly cooling to bring on a new ice age. Then the cycle will begin anew.

History is a very good teacher too bad no one pays attention in class.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, st27 said:

I think the NASA article should have also pointed out another little detail about forests..they produce .. what is it ? Oh yeah ....OXYGEN!

 

http://www.growingairfoundation.org/facts/

another link on this subject: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4562. but to be fair, the NASA article pointed that out but qualified the production of O2 based on 

Quote

The Amazon was unusually dry, which meant that heat-stressed plants weren’t consuming their normal diet of C02. Africa remained wet, but was unusually hot, which caused plant matter to rot quicker. Indonesia, meanwhile, was on fire.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“ 

There is no invisible thermometer controlled by taxation and regulation and subsidy that will change the output of the sun or our relationship with the sun. It turns out that the earth and the sun and the universe at large just don’t care that much about humans or our actions. The simple fact of the matter is that we are vastly more affected by the planet than the planet is by us – and one day in the distant future we will simply be another sedimentary layer in the geological record.

However, just as Galileo was persecuted during his time for advancing a heliocentric theory and questioning the geocentric view of the universe, those of us who question this anthropocentric view of climate are now also subject to ridicule and persecution. 

This persecution takes shape in the notion that if I deploy scientific knowledge to refute many of the alarmist claims made by those who believe climate change is anthropogenic, then I must be a ‘denier’ – an epithet closely linked to neo-Nazism that would subtly try to link me to that horrible way of thinking.

Statements like “the science is settled” or “97% of scientists agree” are extremely troubling as they are themselves anti-scientific and designed to suppress the relentless questioning that is essential to the scientific method. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s statement that “the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it” misappropriates the scientific method to declare science as an infallible source of truth rather than a process of finding and discovering truth through questioning and testing. People in your government tend to say things like “Canadians know…” or “We all know…” when it comes to the anthropocentric view of climate change. In fact, we may not know, or we may know the opposite.

Instead, I prefer Albert Einstein’s statement that “The important thing is to never stop questioning” as the ultimate piece of scientific advice.

 

 

 

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/climate-change-killing-us-my-open-letter-prime-trudeau-allan-chatenay

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statements like "we know" from the turd and his followers is not limited to environmental topics...it is a method of speech writing to reinforce their platform on a variety of subjects without providing data or statically evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is proof that "Humans" can reverse their negative impact on the world, at least on harm that they have caused. Next would be to attack the plastic in our oceans. Note the comment re "warm air" helping re the ozone hole, so without "Global Warming", would the problem have eased?

Antarctic ozone hole is the smallest it's been since 1988

Stormy upper atmosphere reduced erosion of ozone layer, which protects from sun's harmful UV rays

The Associated PressPosted: Nov 03, 2017 9:14 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 03, 2017 9:14 AM ET

Chile's Navy ship Aquiles moves alongside the Hurd Peninsula, seen from Livingston Islands, part of the South Shetland Islands archipelago in Antarctica. The ozone hole over Antarctica was at its smallest in 29 years in 2017.

Chile's Navy ship Aquiles moves alongside the Hurd Peninsula, seen from Livingston Islands, part of the South Shetland Islands archipelago in Antarctica. The ozone hole over Antarctica was at its smallest in 29 years in 2017. (Natacha Pisarenko/Associated Press)

 

The ozone hole over Antarctica shrank to its smallest peak since 1988, NASA said Thursday.

The huge hole in Earth's protective ozone layer reached its maximum this year in September, and this year NASA said it was 19.6 million square kilometres (7.6 million square miles) wide. The hole size shrinks after mid-September.

'It's really small this year. That's a good thing.'- Paul Newman, NASA

This year's maximum hole is more than twice as big as the United States, but it's 3.4 square kilometres (1.3 million square miles) less than last year and 8.5 square kilomtres (3.3 million square miles) smaller than 2015.

Paul Newman, chief Earth scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said stormy conditions in the upper atmosphere warmed the air and kept chemicals chlorine and bromine from eating ozone. He said scientists haven't quite figured out why some years are stormier — and have smaller ozone holes — than others.

"It's really small this year. That's a good thing," Newman said.

Antarctica ozone

At its peak on Sept. 11, 2017, the ozone hole extended across an area nearly two and a half times the size of the continental United States. The purple and blue colours are areas with the least ozone. (Katy Mersmann/NASA Ozone Watch)

Newman said this year's drop is mostly natural but is on top of a trend of smaller steady improvements likely from the banning of ozone-eating chemicals in a 1987 international treaty. The ozone hole hit its highest in 2000 at 29.86 million square kilometres (11.5 million square miles).

Ozone is a colorless combination of three oxygen atoms. High in the atmosphere, about 11 to 40 kilometres (7 to 25 miles) above the Earth, ozone shields Earth from ultraviolet rays that cause skin cancer, crop damage and other problems.

 

Scientists at the United Nation a few years ago determined that without the 1987 treaty by 2030 there would have been an extra 2 million skin cancer cases. They said overall the ozone layer is beginning to recover because of the phase-out of chemicals used in refrigerants and aerosol cans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html

 

U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

By LISA FRIEDMANNOV. 3, 2017

 
merlin_129492995_7c3400d9-611c-43bb-b8bd
 
Smoke rose from trees burned in a wildfire in Wrightwood, Calif., last year. A report from 13 federal agencies says extreme weather events have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980.CreditJonathan Alcorn/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images 

WASHINGTON — The Earth is experiencing the warmest period in the history of civilization and humans are the dominant cause of the temperature rise that has occurred since the start of the 20th century, according to an exhaustive scientific report unveiled Friday by 13 federal agencies. The report was approved by the White House, but it directly contradicts much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change.

Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” the report says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.

The findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies on several fronts. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the Trump delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris accord on climate and top American officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”

 

Edited by dagger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/climate-change-report-2017-trump-244525

 

New U.S. climate change report contradicts Trump

 

By EMILY HOLDEN

 

11/03/2017 02:51 PM EDT

A new scientific report published by the U.S. government Friday concludes that human activity is the main driver of climate change, contradicting the chorus of voices across the Trump administration that have sought to raise doubts about the link between pollution and rising temperatures. 

The report, which reiterates findings that human activity is “extremely likely” to be the reason that global temperatures are the highest in the history of modern civilization, comes as a challenge to President Donald Trump’s rejection of climate change as a hoax. Trump has moved to withdraw the U.S. from global efforts to fight climate change, and directed his administration to unwind a slate of policies put in place under former President Barack Obama to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Fundamentally, it’s reaffirmed that climate change is real, that humans are the dominant cause of warming, and that it is having an effect in the U.S. And those effects will grow more severe as long as we continue to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” said Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University and a contributor to the multi-agency report.

Sea levels are expected to rise from 1 foot to 4 feet by the end of the century and could swell by up to 8 feet if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, according to the final Climate Science Special Report, the first volume of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment. 

Episodes of heavy rainfall are becoming more frequent and intense, and heat waves will become more common. Kopp said the report also shows the U.S. can expect more compounded extreme weather events, like the multiple hurricanes and wildfires that occurred this summer. 

Annual global average temperatures are expected to rise by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. And though the growth in global carbon dioxide emissions is slowing, that trend is moving too slowly to keep temperatures below a dangerous tipping point of 3.6 degrees, or 2.0 degrees Celsius, above pre-industrial levels that would see more devastating impacts, the scientists found.

The report is the most comprehensive study since the last National Climate Assessment was published three years ago and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its physical science report four years ago, Kopp said. 

 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Electric Vehicles From Tesla and GM May Start Losing Their Tax Credits

Electric cars have been a tough sell in the U.S. The loss of the $7,500 perk could make them even harder for automakers to pitch.

Thu Nov 2, 2017 - Bloomberg News
By David Welch

Electric vehicles have caught the eye of many American consumers. But it’s not only the cars’ green cred that seals the deal. Another big lure: a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 per vehicle. Now that lucrative incentive may be fading away for two reasons. First, buyers of vehicles from leading EV makers such as Tesla Inc. and General Motors Co. could soon use up the maximum value of tax credits for their brands. (They’re capped for each manufacturer.) But worse for the entire industry, all EV credit provisions in the U.S. tax code are at risk of being eliminated as part of the horse trading under way over a tax cut bill.

To understand what could happen to electric car sales if Republicans phase out federal EV incentives, look at what happened in Georgia. Electric car sales there were growing briskly until the state cut its $5,000 electric vehicle tax credit in June 2015. Sales crashed from as many as 1,400 electric cars a month statewide to fewer than 100 the month after the incentive was axed.

Automakers fear a similar sales plunge if the federal tax credit goes away. Losing the credit would crush sales of electric cars just as most major automakers are beefing up to sell a slew of EVs over the next five years. “The credits matter a lot,” says Eric Noble, president of the CarLab, a consulting company in Orange, Calif. “In states without EV mandates or incentives, you’ll see sales crater.”

Electric cars have always been a tough sell to Americans, who are hooked on big SUVs and cheap gasoline. But the tax credits have helped juice sales, especially for lower-priced EVs and plug-in hybrids, Noble says. Even if Congress doesn’t do away with the credits, each manufacturer—under the existing IRS program—would see the incentive start to phase out once it sells 200,000 EVs or plug-in hybrids. Tesla, Nissan Motor Co., and GM would be the first to see their credits dwindle, because they’ve sold the most EVs.

If the government keeps the system in place but lets it run its course, Tesla will probably reach the limit first. The company had sold 127,000 of the Model S sedan and Model X SUV through August, according to researcher IHS Markit. With plans to produce as many as 10,000 a week of its smaller, $35,000 Model 3 sedans at some point next year, Tesla could max out sometime in 2018.

GM would probably be next. The carmaker had sold 126,000 of its Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrids through August, along with 12,000 of the Chevy Bolt EV and 7,000 of the tiny Chevy Spark EV, according to IHS. Those various models count as a single car under the tax credit system. Nissan had sold 112,000 of its all-electric Leaf.

The program doesn’t end abruptly when a carmaker reaches 200,000 in sales. Once a manufacturer gets to that number, new buyers receive ever-diminishing credits over the next five quarters, at which point the subsidy is completely gone. 1

Brands with reduced or used-up credits would be at a financial disadvantage against competitors that are coming out with models eligible for the full incentive. Between now and 2022, global carmakers plan to sell 50 new electric car models, with many of them headed for dealer lots in the U.S. GM alone has 20 coming by 2023.

“If you remove the tax credit, then either the manufacturer eats it or sells fewer vehicles”

The industry lacks the flexibility simply to pull back from making alternative-fuel cars because California—the biggest automobile market in the U.S.—mandates that a certain share of all automakers’ sales in the state must be zero-emission vehicles. If they don’t reach that percentage, they must buy credits from companies with bigger green footprints (and thus extra emission credits), such as Nissan and Tesla, to make up their numbers.

There are big financial implications. If states continue mandating EV sales but the tax incentives disappear, carmakers will have to lower prices to get the sales volume required by state governments, Noble says. “Right now the EV market isn’t driven by natural demand,” he says. “If you remove the tax credit, then either the manufacturer eats it or sells fewer vehicles.”

'Electric cars are already big producers of red ink. GM loses $9,000 on every Bolt it sells,'

.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If going electric is so great there is no reason for governments to subsidize them.

 

Just like the Alberta government has no need to give away free light bulbs and then send an Ontario company out to install them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.iflscience.com/policy/a-new-potential-epa-advisor-thinks-that-pollution-is-good-for-childrens-health/

As the year moves on, yet another of the (possible) appointees to the Trump administration has been found to have some pretty insane views. This time around it is Robert Phalen, an air pollution researcher who is expected to be chosen as a science advisor for the Environmental Protection Agency.

On paper, this sounds great. A scientist, who spent his academic career studying the impacts of pollution on health, advising the EPA as it tries to gut restrictions on industry could only be a good thing, right? Wrong.

“The relative risks associated with modern [particulate matter] are very small and confounded by many factors,” Robert Phalen wrote in a 2004 study. “Neither toxicology studies nor human clinical investigations have identified the components and/or characteristics of [particulate matter] that might be causing the health-effect associations.”

Oh. We’re not sure that it really needs to be pointed out, but there are many, many such studies that attest to the fact that the risks from air pollution are anything but “very small”. Only last month, a major report revealed that up to 9 million people die every year due to health problems linked to dirty air. And it’s not just physical health that is affected, as other studies suggest it could be hitting our mental health too.

In fairness, Phalen did make those claims back in 2004, when perhaps he was unaware of the millions of people dying from air pollution every single year. That excuse, however, is harder to swallow when in 2012 he is reported to have said that “modern air is a little too clean for optimum health,” and that children need to breathe in irritants to prime their immune systems (yep, you read that right).  

Phalen thinks that “modern air” is “too clean” for children, and that they need to breath in air pollution. Just think about that for a moment.

While it's true that there is some evidence to suggest that exposing children to certain irritants early in life can reduce their chances of developing certain allergies, there's minimal evidence to suggest this holds true for air pollution. In fact, it's consistently been shown that children who inhale air pollution have higher rates of asthma.

Another study on young children growing up in London found that their lungs were a full 10 percent smaller in volume compared to children growing up in the countryside. This does not seem to show that the air is “too clean".

But good news guys, because if Scott Pruitt has his way, Phalen will be advising the EPA on how to tackle the growing problem of air pollution across the United States. But first, maybe someone should warn him that air pollution can also make people transgender, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.iflscience.com/policy/rick-perry-fossil-fuels-prevent-sexual-assault/

Rick Perry, the head of the Department of Energy (DoE), has surpassed himself. Talking to journalists earlier today, he claimed that fossil fuels will help to prevent sexual assault.

During an energy policy discussion, he said: “From the standpoint of sexual assault. When the lights are on, when you have light that shines, the righteousness, if you will, on those types of acts… fossil fuels is going to play a role in that. I think it’s going to play a positive role.”

It’s a little difficult to try and work out what he means by this. Is he trying to say that when you have lights on, the perpetrators of sexual assault are easier to see? This is obviously true - but studies show that it has little effect on such crimes being committed. Either way, to use such a horrific issue to tout the benefits of oil, gas, and coal is mindblowingly strange.

Whatever he meant, we’d say that this is one of the worst arguments for fossil fuels that the world has ever seen. It’s spectacular in its awfulness. With that odd reference to "righteousness", the comment has even led several online to suspect Perry thinks sexual predators must be vampires.

ADVERTISING

Incidentally, the Secretary of Energy made these remarks shortly after returning from a trip to Africa, where he claims that a lack of energy is causing people to die.

“Let me tell you where people are dying, is in Africa, because of the lack of energy they have there,” he said during the same policy meeting.

He’s used this as an argument on numerous occasions to explain why America needs fossil fuels – so that Americans won’t also perish in some sort of post-apocalyptic future. This is despite the fact that 1) America and Africa are two completely incomparable locales, and 2) clean energy, which a large number of African nations are adopting instead of coal, produces electricity too.

Regardless, tying fossil fuel adoption in the US to sexual assault in Africa is ludicrous.

Perry has an impeccable track record for saying things that will make your brain ache and scream. Just recently, he claimed that fossil fuels are positively affecting the climate, which many thought was his zenith of incomprehensibility. This new nefarious nugget, however, clearly takes the winning spot.

This curious fellow, who has repeatedly forgotten both the name and purpose of the very agency he is inappropriately in charge of, has regularly failed to grasp some very basic scientific and mathematical concepts. It makes you wonder why he’s in charge of an agency, then, that primarily handles nuclear energy and waste research.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-11-03 at 3:44 PM, dagger said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/climate-change-report-2017-trump-244525

 

New U.S. climate change report contradicts Trump

 

By EMILY HOLDEN

 

11/03/2017 02:51 PM EDT

A new scientific report published by the U.S. government Friday concludes that human activity is the main driver of climate change, contradicting the chorus of voices across the Trump administration that have sought to raise doubts about the link between pollution and rising temperatures. 

The report, which reiterates findings that human activity is “extremely likely” to be the reason that global temperatures are the highest in the history of modern civilization, comes as a challenge to President Donald Trump’s rejection of climate change as a hoax. Trump has moved to withdraw the U.S. from global efforts to fight climate change, and directed his administration to unwind a slate of policies put in place under former President Barack Obama to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Fundamentally, it’s reaffirmed that climate change is real, that humans are the dominant cause of warming, and that it is having an effect in the U.S. And those effects will grow more severe as long as we continue to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” said Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University and a contributor to the multi-agency report.

Sea levels are expected to rise from 1 foot to 4 feet by the end of the century and could swell by up to 8 feet if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, according to the final Climate Science Special Report, the first volume of the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment. 

Episodes of heavy rainfall are becoming more frequent and intense, and heat waves will become more common. Kopp said the report also shows the U.S. can expect more compounded extreme weather events, like the multiple hurricanes and wildfires that occurred this summer. 

Annual global average temperatures are expected to rise by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. And though the growth in global carbon dioxide emissions is slowing, that trend is moving too slowly to keep temperatures below a dangerous tipping point of 3.6 degrees, or 2.0 degrees Celsius, above pre-industrial levels that would see more devastating impacts, the scientists found.

The report is the most comprehensive study since the last National Climate Assessment was published three years ago and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its physical science report four years ago, Kopp said. 

 

 

“ The former undersecretary of energy for science at the Obama Energy Department cast serious doubts on the accuracy of a new climate change report released on Friday.

In an op-ed featured in The Wall Street Journal, theoretical physicist Steven Koonin criticized the report from the National Climate Assessment (NCA) for reinforcing “alarm with incomplete information” by taking information out of context and in some instances completely ignoring important historical context.”

"The report thus misleads by omission."

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/23155/former-obama-official-slams-alarmist-climate-ryan-saavedra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warmest in civilised history but NOT the warmest in history.  The earth has been far warmer when there were no humans around to blame.  Remember northern canada was tropical ot one point in its history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, boestar said:

Warmest in civilised history but NOT the warmest in history.  The earth has been far warmer when there were no humans around to blame.  Remember northern canada was tropical ot one point in its history.

 

G'day Boestar

While you are correct that Northern Canada was tropical at one point in history, I think you think it was for the wrong reason.

Alberta was blessed with tons of dead dinosaur juice because at one point, during Pangea times, Northern Canada was near the equator.

http://deboera.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/4/5/14457186/geologic_eras.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, deicer said:

G'day Boestar

While you are correct that Northern Canada was tropical at one point in history, I think you think it was for the wrong reason.

Alberta was blessed with tons of dead dinosaur juice because at one point, during Pangea times, Northern Canada was near the equator.

http://deboera.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/4/5/14457186/geologic_eras.pdf

Scientists understand that Earth's magnetic field has flipped its polarity many times over the millennia. In other words, if you were alive about 800,000 years ago, and facing what we call north with a magnetic compass in your hand, the needle would point to 'south.' This is because a magnetic compass is calibrated based on Earth's poles. The N-S markings of a compass would be 180 degrees wrong if the polarity of today's magnetic field were reversed. Many doomsday theorists have tried to take this natural geological occurrence and suggest it could lead to Earth's destruction. But would there be any dramatic effects? The answer, from the geologic and fossil records we have from hundreds of past magnetic polarity reversals, seems to be 'no.'

Reversals are the rule, not the exception. Earth has settled in the last 20 million years into a pattern of a pole reversal about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal. A reversal happens over hundreds or thousands of years, and it is not exactly a clean back flip. Magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another, with multiple poles emerging at odd latitudes throughout the process. Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years. And while reversals have happened more frequently in "recent" years, when dinosaurs walked Earth a reversal was more likely to happen only about every one million years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...