Environment wins with reduced human activity

There's a silver lining, of sorts, in the reduced human activity related to the coronavirus shutdown. Nice visuals from space and discussion here:

In The Midst Of A Tragic Human Pandemic, The Environment Is Flourishing

https://truththeory.com/2020/03/19/in-the-midst-of-a-tragic-human-pandemic-the-environment-is-flourishing/

Move from lots of pollution to a beautiful clean sky. Very ugly way to get there, but the earth is getting a breather from the humans torturing the land and sky.

Smart tech solution to save the rain forest.

Topher White: What can save the rainforest? Your used cell phone #TED : http://on.ted.com/q0TOb
This is a great solution to illegal loggers.
Very cool solution.
The importance of rainforest deforestation may be overstated with the stats. It may not be more important than anything else... But there are several ways to look at it. Very, very important though.

Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times

Why I support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times:

This July 28, 2014 article by Lynn Ringenberg (Professor Emeritus at USF) discusses the horrible health and wellness impacts of burning coal.

"There is no such thing as clean coal."

The good news is that Natural Gas is so plentiful in the states and so very very cheap, that it is seriously supplanting coal in power plant production. NatGas is so plentiful and contain in oil, that 40% to 50% of all US NatGas produced is flared into the atmosphere as an oil byproduct.

Of course the EPA is pushing this conversion along to NatGas. In the absence of an energy policy in the USA, the EPA is the very last stop in this decision process as to produce power, short term and long.

But here is the BIG problem. As we cut back on energy and oil and coal usage in the USA, we move the coal power production to other countries. Our exports are way up. And other countries don't use the same cleaning technologies as we (scrubbers and such).

Here's a great discussion of our coal usage and export-imports at The Energy Collective by Meredith Fowlie on July 29, 2014.

No matter what you feel about the EPA stepping up and getting involved in coal power, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The EPA is the last, and arguably the worst way to address energy policy, health issues from fossil fuel consumption and global warming.

Some would argue, the EPA actions are better than doing nothing at all.

The EPA is the wrench used to hammer the square nail. Coal has huge impact on health and wellness, so let's export all we've got. We take make the green, they take the black.

'via Blog this'

Invest Yourself - Roaches, Never Just One

Free Investment Newsletter | Invest Yourself:

I really like what they (Robert B. Rinear) say on the currency. That all seems very very
true.  The currencies in the world are
all crap. The best may be Japan and they can’t keep the Yen low enough to be a competitive exporter so it is wreaking havoc on their economy…

The Yankee Dollar is a piece of crap. But we are less crappy then the
Yuan or the Euro.  We are the best house
in a slum-blighted neighborhood. 

You can only have all the currencies in the world artificially low for
so long. Especially if all the effects are compounding, year over year. I
really do think that real assets, like land and gold, will slingshot into the
stratosphere sometime rather soon, say 1 to 3 years.

But the same thing that they complain about, the talking heads at CNN,
they did themselves. Go look at any of the databases, since recorded history,
on any of the measures you chose, and you will see that the global warming is
very real, and accelerating. It also coincides well with populations explosion and industrialization.  And it is a compounding effect. Panicking certainly doesn't make
sense, but ignoring facts and data supporting global warming means the “hoax”
is on you.

Give a look at: https://www.skepticalscience.com/
(Real science and no crap, discussing the real facts and actual data about
Climate Change & Global Warming. It is very real by every measure that is
measurable.)

Also see: http://theconsensusproject.com/

Want to know about Sustainability, look at my book (www.TinyURL.com/SustainYBook/) created
from live Wikipedia links on Sustainability. The Intro is by Elmer Hall and created the
dynamic links to carefully selected Wikipedia articles (pages). The pages in
this book represent the best, most current and most accurate single source of
information related to sustainability and climate change in the world.

Sustainability. The world currencies are not!... 

Ever growing greenhouse gas emissions,  sustainable we are not.

'via Blog this'

Study: Natural gas industry can cut fracking emissions

Study: Natural gas industry can cut fracking emissions:

This would be great to minimize the methane from the fracking of wells.

Since NatGas is soooo much cleaner than coal (and gasoline). It is a slam-dunk decision as a way to start moving away from coal.

Of course, it is not a sustainable solution for the looong term. NatGas could be a bridge fuel to a clean and renewable future.

'via Blog this'

A frosty G20 puts global warming on ice - Comment - Voices - The Independent

A frosty G20 puts global warming on ice - Comment - Voices - The Independent:

Great article. Like many such meetings, the major part of the the G20 meeting gets diverted to North Korea or Egypt or Syria. Too bad, there's a lot the the G20 can do, besides putter with the politics that's taken over the news today.

Surprisingly, there was movement on making progress on the very best places to push hard related to our impact on the environment, greenhouse gases (GHGs) and global warming.

Most people who don't focus on sustainability don't realize what a wicked impact hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs) have on the (atmosphere) environment. Most HFCs are released into the atmosphere from Freon, the gas that has an ugly impact on the Ozone layer in the atmosphere. But the other problem with florine-based gasses is that they last in the atmosphere for centuries, not decades. Look at the global warming potential of various gases here: GWP at INTCCC and wikipedia GHGs.

So continuing to use Freon is a gift for the future that keeps on giving, and giving, and giving.

The approach to CFCs is one of the great success stories of our time. Starting with the Montreal Protocol in 1987 the international community has banded together to address and reduce CFCs. Most countries, that is. Progress has been especially strong because of the progress in alternative refrigerants that are still cheap and efficient. Not so much so, the progress in other greenhouse gases.

As you can see, the GHGs of carbon dioxide and the noxious oxides are increasing in the atmosphere unabated. Methane seems to be slowing down a little. Remember that these increased levels are above and beyond the levels that the atmosphere has become accustom to. Longer duration graphs are equally as telling.

But as you can see, CFC emissions have plateaued, but not necessarily reduced. The problem is that several countries, apparently, have not bothered to make the leap to replacement FREON  refrigerants, namely India and Brazil. One of the best, easiest, cheapest and greatest-impact methods to address GHG issues is to pressure those rogue countries to join the rest of the world on HFC reduction.

Turns out the G20 meeting, lead by China and USA, are looking to "encourage" these rogue countries to pick up the pace on HFCs.

Making progress on the most important things first, is a great approach to sustainability. HFCs is a great place to push. Even the G20, and the UN that don't agree on much, have taking this approach.

EE is probably the greatest place to focus, however. Energy efficiency (EE) and similar types of inefficiencies are the great untapped places to save money, energy and the environment. Everybody wins, except, maybe the power companies. But that's the focus of other books and blog posts.

'via Blog this'

Rising levels of acids in seas may endanger marine life, says study | Environment | The Guardian

Rising levels of acids in seas may endanger marine life, says study | Environment | The Guardian

Ouch!

This has been a growing concern. The rapid increases in the CO2 levels -- blasting past 400ppm as we speak -- that has several scary consequences.

First, there's the greenhouse gas (GHG) thing and the rising temperatures of the air and land.

Second, the excess CO2, at least some of it, is absorbed into the oceans. This increases the acidity of the oceans. Higher acid levels could wipe out shell fish, coral reefs and other things/animals that are critical for the health of the oceans (and of the planet).

Here's what the article and the scientists said:

Hans Poertner, professor of marine biology at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, and co-author of a new study of the phenomenon, told the Guardian: "The current rate of change is likely to be more than 10 times faster than it has been in any of the evolutionary crises in the earth's history."
Seawater is naturally slightly alkaline, but as oceans absorb CO2 from the air, their pH level falls gradually. Under the rapid escalation of greenhouse gas emissions, ocean acidification is gathering pace and many forms of marine life – especially species that build calcium-based shells – are under threat.

Ouch!

Sea levels set for a 'continuing rise' for generations...The Daily Climate ... Like baking a cake.

Sea levels set for a 'continuing rise' for generations — The Daily Climate:

So here's the story. It's already baked into the cake.

The current setting has sea levels rising for decades. Even if we all went to carbon neutral tomorrow.

The basics are that greenhouse gasses will persist in the atmosphere for decades, even centuries. The most prevalent is Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which will stay in the atmosphere for 70 years, maybe 100.

So, we can expect temperatures to rise 2, 3, maybe 4 or 5 degrees C. And, as the ocean waters warm, the water expands (thermal expansion). If the oceans are about 2 miles deep, on average, the heat expansion really makes a difference. We're talking yards here, not feet.

Some estimates seem to show only the top, maybe the top 10% of the oceans heating and expanding. But that's because they are using a short planning horizon. If you wait another 50 to 100 years, you should expect far more of the oceans to warm, and expand.

That is, the heating is already "baked into the cake"... Or in our case, baked into the atmosphere, which will eventually bake into the oceans, which will eventually...

Well, you get the picture.

Make no doubt, I'm looking and hoping that this scenario is not the most likely to play forward.

We do have lower solar and volcanic activities which should serve as a cooling damper for the atmosphere.

But we appear to be overshadowing that offset. At least from all I can see.

As always, the best and first place to start is conservation and efficiency.

'via Blog this'

Why Won't Yahoo! Let Employees Work From Home? - Businessweek

Why Won't Yahoo! Let Employees Work From Home? - Businessweek:


Oh boy, Mayer is gonna cause a lot of shake up  here with her everyone-has-to-travel-to-work policy.

Apparently (Today Show) she now as a nursery set up next door to her office for her new convenience. That helps new parents, maybe, but not the ones with kids in school or those people who live a longer way from the office.

But Mayer is shaking it up.

There has long been the debate about the down side of work-at-home (WAH). And a tech leader like Yahoo  might just be a place to face-to-face interaction that is lost from WAH.

But, I fear that making everyone drive to work is a major setback to telecommuting efforts that are so very beneficial to the efforts of sustainability.

Studies show that the true costs of telecommuting are far closer to $40,000 per year than to the $5,000 cost of gas. Most of that savings goes to the employer. Closer to $45,000 if you want to include the less-tangible costs of externalities such as infrastructure and greenhouse gases (GHGs).


'via Blog this'

Energy and Ecology: Comparison of global CO2 emissions estimates by GCP, IEA, BP, EDGAR, and US EIA (1990-2012)

Energy and Ecology: Comparison of global CO2 emissions estimates by GCP, IEA, BP, EDGAR, and US EIA (1990-2012):

Here is a cool chart of the estimates for global carbon emissions.

It shows the estimates from various sources and proves an interesting view as to high and low estimates.

So we are probably at about 35B tonnes per year. The increase doesn't look like it is planing off any time soon though, no matter which way you measure it.

'via Blog this'

Dirty little Coal secrets... shhh .... Talking Tr-Ash...

Sustainability eMagazine

If you have never done so, you want to visit the EarthJustice site about coal ash: http://earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/coal-ash-contaminates-our-lives

And what you want to do, is visit this site every time you see one of these sweet and pretty ads about "Clean Coal".

Admittedly, the EarthJustice takes the other side of this far, very far-from-clean, source of energy. However, coal produces half of the electric power in the US. Well, all right, now only about 34%. But that "cheap" energy has a lot to do with the high quality of life that we all enjoy. It also does not get credit for the hidden costs it presents to the environment and to personal health.

Back to the dirty little secret of Coal Ash. Remember the Ash trashing by TVA in 2008. The damage is into the billions of dollars and climbing. And it has not been cleaned up. All those heavy metals in the ash down a couple rivers. Sadly, that's a gift that keeps on giving.

Heavy metals include lead, mercury, arsenic and more. Sulfur, lots of sulfur. They can have traces of radiation. We, in the US, tend to want to clean most of these by-products from this soot from the smoke. Other countries like India and China, not so much so.

And we have these ash build-ups all over the world.... And the mountains are growing.

Here's just one source on the running costs and litigation at ABC News.

Of course is the worst fossil fuel, by far, in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

We don't need to burn that dirty coal, better simply to ship it to China and India and let them burn it there. No harm done in that.

AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low - Yahoo! News

AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low - Yahoo! News:

CO2 from the US is down. WOW!. See the full EIA report on CO2 Emissions.

The last time we had that was in 2009, we all assumed that was mainly because of the economic slowdown. But apparently, even then, part of it was because of the switching to NatGas.

"[T]he U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total."

So the big reasons for the CO2 emissions reduction is primarily because of the switch to NatGas from coal in energy generation! ... The slowing of economic growth down to 1.8% is another reason. 

What's amazing about this is that the switch to natgas is primarily driven by market forces. The power industry has been wining endlessly about the big food of the EPA on the juggler veins of the power industry... and of course the US economy. Yet, the move happened way ahead of schedule. 

Low prices of nat gas make it, well, irresponsible, not to switch to clean gas away from dirty coal.

Health benefits (fewer deaths and injuries in mining). Massive improvement in air and water quality. No coal ash to deal with.

This would all be a good thing, if it weren't for the massive increase in coal consumption from China and India. Where, exactly, is the benefit of us cutting back on coal when we simply ship it to China and they burn it. And they don't worry about scrubbing it as much as we.

China now burns half the coal in the world, and rising quickly.

Sorry for looking good news in the eye and sounding skeptical. We sometimes simply need a little good news here and there and just to enjoy it.

Ahhhh, NatGas, A cleaner addiction to a unsustainable problem.

'via Blog this'

Federal Appeals Court Ruling Puts Climate Change into Election Debate

Federal Appeals Court Ruling Puts Climate Change into Election Debate:

So there is no question. The EPA can, in fact, regulate greenhouse gasses (GHGs).

It gives additional credibility to the science of GHGs=> Global Warming => Not good things for the future.

There are a couple things that this will do. It will elevate the EPA and its regulations in the election world.

It should escalate the attacks on the EPA.

And one would hope that at least COAL would start to lose favor.

It will be interesting to see how this plays forward.

Here's the AP take on the same court ruling in the San Francisco Chronicle.

'via Blog this'