"Stalled carbon capture coal plant in Ill. gets OK
Energy Department says stalled futuristic coal-burning plant to move forward in Illinois
Henry C. Jackson, Associated Press Writer
On Friday June 12, 2009, 1:08 pm EDT
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stalled-carbon-capture-coal-apf-15512898.html/print
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department is moving forward on a futuristic coal-burning power plant in Illinois that the Bush administration had declared dead.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Friday that reviving the FutureGen plant is an important step that shows the Obama administration's commitment to carbon-capture technology.
"Developing this technology is critically important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and around the world," Chu said in a statement.*****
Coal burning power plants are the leading source of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas linked to global warming, and finding economical ways to capture carbon from such plants is viewed as key for the future of coal if a price is put on carbon to combat climate change.
The FutureGen plant would use Illinois coal, which is high in sulfur and has been used less frequently after changes to the Clean Air Act in 1990. As originally planned, the plant would have experimented with coal from Texas and Wyoming, too.
The commitment to the state's coal could help the Illinois mining industry rebound from a decline from around 10,000 jobs in 1990 to about 4,000 now, said Phil Gonet, a spokesman for the Illinois Coal Association.
"Eighty percent of our coal now goes out of state because almost every power plant in this state decided to switch to (cleaner) western coal," he said. "When you have a market in your own state that may open up for the first time in 20 years, that is significant."....."
Yes, but there is something better, something that has no emissions whatsoever and that will jumpstart the green economy in every state. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com. Thank you.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Truce Alternative Because of Emissions Alternative
"China and U.S. Seek a Truce on Greenhouse Gases
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/world/08treaty.html?ref=world By JOHN M. BRODER and JONATHAN ANSFIELD Published: June 7, 2009
WASHINGTON — For months the United States and China, by far the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, have been warily circling each other in hopes of breaking a long impasse on global warming policy.
*****
Both sides are demanding mutually assured reductions of emissions that are, in the current jargon, “measurable, verifiable and reportable.” In the background hover threats of great retaliation in the form of tariffs or other trade barriers if one nation does not agree to ceilings on emissions.
*****
But there is cause for profound skepticism as well. The Chinese continue to resist mandatory ceilings on their emissions and are making financial and environmental demands on the United States that are political roadblocks.
The United States, despite optimistic words from the White House and Congress, has yet to enact any binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. The energy bill now before Congress proposes emissions targets that are far short of what China and other nations say they expect of the United States.
Compounding the difficulty is the fact that both countries are struggling economically and the Chinese and American publics appear far more interested in jobs than in tackling environmental problems, a task that would necessarily be costly. ****"
But there's an alternative, an alternative which would eleminate the need for worry about emissions because there would be no emissions. The alternative is also less expensive, and would create jobs. For more in formation, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/world/08treaty.html?ref=world By JOHN M. BRODER and JONATHAN ANSFIELD Published: June 7, 2009
WASHINGTON — For months the United States and China, by far the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, have been warily circling each other in hopes of breaking a long impasse on global warming policy.
*****
Both sides are demanding mutually assured reductions of emissions that are, in the current jargon, “measurable, verifiable and reportable.” In the background hover threats of great retaliation in the form of tariffs or other trade barriers if one nation does not agree to ceilings on emissions.
*****
But there is cause for profound skepticism as well. The Chinese continue to resist mandatory ceilings on their emissions and are making financial and environmental demands on the United States that are political roadblocks.
The United States, despite optimistic words from the White House and Congress, has yet to enact any binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. The energy bill now before Congress proposes emissions targets that are far short of what China and other nations say they expect of the United States.
Compounding the difficulty is the fact that both countries are struggling economically and the Chinese and American publics appear far more interested in jobs than in tackling environmental problems, a task that would necessarily be costly. ****"
But there's an alternative, an alternative which would eleminate the need for worry about emissions because there would be no emissions. The alternative is also less expensive, and would create jobs. For more in formation, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Mass Transport Really Green?
"Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090608/sc_afp/climatewarmingtransportcarbonlifestyle Reuters Sun Jun 7, 8:02 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.
So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.
Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.
Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.
These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.
Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.
In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.
"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.
"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."
The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.
Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.
By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.
The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.
These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.
In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.
And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.
A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.
"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.
So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.
For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.
The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.
The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.
It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft."
But what if all types of transportation had no emissions? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090608/sc_afp/climatewarmingtransportcarbonlifestyle Reuters Sun Jun 7, 8:02 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.
So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.
Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.
Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.
These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.
Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.
In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.
"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.
"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."
The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.
Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.
By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.
The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.
These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.
In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.
And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.
A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.
"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.
So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.
For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.
The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.
The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.
It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft."
But what if all types of transportation had no emissions? For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Progress, But We Can Do More
"Green energy overtakes fossil fuel investment, says UN
Clean technologies attract $140bn compared with $110bn for gas, coal and electrical power Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 June 2009
Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations"(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/renewables-energy).
Good. Very good. But more can be done. For information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Clean technologies attract $140bn compared with $110bn for gas, coal and electrical power Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 June 2009
Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations"(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/renewables-energy).
Good. Very good. But more can be done. For information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Hunger in South Asia
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8079698.stm
S Asia hunger 'at 40-year high'
A UN report says hunger in South Asia has reached its highest level in 40 years because of food and fuel price rises and the global economic downturn.
The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.
It names the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The report says South Asia's governments need to urgently increase social spending to meet the challenge.
It says that climate change and urbanisation also need tackling.
***
Governments of the region can also use fiscal stimulus programmes and aid from abroad to expand the provision of basic social services in fields like health and education, it says, while funding training programmes - especially for young people."
There is technology that can help us help them, help ourselves and everyone everywhere. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com today.
S Asia hunger 'at 40-year high'
A UN report says hunger in South Asia has reached its highest level in 40 years because of food and fuel price rises and the global economic downturn.
The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.
It names the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The report says South Asia's governments need to urgently increase social spending to meet the challenge.
It says that climate change and urbanisation also need tackling.
***
Governments of the region can also use fiscal stimulus programmes and aid from abroad to expand the provision of basic social services in fields like health and education, it says, while funding training programmes - especially for young people."
There is technology that can help us help them, help ourselves and everyone everywhere. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com today.
Cap 'n Trade??!!??
"Climate chief's pledge on energy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8078007.stm
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
America's chief climate negotiator has pledged billions of dollars a year to help developing countries acquire clean energy and adapt to climate change.
Todd Stern said it was morally right for rich nations to help the poor on climate change.
***
The give-away of pollution permits has been condemned not just by environmentalists but also by many economists and commentators in the US.
But, as the Energy Secretary Steven Chu told BBC News, the compromises are seen by the Obama team as the price for making an early start on reversing America's growth in emissions.
***
From the perspective of many in the Obama administration, it is not possible to move fast with major cuts at home without hitting a political wall in a nation that takes cheap and plentiful energy as a right" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8078007.stm).
---
Ok. First, we can help countries who need help to get less expensive, more efficient energy--that is one goal of the Terra Humana Foundation. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Second, how is letting people pollute going to help when we're not doing enough to get emissions-free energy technology??? Again, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Third, we can have "cheap and plentiful energy" in this country, and so can everyone else, without sacrificing jobs--people may have different jobs, but they'll still have jobs. For the solution, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8078007.stm
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
America's chief climate negotiator has pledged billions of dollars a year to help developing countries acquire clean energy and adapt to climate change.
Todd Stern said it was morally right for rich nations to help the poor on climate change.
***
The give-away of pollution permits has been condemned not just by environmentalists but also by many economists and commentators in the US.
But, as the Energy Secretary Steven Chu told BBC News, the compromises are seen by the Obama team as the price for making an early start on reversing America's growth in emissions.
***
From the perspective of many in the Obama administration, it is not possible to move fast with major cuts at home without hitting a political wall in a nation that takes cheap and plentiful energy as a right" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8078007.stm).
---
Ok. First, we can help countries who need help to get less expensive, more efficient energy--that is one goal of the Terra Humana Foundation. Please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Second, how is letting people pollute going to help when we're not doing enough to get emissions-free energy technology??? Again, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Third, we can have "cheap and plentiful energy" in this country, and so can everyone else, without sacrificing jobs--people may have different jobs, but they'll still have jobs. For the solution, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Species Index and Climate Change
Scientists are creating a species index to which everyone can contribute information:"Help wanted to write book of life
A virtual book of all life on Earth is being created by UK and US scientists.
The online reference work will create a detailed world map of flora and fauna and track changes in biodiversity.
The database, dubbed a "macroscopic observatory', will be populated with data about local species gathered by members of the public. *****
The ongoing project will constantly gather data so it can plot information about the range and abundance of plants and animals as worldwide temperature and rainfall patterns shift in response to climate change" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8077262.stm).And they discuss other uses for the site, such as migration pattern information and a field guide for learning about animals and plants (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8077262.stm).That site needs tobe a record of preservation rather than loss, preservation that indicates good changes in climate, rather than bad. And for how you can help halt bad climate change and make the planet better for everyone, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
A virtual book of all life on Earth is being created by UK and US scientists.
The online reference work will create a detailed world map of flora and fauna and track changes in biodiversity.
The database, dubbed a "macroscopic observatory', will be populated with data about local species gathered by members of the public. *****
The ongoing project will constantly gather data so it can plot information about the range and abundance of plants and animals as worldwide temperature and rainfall patterns shift in response to climate change" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8077262.stm).And they discuss other uses for the site, such as migration pattern information and a field guide for learning about animals and plants (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8077262.stm).That site needs tobe a record of preservation rather than loss, preservation that indicates good changes in climate, rather than bad. And for how you can help halt bad climate change and make the planet better for everyone, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)