Use of climate-unfriendly fluorinated gases should be banned in new air-conditioning appliances and refrigerators by 2020, according to a vote on draft legislation in the Environment Committee at the European Parliament.
MEPs said.”Following bans on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the 1980s to stop depletion of the ozone layer, this draft legislation targets use of several other fluorinated gases that are harmful to the climate. “F-gases” can have a greenhouse warming effect thousands of times stronger than equivalent amounts of CO2. Overall use of potent hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) greenhouse gases should be reduced 84% by 2030,
“Today’s vote represents an important step in the fight against climate change. Emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases have risen by 60% since 1990 in the EU. Banning the use of these “super greenhouse gases” in refrigeration and air-conditioning is therefore urgently needed to reverse this negative trend”, said lead MEPBas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, NL), after the draft…
View original post 187 more words
Does drastically reducing our carbon emissions also require us to drastically reduce the rate at which our population is presently growing?
This essay will explain why global CO2 emissions need to be decreased; will outline dystopian consequences of rapid human population decrease which mirror the dystopia of a high CO2 environment; explore ways to reduce human population while minimising negative social consequences; and, lastly, will suggest that decreasing animal agriculture would be less disastrous than decreasing human population, and will explore the feasibility of this option.
View original post 989 more words
We now have had three nuclear disasters, with, for the most part, little effect on people from radiation.
The latest report from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) says that radiation from the Fukushima disaster had little effect on people. UNSCEAR’s May 31, press release said:
“Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers.”
So, once again the radiation bugaboo has been refuted.
Only Chernobyl had any health consequences whatever, and UNSCEAR has shown them to be minimal. Certainly not the horrendous consequences claimed by extremists, such as Greenpeace, or the Union of Concerned Scientists, or the Aspen Institute, or the Natural Resource Defense Council.
In addition, Chernobyl was of a design prone…
View original post 399 more words
The Chinese government has approved a set of regulations designed to protect the environment and improve the safety standards of food and water.
The National Council recommended, among other things, to accelerate the installation of emission level controllers for small refineries operating on coal, and slower development of the most energy-intensive industries such as metallurgy, chemical industry, petrochemical and cement.
Enterprises in the most polluting industries will have until the end of 2017 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30 percent.
Instructions were issued to regional authorities to raise the criteria used in the evaluation of various projects in terms of their impact on the environment, and not to grant authorisation, funding and land projects to those that do not meet the new standards.
It is also expected penalties to be imposed on companies…
View original post 162 more words
Meanwhile we should question – If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?
I told you yesterday President Obama was going to address climate change. Even though only the Weather Channel found the speech worthy of airing in its entirety, here is the Wall Street Journal’s review and outlook of the President’s war on fossil fuels:
President Obama’s climate speech on Tuesday was grandiose even for him, but its surreal nature was its particular hallmark. Some 12 million Americans still can’t find work, real wages have fallen for five years, three-fourths of Americans now live paycheck to check, and the economy continues to plod along four years into a quasi-recovery. But there was the President in tony Georgetown, threatening more energy taxes and mandates that will ensure fewer jobs, still lower incomes and slower growth.
Mr. Obama’s “climate action plan” adds up to one of the most extensive reorganizations of the U.S. economy since the 1930s, imposed through administrative fiat and raw executive power…
View original post 814 more words
I found an interesting paper recently, International Law in the Anthropocene: Responding to the Geoengineering Challenge by Karen N. Scott, Professor in Law at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. In it, she discusses the role of international environmental law in dealing with the impact humans have on the planet.
She focuses her attention on one aspect, geoengineering, defined in her paper as defined as “the intentional large-scale manipulation of the environment”. She describes geoengineering both as a part of the “climate change mitigation tool box” as well as a serious challenge to environmental protection.
She says, “The traditional distinction between humankind and nature and the characterization of the latter as something outside of, or other than, the human sphere no longer accurately reflects the relationship between humankind and the environment in the Anthropocene.”
And even if there is still some dispute over whether to call our current epoch…
View original post 221 more words
29 (LPAC) In December 2009, President Barack Obama — fresh off the failed British genocide project at Copenhagen — ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to declare carbon dioxide, the plentiful gas vital to plant life on this planet, a dangerous pollutant. On June 25, 2013 that same President announced a new program of green fascism based on a drive to massively reduce carbon emissions, which, thanks to the deindustrialization underway over the last decades, have already been cut back to where they were 20 years ago.
The insanity of this announcement is captured in the following paragraph: “Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our power plants. But here’s the thing: Right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into our air. None. Zero. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and…
View original post 204 more words
As Part of my PhD I am investigating how, how fast and how much CO2 may leak from a CO2 reservoir to the surface through faults. Faults are areas within the earth’s crust where layers of rock have been displaced to each other and often form pathways for fluids (water, oil, gas, CO2). I have tried to explain how faults form and their role in my research in this post.
In eastern Arizona, between the towns of St. Johns and Springerville, there is a natural CO2 reservoir in the subsurface. It has been leaking CO2 from the reservoir to the surface in the past – and this leakage is indicated by a certain type of carbonate rock at the surface: Travertine. It forms when CO2 rich fluids reach the surface and can thus be used to track ancient leakage points. This can…
View original post 221 more words
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh — Canada Free Press — June 29, 2013
If you ask the global warming alarmists, scientists with a liberal agenda who hide and delete research data to fit their talking points, corrupt third world countries that run the United Nations, and the globalist proponents of UN Agenda 21, the answer is yes.
If you ask corporations and countries like Brazil who profit from pushing biofuels (ethanol and DieselMaxx), the EPA, those green on the outside and red on the inside who want to bankrupt the coal industry, those who want energy prices to skyrocket, and those who receive huge government grants and subsidies to profit from expensive wind and solar energy, the answer is yes.If you ask students brainwashed into the environmental worship of Mother Earth, investors who stand to make a fortune from selling carbon swaps, Hollywood know-it-alls, and bureaucrats who charge carbon taxes, the answer is yes.
If you ask real…
View original post 249 more words
Last Tuesday, President Obama gave his climate change speech at Georgetown University, addressing one of the more controversial environmental issues: the increasing amounts of carbon pollution being produced from our power plants, and the lack of regulations on them. During his speech, Obama noted that there were absolutely no limitations on coal-fired power plants, allowing for the “unlimited dumping” of carbon emissions from these plants into our air. These plants alone account for 40% of the total pollution created on a yearly basis.
Several plans of action were mentioned in the climate change talks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is being asked to work closely with state governments, industry and corporate heads, and various stakeholders in order to create and set carbon pollution regulations and standards. The was also up to $8 billion in loan guarantee funds mentioned, being put towards promoting and improving advanced fossil energy and energy efficiency…
View original post 470 more words
President Obama gave his long-awaited climate change speech this week. In it, he discussed possible approval of the Keystone Pipeline – the massive conduit to bring Canadian tar sands oil down to the gulf coast. In discussing the pipeline’s potential environmental effects, he focused – as most commentators do – on the impact of carbon emissions, both in extracting the tar sands oil and burning the stuff after it makes its way down the pipeline and into American (or Chinese) automobiles. “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest,” he said. “And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” Obama said that he would only approve the pipeline if the State Department certifies that it will not lead to a net increase in global carbon emissions. That drops the…
View original post 579 more words
World levels of CO2 recently passed 400 ppm. So here is a revised and updated version of an old subvert I made in 2007:
This diagram shows the strong link between rises in CO2 and rises in global Temperature. CO2 has now exceeded 400 parts per million by volume (pppmv) which has not happened in the last half a million years. The last time CO2 was this high, the world’s oceans were approximately 20meters higher – that’s 66 feet! Coca-cola adverts used to start “I’d like to teach the world to sing”. I now say “I’d like to teach the world to SWIM!” – as a symbol of the need to learn new ways to survive the many changes that climate chaos will bring us. See more of my climate art on my old website.
We need to stop adding to the problem: shut down the fossil fuel industry, stop…
View original post 91 more words
Astrobiologist states that as the sun gets hotter, CO2 levels will drop causing all plantlife on earth to die, followed by human life. HUH?? But….but….
The end of the world is (almost) nigh: Scientists predict that all life will be wiped off our planet in less than a billion years
- Astrobiologist Jack O’Malley-James says the sun will get hotter and hotter causing greater evaporation which will reduce carbon dioxide levels
- This will mean there is eventually too little CO2 for plants to survive
- When they die out, herbivores will also die out, followed by carnivores
- Microbes will then be all that remains until another billion years later when the seas will also dry out meaning very little life will remain
Emma Innes — Daily Mail (UK) — July 2, 2013
All animals and plants will vanish from the Earth within the next billion years, a new study suggests.
Ironically Armageddon is going to arrive as a result of too little, rather than too much, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Currently experts are trying to find…
View original post 95 more words
Ever wonder where the electricity you use comes from, and how it is produced? Check out the EPA’s Power Profiler! This nifty tool allows you to look up any location (in the US, sorry international readers!) in order to:
- Determine your power grid region based on your ZIP code and electric utility
- Compare the fuel mix and air emissions rates of the electricity in your region to the national average
- Determine the air emissions impacts of electricity use in your home or business
After shocking you with the reality of your impact from electricity use, it shows you some energy efficiency tips. Most importantly, it shows you how you can buy green power in your area through regional Renewable Energy Credit/Certificate programs!
Here’s a summary from my location: Very high coal use, higher than average carbon emission. We are trying to change that!
Check out the Power Profiler tool and let us know what you find…
View original post 38 more words
When you study the climate of the deep past, time is relative. What one scientist may consider a long time — say, a decade — is only a short span of time to someone who routinely thinks in millions of years. Climate change is affected by processes operating at hours, millions of years, and everything in between. To complicate matters, some of the driving forces of climate operate in different directions on different timescales, so keeping everything straight isn’t trivial. This is the first in a series of posts explaining the timescales of climate change, from the scale of plate tectonics (millions of years) to sunspots (decades). Much of it borrows heavily from what I learned in a graduate course on Climates of the Past, which used William Ruddiman’s excellent book, Earth’s Climates, Past and Future. If you’re interested in reading beyond the simplified explanations here, I urge you to…
View original post 1,086 more words
The noted environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg thinks that President Obama has some fantasies about climate issues. Lomborg posted on usatoday.com “Obama should confront climate change fantasies”. In reviewing the President’s recent speech on his new climate policies, he lists these four:
- Renewables are a major part of the solution today. No, they are almost trivial. Today, the world gets 81% of its energy from fossil fuels – by 2035, in the most green scenario, we will still get 79% from fossil fuels. Wind and solar will increase from 0.8% to 3.2% — impressive, but not what is going to matter.
View original post 369 more words
A train ran away in Quebec,
its crude-oil exploded the wreck.
To ship oil from the source;
Use a pipe-line of course.
The Keystone will thwart the OPEC.
President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech Tuesday Jun 25 at Georgetown University, saying he lacked “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”
“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”
Obama mentioned more than 20 times “Carbon pollution”. In his weekly radio address the following Saturday he mentioned it again, without specifying what he means by “carbon pollution”.
Obama also said the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline should only be approved if the project would not “significantly exacerbate” greenhouse gas pollution.
Right now the crude oil…
View original post 174 more words