-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Michael Bloomberg Promises $500 Million to Help End Coal Michael Bloomberg Promises $500 Million to Help End Coal
WASHINGTON — Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, will donate $500 million to a new campaign to close every coal-fired power plant in the United States and halt the growth of natural gas, his foundation said Thursday.
The new campaign, called Beyond Carbon, is designed to help eliminate coal by focusing on state and local governments. The effort will bypass Washington, where Mr. Bloomberg has said national action appears unlikely because of a divided Congress and a president who denies the established science of climate change.
“We’re in a race against time with climate change, and yet there is virtually no hope of bold federal action on this issue for at least another two years,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement. “Mother Nature is not waiting on our political calendar, and neither can we.
The plan comes as global warming is taking a more prominent role in the 2020 Democratic presidential race. Like the Green New Deal climate proposal, Mr. Bloomberg’s plan is expected to increase the pressure on politicians who say they prioritize climate change to stake out more specific policy positions.
WASHINGTON — Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, will donate $500 million to a new campaign to close every coal-fired power plant in the United States and halt the growth of natural gas, his foundation said Thursday.
The new campaign, called Beyond Carbon, is designed to help eliminate coal by focusing on state and local governments. The effort will bypass Washington, where Mr. Bloomberg has said national action appears unlikely because of a divided Congress and a president who denies the established science of climate change.
“We’re in a race against time with climate change, and yet there is virtually no hope of bold federal action on this issue for at least another two years,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement. “Mother Nature is not waiting on our political calendar, and neither can we.
The plan comes as global warming is taking a more prominent role in the 2020 Democratic presidential race. Like the Green New Deal climate proposal, Mr. Bloomberg’s plan is expected to increase the pressure on politicians who say they prioritize climate change to stake out more specific policy positions.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
May Was The United States' Second Wettest Month On Record | HuffPost
May was the second wettest month on record in the contiguous United States, and it sealed the last 12 months as the country’s wettest yearlong period, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday.
With a total of 4.41 inches of precipitation ― 1.5 inches above the average downfall for May ― last month nearly broke the record of 4.44 inches set in May 2015. NOAA’s record-keeping goes back 125 years.
This year is on track to be one of the hottest on record ― a phenomenon associated with more intense storms as a warmer atmosphere is able to hold higher volumes of precipitation. Those higher temperatures are associated with the rising concentration of carbon dioxide on the planet ― something NOAA reported on earlier this week.
According to the agency’s findings released Tuesday, global CO₂ concentrations last month were the highest since it started recording them more than half a century ago.
“It’s critically important to have these accurate, long-term measurements of CO2 in order to understand how quickly fossil fuel pollution is changing our climate,” Pieter Tans, a senior scientist in NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, said in a news release.
May was the second wettest month on record in the contiguous United States, and it sealed the last 12 months as the country’s wettest yearlong period, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday.
With a total of 4.41 inches of precipitation ― 1.5 inches above the average downfall for May ― last month nearly broke the record of 4.44 inches set in May 2015. NOAA’s record-keeping goes back 125 years.
This year is on track to be one of the hottest on record ― a phenomenon associated with more intense storms as a warmer atmosphere is able to hold higher volumes of precipitation. Those higher temperatures are associated with the rising concentration of carbon dioxide on the planet ― something NOAA reported on earlier this week.
According to the agency’s findings released Tuesday, global CO₂ concentrations last month were the highest since it started recording them more than half a century ago.
“It’s critically important to have these accurate, long-term measurements of CO2 in order to understand how quickly fossil fuel pollution is changing our climate,” Pieter Tans, a senior scientist in NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, said in a news release.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The end of the Arctic as we know it
The end of the Arctic as we know it
The US, China, Russia, Canada and Korea are more focused on the commercial and strategic opportunities that are emerging as the Arctic melts and opens. Fishing, mining, tourism and cargo shipping could profit, but any gains will be far outweighed by the costs of a diminished Arctic. A recent study found melting permafrost alone would cause $70tn of damage, 10 times the expected revenue from resource extraction and new trade routes.
Adding further to that enormous, existential reckoning could be other feedback loops that are now being investigated. Among them is the possible loss of the Arctic’s soothing influence on the northern seas. Bands of ice buffer the waves. Inside the floes, the ship’s passage is far smoother. Wagner speculates that when this calming barrier melts away, the swells will churn the ocean and bring warm water to the surface, which could further accelerate the fragmentation of the polar cap.
The end of the Arctic as we know it
The US, China, Russia, Canada and Korea are more focused on the commercial and strategic opportunities that are emerging as the Arctic melts and opens. Fishing, mining, tourism and cargo shipping could profit, but any gains will be far outweighed by the costs of a diminished Arctic. A recent study found melting permafrost alone would cause $70tn of damage, 10 times the expected revenue from resource extraction and new trade routes.
Adding further to that enormous, existential reckoning could be other feedback loops that are now being investigated. Among them is the possible loss of the Arctic’s soothing influence on the northern seas. Bands of ice buffer the waves. Inside the floes, the ship’s passage is far smoother. Wagner speculates that when this calming barrier melts away, the swells will churn the ocean and bring warm water to the surface, which could further accelerate the fragmentation of the polar cap.
The bigger issue is probably the loss of stability of the polar vortex. This is already happening.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Hard to say what issue will be bigger, but an ice free arctic will stop reflecting sunlight and start absorbing it, further accelerating warming.
SDRick
Active Member
Would the $500 million be better utilized accelerating commercialization of battery technology and storage? Perhaps two birds with one stone?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Looks like the money will be focused on policy and political change. I think this is the greatest obstacle to change even when renewables are lower cost.
SDRick
Active Member
I agree except I am not convinced, or I should say the market is not convinced that renewables are now at a lower cost.
To my knowledge there are very few places currently where renewables and storage has evolved enough to be commercially viable at lower cost for the masses to go off grid. I believe that the technology is not yet commercially viable or available on national or global scale. If it was, people and corporations are greedy and usually go for the cheaper alternative. I do not see evidence that we are there yet. I wish we were. Look how long it is taking Tesla, they still have not begun to fully commercialize their solar roof titles for example, and generation is probably the easier piece of the puzzle.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I don't think the idea is to go off grid but rather to power the grid with renewables and storage to make a cleaner and more reliable grid.
This is not yet cheaper in many cases but the sharp continuing drop in solar, wind and storage prices will make it cheaper in just a few years to the point where it would be foolish to invest in fossil fuel plants today. It might be cheaper to run a NG plant, for instance, for the next few years but it will be more expensive sooner rather than later and then you have a stranded asset white elephant NG plant which is expensive to run.
SDRick
Active Member
I believe we agree that currently renewables are not yet cheaper although the generation piece is almost there. So much so that in sunny California overproduction during the day is not adequately shipped or stored. I would like to see someone putting in $500 million and address that problem.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The California Public Utilities Commission approved the project last month and along with 3 other energy storage system, the new energy storage capacity is so important that it will replace three gas power plants.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
With 21 times more potential than CO2, rising methane levels unnerve researchers
Methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising since 2007, and it is even shooting up faster than ever since 2014, said a study that also discussed the potential causes and consequences of this drastic change in methane (CH4) level.
As per the atmosphere experts, methane, which is 21 times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), decays into the climate faster than CO2 does. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, it is far more as a molecule of methane is capable of causing 28 to 36 times more heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.
Even though the scientists could not find why methane is rising drastically, a study published in 2017 has shown a possible cause which involved livestock, such as cows and other animals. As per that study, these animals play an important role in carbon cycling through consumption of biomass and emissions of methane, since they burp methane as they digest food.
She added that it is possible that the rising temperature is triggering wetlands to release more methane while changing the atmospheric chemistry that could be slowing down methane's break down process.
Methane levels in the atmosphere have been rising since 2007, and it is even shooting up faster than ever since 2014, said a study that also discussed the potential causes and consequences of this drastic change in methane (CH4) level.
As per the atmosphere experts, methane, which is 21 times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), decays into the climate faster than CO2 does. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, it is far more as a molecule of methane is capable of causing 28 to 36 times more heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.
Even though the scientists could not find why methane is rising drastically, a study published in 2017 has shown a possible cause which involved livestock, such as cows and other animals. As per that study, these animals play an important role in carbon cycling through consumption of biomass and emissions of methane, since they burp methane as they digest food.
She added that it is possible that the rising temperature is triggering wetlands to release more methane while changing the atmospheric chemistry that could be slowing down methane's break down process.
As mentioned in another thread, a different new study reports that EPA estimates of methane emissions/leaks from industrial uses of natural gas appear to vastly underestimate (by orders of magnitude) actual methane emissions.
“We took one small industry that most people have never heard of and found that its methane emissions were three times higher than the EPA assumed was emitted by all industrial production in the United States,” said John Albertson, co-author and professor of civil and environmental engineering. “It shows us that there’s a huge gap between a priori estimates and real-world measurements.”
Industrial methane emissions are 100 times higher than reported, researchers say | Cornell ChronicleIt wouldn't surprise me if under-the-radar emissions/leaks -- including from industrial use of natural gas -- are responsible for a significant portion of the unaccounted for portion of the increase.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Conservatives should change how they think about global warming. I did
Conservatives should change how they think about global warming. I did | Jerry Taylor
The raucous political debate with denialists aside, the real debate in climate science is about how much warming we’ll have to face, how abrupt it might be, how quickly we can adjust, how much severe weather we’ll experience, and how likely it is that various low-probability, high-impact climate events will come to pass.
Like many in the climate arena, I got caught up in this debate, and the uncertainties surrounding climate change allowed me plenty of fodder to argue my case. But I finally came to the realization that the debate about what’s most likely to happen will not take us very far. That’s because humanity’s response to climate change is an exercise in risk management – and risk management is not about discerning the optimal response to the most likely outcome, it is about determining the optimal response to the full distribution of possible outcomes.
It took time for me to come to the realization that uncertainty is an argument for – not against – decarbonizing the economy as quickly as possible. Never before have we run an experiment where greenhouse gases were loaded into the atmosphere at today’s rates. While we don’t know precisely what will follow, we understand basic physics well enough to know that “warming is coming”. How much, and how dangerous it will be, is an open question, but we have no backup planet if the answer is a bad one.
Conservatives should change how they think about global warming. I did | Jerry Taylor
The raucous political debate with denialists aside, the real debate in climate science is about how much warming we’ll have to face, how abrupt it might be, how quickly we can adjust, how much severe weather we’ll experience, and how likely it is that various low-probability, high-impact climate events will come to pass.
Like many in the climate arena, I got caught up in this debate, and the uncertainties surrounding climate change allowed me plenty of fodder to argue my case. But I finally came to the realization that the debate about what’s most likely to happen will not take us very far. That’s because humanity’s response to climate change is an exercise in risk management – and risk management is not about discerning the optimal response to the most likely outcome, it is about determining the optimal response to the full distribution of possible outcomes.
It took time for me to come to the realization that uncertainty is an argument for – not against – decarbonizing the economy as quickly as possible. Never before have we run an experiment where greenhouse gases were loaded into the atmosphere at today’s rates. While we don’t know precisely what will follow, we understand basic physics well enough to know that “warming is coming”. How much, and how dangerous it will be, is an open question, but we have no backup planet if the answer is a bad one.
Similar threads
