Pro-nuclear, pro-money crazy (and less a pro-life one)

"Before we all become pro-nuclear greens, however, you've got to ask three questions: Is #nuclear power safe and clean? Is it economical? And are there better alternatives?
No, no and yes. So let's not swap the pending environmental disaster of climate change for another that may be equally risky."

From: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/the-new-nuclear-craze/?smid=tw-bittman&seid=auto&_r=0

 

Keywords: safety, uranium mines (still not cleaned up), disposal of spent fuel (no real plan after decades of their existance), HUGE governmental subsidies, taxpayers, ratepayers, externalities (usually) excluded (from calculating C/B), ... and ultimately, better energy alternatives.

 

Utilities are afraid that solar power will be to the electrical grid what PCs were to mainframes, or e-mail to the Postal Service: a technology that will simply kill its predecessors. Coal and nuclear power are both doomed, and the profit-making power grid with it. That's all to our benefit.

IPCC projections accurate, Alaskan fish dying, and Deathly taxation in Spain

Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
In this post we will evaluate this contrarian claim by comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes.
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html)

Want money? Tax death. There'll be plenty of death (that) where it came from.
'Even in death, people in Spain cannot escape the economic crisis. /.../ 
"I paid over 7,000 euros (9,300 dollars) for my husband's funeral, and it was a simple service, with one of the simple coffins, which cost 2,600 euros (3,450 dollars), without mementos or music, and only a few flowers. Besides, instead of a burial, we had him cremated, which is even less expensive," Ana María Robles, a 66-year-old pensioner, told IPS. /.../
In 2004, a complete funeral service cost around 4,000 euros (5,300 dollars), and today a normal average funeral costs between 6,000 and 7,000 euros (8,000 to 9,300 dollars)," the source added.'

/.../ the crisis in this country has led to a 30 percent increase in social inequality between the richest and the poorest since 2006.'
(Source: http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/even-death-feels-weight-of-crisis-in-spain/)

"Unusually hot, dry weather in Alaska is wreaking havoc on fisheries, as thousands of fish perish in overheated waters. Last month, 1,100 king salmon died on their way up to the Crystal Lake hatchery due to water temperatures around 80 degrees Fahrenheit and lack of oxygen. That's the bulk of the 1,800 adult salmon that were expected to return to the hatchery this season.
 
Earlier in the summer, another hatchery lost hundreds of grayling and rainbow trout in a Fairbanks lake where water temperatures reached 76 degrees. Alaska's heat wave broke records last week, with 14 days straight above 70 degrees in Anchorage and 31 days of 80 degrees in Fairbanks."
From: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/05/2410921/extreme-heat-is-killing-off-thousands-of-fish-in-alaska/
(Salmon is, apparently, 'the state's largest export product after oil and natural gas' (ironical, isn't it?).)

Oh, also from the same source:
'While Alaska's heat wave is expected to subside soon, the state has warmed up twice as fast as the rest of the nation in the past 50 years, and climate change is worsening extreme weather. Wildfires raged through subarctic forests as late as Friday, consuming more than a million acres and prompting emergency evacuations across the state. Thawing permafrost is also sinking villages, threatening fish stocks and water supplies that the communities rely on to survive.'

A new climate change action agreement? Hopefully in 2015. With the IPCC's AR5 coming up in Dec, 2014, it will be a Crunchy Christmas.
"Peru is a country absolutely committed to the negotiations and its progress in dealing with climate change. We are committed to the Durban Platform agreement and we know that in Warsaw 2013, Lima 2014 and Paris 2015 we will come to a binding climate agreement, for the planet, for the people and for our citizens. Those of us who serve the public are aware that our fundamental priority is our people, especially the most vulnerable-those who suffer the consequences of climate change," says Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Minister of Environment"
From: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=9807&section=news_articles&eod=1

'Conservative IPCC Errs on the Side of Least Drama

 
'Although the IPCC climate models have performed remarkably well in projecting average global surface temperature warming thus far, Rahmstorf et al. (2012) found that the IPCC underestimated global average sea level rise since 1993 by 60%.  Brysse et al. (2012) also found that the IPCC has tended to underestimate or failed to account for CO2 emissions, increased rainfall in already rainy areas, continental ice sheet melting, Arctic sea ice decline, and permafrost melting.  Brysse et al. concludes that the on the whole the IPCC has been too conservative in its projections, "erring on the side of least drama" — in effect preferring to be wrong on the conservative side in order to avoid criticism.'
From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

Crop pollination exposes honey bees to pesticides, altering their susceptibility to pathogens

I'd like to say: "No shit?" but it'd be premature. Instead: hm... further research is obivously needed (har, before a billions-of-dollars industry can be put to question & 'blame').

Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae. Link to PlosONE.

From the research article's abstract: "We detected 35 different pesticides in the sampled pollen, and found high fungicide loads. The insecticides esfenvalerate and phosmet were at a concentration higher than their median lethal dose in at least one pollen sample." (Pettis et al, 2013)

And the original source where I got the link from: here.

"Highlight":

'The pollen was contaminated on average with nine different pesticides and fungicides though scientists discovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample. Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated with increased risk of infection by the parasite called Nosema ceranae.' (here)

 

Glaciers flooding nearby towns

Never thought of this particular consequence of global climate change and warming, to be honest:

 

"Starting in July 2011, and each year since, sudden torrents of water shooting out from beneath the glacier have become a new facet of Juneau's brief, shimmering high summer season. In that first, and so far biggest, measured flood burst, an estimated 10 billion gallons gushed out in three days, threatening homes and property along the Mendenhall River that winds through part of the city. There have been at least two smaller bursts this year."

 

From: July 23 News: Melting Glaciers Across The Globe Experiencing 'Jokulhlaup,' Icelandic For 'Glacier Leap' (link)

 

 

Climate change is threatening Bangladesh's Millennium Development Goals two years before the goals' 2015 deadline. [Reuters] (Ibidem)

 

'Costs of Arctic methane release could approach value of global economy' (link)

Funny, food, de-re-forestation, desertification, floods, draughts, acidification do not even enter the title.
See, this is sort of what I talk about when I say value of Climate Change costs (from damages, adaptation or mitigation) might (harhar) end up higher than the money 'we have' as the world.

In relation to the news and the above, this comes to mind.

Obama's Climate Care

Some stuff changes. Some doesn't. China's role in the world is. USA's dealing with climate change isn't ... at least not as fast. 

Read below. It is encouraging, however, that a (black) US president is saying stuff like climate change being affected by human behaviour and climate emissions.

 

'President Barack Obama has stumbled on an unusual partner in his quest to combat climate change: China.' Josh Lederman |21.7.2013|
(1) http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/07/21/environment/obama-finds-unlikely-ally-in-climate-change-battle-china/

I have to say: how is carbon capture going to help us, in the long term? Besides prolonging the age of the fossil fuel consumption, how is having a time-bomb stored underground in an - if it leaks - atmosphere-accessible way, going to help us?
Seriously, people.
"They also agreed to team up on large-scale experiments with "carbon capture" — a technology that isolates carbon dioxide from power plant emissions so it can be safely stored." (Ibidem)

Some time ago (Nov, 2012, (1)) and less time ago (3), president Obama was making some big-ass statements. With little actual work.
'Obama Talks Climate Change During His First Post-Election Press Conference', Stephen Lacey |Nov 14, 2012|
"Obama's response in today's press conference shows that broad action on climate probably isn't very high up on the priority list at the moment. While he did say he wanted to do more on climate in his second term, Obama gave few specifics about what a plan might look like."
From source (2): http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/14/1191841/obama-talks-climate-change-during-his-first-post-election-press-conference/

Pic from the same source (2).

Whitehouse gave us a nice jpeg file online, after Obama's speech (5) on climate. 'President Obama's Plan to Fight Climate Change' (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)
(3): http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan

And now, for something (not) completely different:
'Billions spent in Obama climate plan may be virtually useless, study suggests' (July 18, 2013)
  Though I must say that you know, in theory, getting together paying 12 people to do some research for you should not be too hard in climate-sceptic abundant US&A. To me, it seems a bit like
this news is launched by the Big Oil. But then again, I offer no proof and it's just a minor feeling.
It would be worthy to see who pays and owns Fox news. Just saying.
Additionally, it has been shown in economics (though, I must say and point out, I cannot cite the source (!) at this time, as I forgot where it was that I read it)
that taxes work less well than monetary incentives for businesses and households. (One is negatively and the other one, positively charged and perceived.)

Highlights: biofuels VS gasoline, 'fracking' seems to be supported or at least not contradicted, 'more research needed to attribute the GHG reductions with government's actions', US army going green (see below), possibly more nuclear ("investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels to nuclear mini-reactors") and others.

"The Defense Department is committing to deploy about 3 gigawatts of solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy on military installations by 2025. Federal agencies intend to install 100 megawatts of additional renewable capacity in federally subsidized housing by 2020."

(4) Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/18/billions-spent-in-obama-climate-plan-may-be-virtually-useless-study-suggests/#ixzz2ZmR5XXDe

(5) President Obama's Climate Change Speech: Full Text: http://ens-newswire.com/2013/06/25/president-obamas-climate-change-speech-full-text/

"The Green Island" - 'The eco resort that's 'greener' than most'

We originally put in 96 solar panels and last year we put in 32 more. The first 96 were 205 watts per panel and cost $2000 each; the ones I put in last year are 245 watts per panel and cost me $900 each. Now I can get 255 watts per panel and they're about $400 so it's getting more and more economical.

http://2degreesproject.com.au/Story/green-eco-resort

President Obama’s 2nd-Term Plan To Address Climate Change

Well, this is interesting.

President Obama's Second-Term Plan To Address Climate Change

 

"The plan, according to senior administration officials, has three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, leading international efforts to cut global emissions, and preparing the U.S. for the costly impacts of climate change. President Obama will frame action as a moral obligation to do what we can for "the world we leave our children."

 

"Increasing renewables: Set a goal to double electricity fueled by renewable energy by 2020 nationally. This will be kickstarted by a goal of 10 gigawatts' worth of permits for renewable energy projects on public lands by 2020. Another Presidential Memorandum streamlines electric grid transmission projects across the country. Increase the federal government renewable target from the current 7.5 percent to 20 percent by 2020.
Get smarter: Conduct the first-ever Quadrennial Energy Review, focusing on infrastructure and investment. Aggregate energy data from federal facilities using the "Green Button" standard. Launch a Climate Data Initiative, which makes federal climate-related data available to the public, encouraging innovation and climate preparedness.
Fuel efficiency: The administration will develop post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles, building upon 2011′s first-ever such standards.
Appliances and buildings: Establish goal that current efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will reduce carbon pollution by more than 3 billion metric tons by 2030.
Efficient housing: Try innovative approaches to developing cost-effective energy delivery to multifamily housing. Federally subsidized housing stock will strive toward a goal of 100 megawatts of installed renewable capacity by 2020 as well. Find options to factor energy efficiency into the mortgage process. Expand Better Buildings Challenge to make multifamily housing more efficient.

On paper, the plan, if implemented quickly and decisively (which means also supported by a robust legal and public defense against the certain fusillade from Republican and industry groups), could be fairly consequential given the realities of current congressional dysfunction. Whether or not Keystone XL is approved, the U.S. needs to cut emissions a great deal, and there are things in the plan that could kickstart that process. To roll back carbon pollution with the intent of avoiding catastrophic global warming will require more."

High environmental costs if 2050 world population be fed

... Well, it depends how, as always.
Below, an excerpt from Bloomberg BusinessWeek's report:

“Current growth in global crop yields will be insufficient to feed the world in 2050,” according to the University of Minnesota. 

 But, if we are nice to each other, we may make it:

More efficient use of arable lands and increasing yield growth rates by sharing best-management practices may help lift production, the study authors wrote. Changing to more plant-based diets and reducing food waste could reduce the large expected growth in demand, according to the researchers. 

With the BAU, Business As Usual, it may not look so good:

Environmental Costs

“A portion of the production shortfall could also be met by expanding croplands, but at a high environmental cost to biodiversity and carbon emissions,” the authors said. 

Source: link.

Wind power: NIMBY-ism (Not In My Backyard) VS. WARYDU rhetoric (We Are Right; You Don't Understand)

Because it reads so nice, I am just going to copy-paste this paragraph from the "Acoustic Ecology Institute" (don't ask me what it is, I've never before heard of it) (Source: this here link):

 

From another page: link.

Modern wind turbines are massive structures, hundreds of feet tall, and often constructed in large wind farms that in effect industrialize rural landscapes, from the rolling grassy hills of California, to the vast rangeland of Texas, to ancient ridgelines in the Appalachians, to the commons in rural England. While the trade-offs may be worth it in some areas, the downsides have become more apparent. Resistance to wind farms is often belittled as NIMBY-ism (Not In My Backyard); but at the same time, proponents often slip into oversimplifeid WARYDU rhetoric (We Are Right; You Don't Understand). In most cases, industrial wind farms are complying with local noise limits; the issue has become whether these noise limits are sufficient to protect rural residents from irrevocable changes in the soundscapes of their homes and farms. If we are to forge a reliable energy future that is respectful of both the environment and the rights of neighbors, we'll need to move past knee-jerk reactions on both sides, and develop best practices that can ensure that the landscape and local residents don't become long-term casualties of today's "Klondike Wind Rush."

 

 

 
This caption is from the first site as well <link>:
How big are modern wind turbines? The ones on the left are 60m and 125m; the one on the right is 95m, with blades sweeping an area the size of a 747.
 

EU ETS update - 2 billion surplus allowances. Whoops.

 

EU ETS: continuing decline in emissions but growing surplus of allowances in 2012

Allowance surplus doubled in 2012

The surplus of emission allowances almost doubled from around 950 million at the end of 2011. A combination of the use of international credits, auctioned phase 2 allowances and remaining allowances in the new entrant reserve, sales of phase 3 allowances to generate funds for the NER300 programme and early auctioning of phase 3 allowances resulted in a cumulative surplus of almost two billion allowances by the end of 2012.

Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, said: "The good news is that emissions declined again in 2012. The bad news is that the supply-demand imbalance has further worsened in large part due to a record use of international credits. At the start of phase 3, we see a surplus of almost two billion allowances. These facts underline the need for the European Parliament and Council to act swiftly on back-loading."

From: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013051601_en.htm

Big companies and UN on Environmental reporting

Big companies should report their impact on the environment in addition to their earnings under a U.N. plan to boost economic growth and ease poverty by 2030, according to recommendations by a panel of world leaders released on Thursday.

 

This is from a UN report. Title of the news item is UN Recommends Big Companies Report Environmental Impacts As Well As Profits. <link here>

 

More from the same source:

 

And aparently, they actually said: "Without environmental sustainability, we cannot end poverty; the poor are too deeply affected by natural disasters and too dependent on deteriorating oceans, forests and soils."

 

Snippets:

 

Australia is on track to generate 22 percent of its energy from renewable resources. [CleanTechnica]

 

The Canadian government refused to detail how $16 million in taxpayer funds was spent to promote oil, gas, and other resources. [Vancouver Sun]

 

André Borschberg and Bertrand Piccard, the pilots of Solar Impulse – the first 100% solar-powered plane that flies day and night without fuel –  Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/30/solar-plane-reddit-ask-me-anything-may-31-100pm-et/#dEmmsE0Ic5L1CBKO.99

 

New Jersey is set to increase spending on solar energy by nearly half a billion dollars, meaning almost a hundred more megawatts of new capacity. [Solar Love]

A new special report from USA Today on the impacts of climate change spotlights how increased carbon dioxide creates more pollen, making allergy sufferers miserable. [USA Today]

Former Iowa lawmaker Ed Fallon is organizing a 1,000-person climate march across the country next year, spanning 8 months, thousands of miles, and lots of public curiosity. [Des Moines Register]

 

 

Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”

From their abstract (I deposit it here for later use):

we describe revisions of the sensitivities of the RFCs to increases in GMT and a more thorough understanding of the concept of vulnerability that has evolved over the past 8 years. This is based on our expert judgment about new findings in the growing literature since the publication of the TAR in 2001, including literature that was assessed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), as well as additional research published since AR4. Compared with results reported in the TAR, smaller increases in GMT are now estimated to lead to significant or substantial consequences in the framework of the 5 “reasons for concern.”

From:

Smith, J. B., Schneider, S. H., Oppenheimer, M., Yohe, G. W., Hare, W., Mastrandrea, M. D., ... & Van Ypersele, J. P. (2009). Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)“reasons for concern”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(11), 4133-4137. Link: http://ateson.com/ws/r/www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full