The World’s Dirtiest Power Plants
November 5, 2009
Virtually all power plants burning fossil fuels release insane amounts of pollution into the atmosphere – but some are definitely dirtier than others. And if you live in the Southeast United States, you’re practically surrounded by dozens of the world’s biggest carbon offenders.
Forbes has a new interactive map that lets you see where the world’s most polluting power plants are located, and learn all kinds of startling facts about them.
For example, France is the only G-7 country with no power plants among the world’s dirtiest – because they rely on nuclear power. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s got the nastiest one in the world – the Taichung Power Plant, which emits 40 million tons of carbon every year.
Check it out over at Forbes.com.
Link [Forbes]
Biofuels Could Make Global Warming Worse
October 24, 2009
What could be more environmentally harmful than fossil fuels? Try biofuels. That’s right, a new study claims that we’ll make global warming even worse if we rely too much on the new generation of biofuels, because rules governing their production encourage deforestation. And, as another recent report illuminated, our forests are our most important line of defense against climate change.
From Reuters:
In a study to be published Friday in the US journal Science, a group of 13 scientists called for the rules, which contain a loophole exempting carbon dioxide emitted by bioenergy regardless of its source, to be overturned.
“The error is serious, but readily fixable,” said lead researcher Timothy Searchinger of Princeton University.
The study called for the issue to be addressed in the climate treaty that nations around the world are hoping to sign at the Copenhagen summit in December to supercede the Kyoto Treaty.
Researchers said numerous analyses — including one released by the US Department of Energy — have found that this loophole “could lead to the loss of most of the world’s natural forests as carbon caps tighten.”
The loophole needs to be closed before oil companies, power plants and other energy industry firms – who stand to benefit the most from it – can exploit it.
But that’s not the only problem with biofuels. Another study published in Science Express on Thursday noted that there’s not enough oversight on land use when it comes to producing biofuels, meaning some unscrupulous companies could cut down forest lands and use them to grow fuel.
Burning biomass releases almost as much carbon dioxide as burning fossil fuels, but that CO2 is partially offset by the plants themselves, grown for biofuel, absorbing CO2 from the air. That’s a big benefit – but we can’t cut down forests to grow these plants. Talk about counterproductive.
Link [Reuters]
Photo credit: Dave Reede
Saving Forests Five Times More Effective than Carbon Capture
October 11, 2009
The best way to fight against global warming isn’t expensive, potentially ecologically disruptive carbon capture methods. It’s saving the forests that we already have, which act as massive carbon sinks, protecting the planet against catastrophic climate change.
According to a new report released by WWF Sweden, world leaders have got to join together in an international agreement to halt forest loss as a highly cost effective measure on climate change.
From Panda.org:
“Sweden should follow the examples set by its northern neighbors in developing systems to halt deforestation,” said WWF CEO General Lasse Gustavsson.. “One Swedish krona to stem deforestation results in the same emissions reductions as five kronor for the controversial carbon capture and storage technique,”
Gold in Green Forests, a report issued today by WWF-Sweden, says that next to energy efficiency halting forest loss and degradation is the most cost-effective method for mitigating climate change.
The annual loss of natural forests in developing countries is equivalent to one third of Sweden’s surface area. Forest fires, the conversion of forests to agricultural land and the cultivation of energy crops are responsible for the high rate of forest loss.
A program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is currently being discussed in the negotiations for a global climate deal. REDD aims to make it worthwhile for developing countries to maintain their forests, as opposed to cutting them down.
Preventing deforestation should be among our first lines of defense against climate change. It definitely makes sense financially. The trick is getting nations like Indonesia – which is cutting its forests down at an alarming rate to make room for lucrative palm oil plantations – to agree to the program.
The whole report is available over at Panda.org.
Link [Panda.org]
Photo credit: Flickr user zoutedrop
CO2 is Green, Say Oil Execs in Ludicrous Ad
October 1, 2009
Attempts by dirty industries to fight the climate bill just keep getting more and more desperate and ridiculous. Care2 spotted a television ad campaign run by oil execs is actually trying to convince the public that excess CO2 is a good thing.
From The Washington Post, via Care2:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) may be grappling with health care, but in Montana a new advocacy group opposed to climate legislation called CO2 Is Green is taking aim at the next big battle for Congress.
The group is already running television ads: “This will cost us jobs,” one says. “There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the Earth’s ecosystems.” It urges voters to contact Baucus, who in the past has backed bills to cap emissions and allow companies to trade pollution allowances.
The man behind the latest entry to the climate legislation wars is H. Leighton Steward, a veteran oil industry executive, co-author of the “Sugar Busters!” dieting books, and winner of an Environmental Protection Agency award for a report on damage being done to Mississippi wetlands. Now retired, he says he wants to “get the message out there” that carbon dioxide, which the Supreme Court has ruled a pollutant and which most scientists regard as a dangerous greenhouse gas, “is a net benefit for the planet.”
Well, thank the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster that we have oil company bigwigs to steer us in the right direction, not only with these super-intelligent and truthful ads, but by pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as humanly possible.
EPA Close to Declaring CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant
September 2, 2009
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says that CO2 will be declared a dangerous pollutant within a few months. This move could help push climate change legislation through Congress at a pace slightly faster than that of a melting iceberg.
A formal “endangerment finding” would force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act regardless of whether Congress passes a final climate change bill. Top senators have recently declared that they plan to delay introducing legislation that would cap carbon emissions.
From SF Gate:
The EPA kick-started the regulatory process in April when it proposed declaring carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize the public health and welfare. EPA scientists believe the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The EPA can formalize the finding anytime, now that it has closed a 60-day public comment period that netted more than 300,000 responses.
President Obama and Jackson have said they would prefer that Congress – rather than the EPA – take the lead in implementing new greenhouse gas limits. Businesses and energy industry leaders also have largely favored congressional action over EPA-imposed limits, because they believe lawmakers are better positioned to combine economic safeguards with any new carbon cap.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated, if the government were to determine that they threatened the public.
No doubt, this news will immediately cause opponents of climate change action to howl about CO2 being the source of life on this planet, and predict fines for exhaling. “Everybody hold your breath!” Har har har.
Common sense should tell these people that such a fear is absurd, but you know what they say about common sense. Climate change deniers don’t have any.
Link [SF Gate]
Bill McKibben Talks CO2 with Stephen Colbert
August 19, 2009
Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org and author of 12 environmental books, was on the Colbert Report this week to discuss the steps that world leaders must take to lower carbon dioxide levels. McKibben explains the point at which scientists really began to worry about global warming – and stresses the need for action (despite Colbert’s pronouncement that we should all just give up and start having “end of the world sex”.)
Check it out:
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Bill McKibben | ||||
|
||||
Colbert: “Can I steal your thunder and start 349.org? Mine’s one better!”
Link [Colbert Nation]
Turning Airport Travelers’ Breath into Fuel
February 7, 2009
Passengers flying out of and into the Liverpool John Lennon Airport in Liverpool, England will be a part of a new effort to harness an unusual energy source: their breath. An intriguing piece of green technology made by Origo Industries, the Eco-Box, will capture the CO2 exhaled by travelers and transform it to fuel for use in the airport’s diesel vehicles and heating systems.
From LiveScience:
The Eco-box was originally designed to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles. It works by capturing carbon emissions through a photo-bioreactor as a feedstock for algae, producing biomass that is then refined and converted to green fuel.
“The project at the airport is an early trial of a system which we believe could have a significant impact on the way companies today can obtain fuel and manage carbon emissions,” said Iain Houston, Origo’s CEO and founder.
Installation of the carbon recycling system began in January, with a goal of harnessing 24,000 gallons of fuel from the pilot program, as well as providing heating and hot water to the airport. The company hopes to expand to a 289,000 gallon system following the trial, providing approximately 800 gallons of biofuel each day.
Origo may also look into using this technology to produce aviation-grade biofuel in the future, which could revolutionize the airline industry. Airlines have been struggling with the wildly fluctuating price of gas in recent times.
Yet another wonderful example of how alternative fuel sources are all around us, some in the most unexpected of places. We CAN move beyond fossil fuels, and will.
Link [LiveScience]
LCD Chemical 17,000 Times More Harmful Than CO2
July 19, 2008
Looks like LCD monitors might not be so green after all. Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was found in a recent study to have a global climate impact 17,000 times greater than that of CO2. NF3 is found in the LCD panels of cell phones, computer monitors and televisions as well as in semiconductors and synthetic diamonds. It’s being called the ‘missing greenhouse gas’ as it’s not currently being monitored by the Kyoto Protocol.
From the Environmental News Network:
What kind of impact is this suppose to have, you ask? The chemical is found to stay in the atmosphere for 550 years and there is no force of nature known to remove it. This year, nitrogen trifluoride emissions are expected to have an impact equal to Austria’s CO2 output. Production of the chemical may double in 2009. The study points to a number of NF3 manufacturing facilities opening up in the US, Korea, and China. The production increase is due in part to the switch to digital television which will lead to increased LCD consumption and the disposal of older sets, some of them early LCD models.
LCD monitors have long been presented as environmentally friendly, particularly next to lead-laden, energy inefficient CRT models. According to ENERGY STAR, they consume half to two-thirds the energy of CRTs. Heat output is also less, leading to lower air conditioning bills. Some companies have gone even further to lessen the environmental impacts of their LCD displays. Lenovo has nearly a dozen EPEAT gold certified displays to offer and Phillips made news with their Eco TV in April. Though the use of mercury and arsenic have been of concern to the environmental and human health, LED-backlit display technology has begun to address these issues.
It’s not known just yet how companies will respond to this. The cost of engineering their products to emit less NF3 would be expensive, and experts think that consumers might have a hard time swallowing a price increase. As the Environmental News Network points out, measuring the NF3 levels in the environment might be enough to spur an outcry.
Link [ENN]
Photo credit: Flickr user laffy4k
Seven Years and Tons of Lost Credibility Later: Bush Decides Greenhouses Gasses Need to Be Curbed, Color Us Unimpressed
April 16, 2008
Am I the only one who could give two shits about Bush’s new plan (just announced today) to curb Greenhouse Gases? That’ll be left to the next President, this guy is just riding out the clock after what will go down as the worst Presidency in history. George Bush is an asshole and we can’t wait for him to move back onto the Ranch and let Obama get to work fixing all his mistakes. Global Warming will be one of them, we don’t need that douche nozzle chiming in now on how important it is to go green. I’d rather hear what Paris Hilton has planned to fight rising CO2 emissions.
The AP has it:
WASHINGTON (AP) – Revising his stance on global warming, President Bush on Wednesday proposed a new target for stopping the growth of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.
The president also called for putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants within 10 to 15 years.
“To reach our 2025 goal, we will need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so that they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter,” Bush said in excerpts of the speech released early by the White House.
“By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002. There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies.”
Bush was not to outline a specific proposal, but he’ll lay out a strategy for “realistic” emission reduction targets and “principles” he thinks Congress should follow in crafting global warming legislation.
Link [Breitbart]
Photo: Flickr user Tootsfontaine
