All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Randolph Kinney]

VEGETARIAN AND “HEALTHY” DIETS COULD BE MORE HARMFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Carnegie Mellon Study Finds Eating Lettuce Is More Than Three Times Worse in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Eating Bacon
By Shilo Rea / 412-268-6094 /

Contrary to recent headlines — and a talk by actor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference — eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change.

In fact, according to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns.

“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”

https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/december/diet-and-environment.html

So much for the propaganda of "green" diets saving the planet.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Paris climate change deal too weak to help poor, critics warn

COP21 agreement excludes poor and fails to put humanity’s interests above short-term goals, say environmentalists and financial experts

Leaders from around the world have hailed the agreement struck in Paris on climate change, but some analysts and environmentalists are less sure about its impact.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance, an independent analysis group, delivered a downbeat appraisal of the outcome, saying it was not the breakthrough many had claimed.

Richard Chatterton, head of climate policy at the group, which provides analysis used by investors, said: “The deal reached in Paris is weak, containing no concrete increase in the level of ambition to address climate change, and simply urges countries to do more over time.”

He said the most notable outcome was the mechanism for five-yearly reviews of carbon targets, and agreement on the principle that countries should provide transparent accounts of how they reach those goals. But even these were “accompanied by language that could allow countries to maintain the status quo for years to come”.

He also criticised the target of achieving net-zero emissions. “An emissions reduction goal, for a peak year in global emissions or for language on decarbonisation or emissions neutrality have all failed to make it into the final agreement,” he said. “What countries have settled for is an ambiguous aim,” to balance emissions with carbon sinks. But he said it was unclear what this would mean in terms of real emissions reductions.

“This agreement will disappoint many observers who were hoping for a step change in global ambition [on climate change]. It is no surprise, however, that the reality falls far short of such expectations,” Chatterton concluded.

Other observers were also wary. Oxfam called the deal “a mixed bag”, arguing that governments had failed to put humanity’s interests above “narrowly defined and short-term interests”, and that the lack of a pathway to keep temperature rises below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels left that goal unclear and vulnerable people in danger.

Craig Bennett, UK chief of Friends of the Earth, was cautious. While he acknowledged “the spirit of Paris” in bringing countries together was positive and could be built upon, he said in key aspects it was inadequate.

“We have got to understand the limits of Paris,” he said. “It is certainly not sufficient [as an agreement]. If you judge it by the science, it’s clearly not strong enough. It’s also clearly not strong enough for poor countries.”

Harjeet Singh, global lead on climate change for ActionAid, said the poor had been excluded: “What we needed out of Paris was a deal that put the poorest people first. What we have been presented with doesn’t go far enough to improve the fragile existence of millions around the world.”

Bill McKibben, activist and co-founder of 350.org, said the deal was in danger of dragging out the transition away from fossil fuels for far too long to maintain global temperatures at a safe level, leaving open the possibility that “endless climate damage will be done”.

He urged activists to target the fossil fuels industries to prevent that. His views were echoed by David Turnbull, campaigns director of Oil Change International, who described the agreement as “a lowest common denominator of global politics, not the aspirations of the global community”.

There was also concern from special interest groups. Clodagh Byrne, adviser at HelpAge International, warned that older people were left out, despite the fact that they are more vulnerable to the effects of high temperatures, being more likely to die in heatwaves than younger adults, and at greater risk of death in the event of extreme weather, such as floods or storms, as they were less able to escape.

“Given the disproportionate impact that climate change is already having on older people, it is alarming that no specific consideration has been given to them in the text, even within the list of those whose rights should be specifically taken into account,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/paris-climate-change-deal-cop21-oxfam-actionaid

Gee, a fake, a fraud and a sham. Not too many affected groups are happy with the COP21 agreement. The real achievement of the new climate agreement is perpetuity of employment for the climate conference class, an agreement for regular “reviews”, to ensure the jetset climate heroes don’t run short of conferences to attend spewing megatonnes of CO2 as they do it.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

NASA examines global impacts of the 2015 El Nino

People the world over are feeling, or soon will feel, the effects of the strongest El Niño event since 1997-98, currently unfolding in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. New satellite observations are beginning to show scientists its impact on the distribution of rain, tropospheric ozone and wildfires around the globe.

New results presented Tuesday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco show that atmospheric rivers, significant sources of rainfall, tend to intensify during El Niño events, and this year's strong El Niño likely will bring more precipitation to California and some relief for the drought.

Due to this El Niño, tropospheric ozone, a pollutant and greenhouse gas, is seen decreasing over mid-latitude locations such as the United States, and the risk of fires across the tropics is showing signs of increasing.

An El Niño, which is a reoccurring natural phenomenon, happens when sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean warm up. The increased ocean surface temperatures influence air and moisture movement around the globe. Approximately 15 years of observations by NASA's fleet of Earth-observing satellites show how El Niños affect multiple interconnected Earth systems.

One big question about the current El Niño is whether it will bring significant rainfall to drought-plagued California. Researchers studying storms and their relationship to strong El Niños believe it will.

Duane Waliser, chief scientist of the Earth Science and Technology Directorate at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and his colleagues analyzed the historical record of atmospheric rivers. These concentrated rain bands account for 40 percent of California's water supply. Their results suggest the number of atmospheric rivers California receives will remain the same, at an average 10 per year, but they will be stronger, warmer and wetter.

"Overall we'll likely get more precipitation, but maybe less in terms of snowfall," Waliser said, adding that they may contribute to more flooding.

El Niño's elevated sea surface temperatures shift rain patterns by affecting the temperature of the air above the ocean, which alters how winds and air masses circulate air around the planet.

The change in winds also affects the distribution of tropospheric ozone around the planet. Tropospheric ozone exists in the atmospheric layer closest to the surface and comprises ozone produced naturally and from human pollution. Ozone in the troposphere is a greenhouse gas and a health hazard. Understanding El Niño's influence on ozone concentration is important for understanding the atmosphere's response to natural variation and distinguishing natural changes from human causes.

Mark Olsen, an atmospheric research scientist at Morgan State University in Baltimore and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and his colleagues produced the first near-global map of ozone sensitivity caused by El Niño and La Niña events. Previous work showed that El Niño events cause a strong change in ozone in the tropics. Olsen's new work uses satellite data combined with a computer model to show that a smaller but still significant effect occurs in the mid-latitudes.

"El Niño is just one factor in the variability," Olsen said. "But you do see regions like the central United States where El Niño explains 20 to 25 percent of the variability."

Ozone in this region tends to decrease where El Niño-driven changes to local wind circulation patterns causes them to draw air upward. According to Olsen, it's a large enough influence that El Niño does need to be considered if you want to attribute causes of ozone concentration changes and long-term trends.

Jim Randerson, Earth system scientist at the University of California, Irvine, and his team analyzed wildfire burned area maps from satellite data to study how El Niño-driven effects change the distribution and severity of wildfires worldwide. During El Niños, the number and size of fires increases in tropical forests across Asia and South America.

"The change in atmospheric dynamics shifts the rainfall," Randerson said. "So El Niño causes less rain to fall in many areas of the tropics, making forests more vulnerable to human-ignited fires."

Fires in tropical forests also accelerate carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere and reduce air quality. Indonesia, for example, has carbon-rich peatlands that ignite as soon as the rain stops, which is what happened this fall, Randerson said. Meanwhile, Southeast Asia, Central America, and the southern Amazon have very high fire risk for 2016. El Niño tends to reduce rainfall in their wet seasons, and less rain means drier vegetation and drier air, which make forests vulnerable to dry season burning.

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-nasa-global-impacts-el-nino.html

It seems this article contradicts Anthropogenic Global Warming as the cause of wildfires and drought. Also ozone.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Just choose your method of extinction: the government or natural causes.

Belies his usual joie de vivre!

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

 

[Meandering]

Hey Pete,

I don't know about where you are, but in the '70s where I grew up, was one of the most polluted places in the country according to news headlines at that time. Heavy industry, pink, and blue creeks, smog every day.

The ecology movement of the '70s cleaned up a lot of the problems, for which I'm grateful. It also gave us the clean air and waters act.

Anyway, the clean waters act provided for buffer zones around estuaries, and wetlands, creeks and rivers.

Those buffer zones were always a consideration when estimating buildable lot potential, and here, left more than a few peat moss mining operations fallow.

But we are seeing many reductions and exceptions to the clean water act, decreasing the size of buffer zones, or removing them. There was a move to mitigate wetlands damage to mitigation banks, but it seems the state has all the allowed mitigation banks, and shy of the state, not much else gets mitigated to wetland banking, at least here.

So I'm wondering is this happening similarly by you? Are you seeing more permits to destroy wet lands in favor of construction? Here I see it more so with commercial and not much with residential construction. Actually had a call from someone who was looking at reopening a peat moss mining operation, as apparently that is allowed again.

But might I ask what you are seeing out by you as far as the buffer zones for waterways and wetlands? Are you seeing peat moss mining acreage being converted for other uses, or mining again? Are the needed wetlands buffer zones being reduced? Is the Army Corps approving more wetlands destruction than it was maybe 20 years ago?

.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Hey Pete,

I don't know about where you are, but in the '70s where I grew up, was one of the most polluted places in the country according to news headlines at that time. Heavy industry, pink, and blue creeks, smog every day.

The ecology movement of the '70s cleaned up a lot of the problems, for which I'm grateful. It also gave us the clean air and waters act.

Anyway, the clean waters act provided for buffer zones around estuaries, and wetlands, creeks and rivers.

Those buffer zones were always a consideration when estimating buildable lot potential, and here, left more than a few peat moss mining operations fallow.

But we are seeing many reductions and exceptions to the clean water act, decreasing the size of buffer zones, or removing them. There was a move to mitigate wetlands damage to mitigation banks, but it seems the state has all the allowed mitigation banks, and shy of the state, not much else gets mitigated to wetland banking, at least here.

So I'm wondering is this happening similarly by you? Are you seeing more permits to destroy wet lands in favor of construction? Here I see it more so with commercial and not much with residential construction. Actually had a call from someone who was looking at reopening a peat moss mining operation, as apparently that is allowed again.

But might I ask what you are seeing out by you as far as the buffer zones for waterways and wetlands? Are you seeing peat moss mining acreage being converted for other uses, or mining again? Are the needed wetlands buffer zones being reduced? Is the Army Corps approving more wetlands destruction than it was maybe 20 years ago?

.

Fracking is the latest challenge to our watershed in these parts. Attached is an article by someone I'm sure you would tend to characterize as a "tree hugger":

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2014/03/28/Protect-Pennsylvania-wetlands/stories/201403280022

Recent Supreme Court rulings have certainly muddied the waters (pun intended). Wonder which side of the ruling Justice Scalia and his joined at the hip puppet Justice Thomas, came down on? Hmmmmmm!

 

[Randolph Kinney]

San Diego's climate change plan gets final OK

City Council approves blueprint for significantly reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 2035


Raising the bar for municipalities across the country, San Diego on Tuesday adopted one of the nation’s most ambitious plans to cut carbon emissions.

And in one aspect, the city’s document goes further than the historic climate change deal forged Sunday by world leaders gathered in Paris: It creates legally binding mandates for reducing levels of greenhouse gases.

“Today, San Diego took a landmark step toward securing a greener and more prosperous future,” Mayor Kevin Faulconer said in a statement.

The City Council unanimously approved the co-called Climate Action Plan, which requires annual emissions be cut in half during the next two decades based heavily on a strategy to use 100 percent renewable energy within that same timeline.

If the city doesn’t follow through on its promise to fight climate change, environmental groups and even the state attorney general could file lawsuits to force elected officials to comply.

“We have a lot to celebrate, and when we finish the happy dance and the kumbaya, we have to accept that the hard work now begins,” City Councilwoman Marti Emerald said at the meeting. “Just passing this doesn’t suddenly make everything better.”

Several environmental advocates warned at Tuesday’s meeting that they were ready to use legal action if necessary.

“Obviously, we aren’t going anywhere. We’re just getting started,” said Nicole Capretz, executive director of the Climate Action Campaign.

“The 100 percent [renewable energy] goal is a mandate,” she added. “It’s not dream. It’s not a wish or an aspiration. It’s a legal commitment.”

The plan aims to satisfy state mandates for reducing greenhouse gases that have been rolled out during the past decade, including a requirement to cut emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.

With ratcheting pressure from leaders in Sacramento and the courts, other cities in California may face increasing pressure to adopt similarly binding climate plans. Besides San Diego, Sacramento is currently the only other city in the state with enforceable mandates on this issue.

“The majority of [climate plans] in California do not meet this standard, and therefore, in my opinion, are legally challengeable,” said Chandra Slaven, a planning consultant who worked with San Diego on its climate plan starting in 2010. “All it takes is one lawsuit and they’re in trouble.”

Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court created a significant precedent when it declined to hear an appeal by the county of San Diego, which had tried to fend off legal challenges to its own climate action plan. Under a case brought by the Sierra Club, the county will now be forced to redraft its climate plan with enforceable measures for curbing emissions.

To make sure San Diego stays on track to hit its emissions targets, yearly monitoring reports prepared by city staff in collaboration with consultants will measure the impacts of each strategy laid out in the plan.

Upcoming targets include: boosting the urban tree canopy by 15 percent by 2020 and 35 percent by 2035; recycling or composing 75 percent of all solid waste by 2020 and 90 percent by 2035; and cutting car trips in key transportation areas by 20 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2035.

The most controversial decision could be whether to implement community choice aggregation, or CCA, a program that would take control away from the local electric utility when deciding how much renewable energy a city uses.

However, when it comes to meeting San Diego’s transportation goals, elected officials may face an even more complicated puzzle. With vehicle emissions representing more than half of the city’s greenhouse gases, the newly minted Climate Action Plan will fail if residents don’t significantly cut back on the number of miles they drive.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/dec/15/san-diego-climate-action-plan-council-vote/

Note this is a serious climate action plan. It is legally binding. It has teeth, not like the fake and fraud plan of COP21.

 

[Meandering]

I am a tree hugger and love my forests. That's why I'm still here, 'cause it sure aint for the money, honey.

Here they're putting in gas pipe lines to take gas other places without stopping here. No fracking here yet, as it scares the tourists. But they talk about it all the time.

Do they accept the fracking out by you? Are there protests? Mostly here all it amounts to is little yard signs that say no fracking. But north of here they are loving the money, except for the guy that made the gasland movie who emails every time a well is drilled.

But I find it interesting you are not seeing wetlands destruction in favor of commercial development. Not even for parking lots? We've seen more than a few wetlands back filled for parking lots in the past 10 years.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

why is it that these people all have carbon footprints many times the size of average people?

Because they are better than you and you need them to look out for you....

As for alternatives. As long as fossil fuels are dirt cheap, wind and solar cannot compete. It's all about storage, not just cost. It is only feasible once a large scale battery can be built to store energy (solar works days only, in some places (coastal or mountains usually) wind works at night when you don't need it, or in the high plains far from the end place you use it. One critic described this as rich people getting energy subsidies paid for by poor people. Ever see solar panels on a single wide trailer? No. You only see an array on homes in the $250,000 plus range. And out of the $20,000 - $50,000 price tag, the homeowner is only paying a quarter of that in some states. Go figure. Say $40,000. What would a poor person do if you simply gave them that $30,000 of subsidies. I bet some of them would live much better lives if spent wisely.

There are those who say we are about to make a breakthrough in electric storage using liquid salt... Maybe...Maybe not. My doctor retired 10 years ago. Before he retired I had watched a news story about a cure for the common cold and sinus infection based on a fungicide. I asked him what he thought since they claimed it would be ready in about two years. He chuckled and told me that he'd seen a lot of miracle cures touted, but not 1 in a 100 ever made the cut. He was right. I've not heard of it since. We may be a generation away from mass electrical storage which also begs the question. How safe is it to store such vast amounts of energy?

Perhaps the more intriguing storage method would be to go with a high pressure air tank and compress air during periods of excess production, then regenerate the electricity with a generator run with an air-driven motor. We used a lot of air motors in the oil patch because they were spark proof. It's workable but maintenance of the equipment might drive prices up anyway.