big coal


Did the New York Times greenwash the big fossil fuel companies contribution? I know they did. But it is an open question. You decide. What is clear is they accepted Global Warming in the early 70s and by the late 70s they were funding organizations that opposed it. Did they synically oppose Global Warming for 30 years to pump up profits? There is a lawsuit so I imagine the Supreme Court will ultimately decide.

I am going to quote the original story or a good representation of it and then list the site with the disagreement.

https://www.livescience.com/63229-losing-earth-climate-change.html

30 Years Ago, Humans Bungled the Best Chance to Stop Climate Change

NEW YORK — Could the current climate crisis have been averted? Humans may have squandered the best shot at doing so decades ago.

As the 1970s drew to a close, incontrovertible evidence already pointed to the dangers that accumulations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) — resulting from the burning of fossil fuels — posed to the planet. During a pivotal 10-year period, from 1979 to 1989, scientists, activists and government officials worldwide took important first steps to address excessive CO2 emissions and to enact policies that would head off the worst of these emissions’ impact on the global climate, according to “Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change,” a single-article special issue of The New York Times Magazine, published online today (Aug. 1).

Over those 10 years, a window of opportunity opened that might have saved the planet. Efforts were launched on an international level to raise awareness of global warming, curb CO2 output and thereby stave off climate change’s most dire impacts. But those efforts stumbled and stalled, and we are witnessing the devastating consequences now, writer Nathaniel Rich reported in the article. [Images of Melt: Earth’s Vanishing Ice]

It almost worked. At the time, the topic of climate change was not heavily politicized in the U.S. as it is today, Rich said here at a launch event for the article yesterday (July 31). Members of the Republican and Democratic parties supported developing strategies to limit CO2, and advocating for the environment was not seen through the same political lens as it is now, Rich explained.

Scientists aren’t impressed with New York Times’ new story on climate change

Experts label 30,000 word piece “historically inaccurate” and “based on logical non sequiturs.”

Scientists aren’t impressed with New York Times’ new story on climate change

 

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

The Carbon Tax is long overdue nationally, though California’s seems to be chugging right along. But think how far we have come – worse yet, think how far down the tubes we must be that the Chicago Tribune, as an entity, is advocating for it. Read it and weep, either for joy or sadness.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-carbon-tax-epa-climate-20180702-story.html

Editorial:

A carbon tax that could put money in your pocket

Editorial Board  Editorials reflect the opinion of the Editorial Board, as determined by the members of the board, the editorial page editor and the publisher.

The indications of a warming world are numerous and hard to miss. Last year was the third-warmest year on record for both the planet and the United States — exceeded only by 2015 and 2016. In June, scientists reported that Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tons of ice since 1992 — yielding “enough water to cover Texas to a depth of nearly 13 feet,” the Associated Press reported.

The indications of inaction on the subject are also abundant and visible. Last year, Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to ease regulations on power plants and motor vehicles that were integral to the Obama administration’s efforts to slow climate change.

Bipartisan action – once a normal response to environmental harms – is not on the agenda for Congress or the White House. But a growing group of farsighted pragmatists are nonetheless trying to find a middle ground between the entrenched adversaries.

:}

Go there and read. Google much more. More next week

:}

I despise this man. He is bad for the environment and he is a thief.  Like the rest of the Trump administration he delights in being a prick. They are savage because they can be and then beg for “civility” when the tables turn. Well the tables are turning and I hope he gets capitol punishment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scandal-hit-us-environment-chief-could-face-axe-164137894.html

Scandal-hit US environment chief could face axe

Ivan Couronne,AFP 5 hours ago

Washington (AFP) – Facing ever-growing scandals over the spending and behavior of his environment agency chief, Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump appears close to firing the man he appointed to dismantle Barack Obama’s green legacy.

The list of accusations levelled against the 50-year-old head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has grown almost too long to itemize in a single article.

Pruitt has become the focus of multiple investigations in recent months, including by his own agency’s inspector general, two other independent federal agencies and by Congress itself.

All the charges share a common thread — that Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general reported to have close ties to fossil fuels industries, appears to have used the position he has held since February 2017 to enrich his own family’s lifestyle in violation of federal law and has punished subordinates who raised objections to his behavior, or who failed to show sufficient loyalty to him.

It all began with his penchant for first-class and private air travel while on official business, a bill footed by the taxpayers, in contravention of usual government practice.

Then came the reports of the large number of bodyguards he kept around him 24 hours a day, doubling the cost of his predecessors’ security detail.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

This Pope may be the best Pope I have ever lived through. I am not Catholic so I probably shouldn’t even be commenting on this or posting this BUT DAMN he is good. On sex abuse; On being gay; On capitalism and the poor; On so many issues he is right on. Now this. I am amazed.

https://thewest.com.au/business/energy/pope-francis-tells-big-oil-executives-clean-energy-is-an-epochal-challenge-ng-b88862527z

Pope Francis tells big oil executives clean energy is an ‘epochal’ challenge

AP

Pope Francis warned that climate change risked destroying humanity on Saturday (June, 9) and called on energy leaders to help the world to convert to clean fuels to avert catastrophe. Anna Bevan reports

Pope Francis has told world oil executives that the transition to less-polluting energy sources “is a challenge of epochal proportions”, and warned that satisfying the globe’s energy needs “must not destroy civilisation”.

The Vatican says the two-day conference with oil executives was meant as a follow-up to the Pope’s encyclical three years ago calling on people to save the planet from the ravages of climate change and other environmental ills.

Participants included the chief executives of Italian oil giant ENI, BP, ExxonMobil and Norway’s Statoil as well as scientists and managers of major investment funds. Their remarks on the first day of the closed-door conference were not released by the Vatican.

While Pope Francis lauded the oil executives for embedding an assessment of climate change risks into their planning strategies, he also put them on notice for their “continued search for fossil fuel reserves,” two years after the Paris climate accord “clearly urged keeping most fossil fuels underground”.

 

 

 

:}

This is what it is like at the end of a power source. People can hardly wait to get away from coal and on to something else. I say, GOOD FOR THEM. Coal is no longer competitive. No matter how they try to stand in the way coal supporters, including Dotard in Chief, will always lose. Can you say, dust bin of history.

  • 7:30 am

Solar is starting to replace the largest coal plant in the western U.S.

On Navajo land in Arizona, a coal plant and coal mine that have devastated the environment are being replaced by solar–with both enormous benefits and local drawbacks that can serve as a lesson for how the rest of the country will need to manage the transition to renewables.

In the desert near Arizona’s border with Utah on the Navajo Nation, a massive solar array built in 2017 now provides power for around 18,000 Navajo homes. Nearby, construction will begin later this year on a second solar plant. And on another corner of Navajo land, the largest coal plant west of the Mississippi River is preparing to close 25 years ahead of schedule, despite some last-minute attempts to save it.

“Those two [solar] plants really are the beginning of an economic transition,” says Amanda Ormond, managing director of the Western Grid Group, an organization that promotes clean energy.

The coal plant, called the Navajo Generating Station, was built in the 1970s to provide power to growing populations in Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada. A nearby coal mine supplies the power plant with coal. As recently as 2014, the coal plant wasn’t expected to close until 2044–a date negotiated with the EPA to reduce air pollution. But reduced demand for coal, driven both by economics and climate action, means that the plant is scheduled to close in 2019 instead. The coal mine, run by Peabody Energy, will be forced to follow.

:}

Go there and celebrate. I mean read. More next week.

:}

That’s right that big bad ol’ church is a picking on poor wittle me. As Dotard would say, UNFAIR!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/14/the-associated-press-court-sees-if-church-solar-panels-break-electricity-monopoly.html

Court sees if church solar panels break electricity monopoly

By EMERY P. DALESIO, AP Business Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina’s highest court is taking up a case that could force new competition on the state’s electricity monopolies.

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Utilities Commission’s decision to fine clean-energy advocacy group NC WARN for putting solar panels on a Greensboro church’s rooftop and then charging it below-market rates for power.

The commission told NC WARN that it was producing electricity illegally and fined the group $60,000. The group said it was acting privately and appealed to the high court.

If the group prevails, it could put new pressure on Duke Energy’s monopoly. State regulators say a ruling for NC WARN would allow companies to install solar equipment and sell power on site, shaving away customers and forcing Duke Energy to raise rates on everyone else.

That’s because if NC WARN’s deal with Faith Community Church is allowed, the precedent could open the door for others to lure away from Duke Energy “the customers with the highest profit potential, such as commercial and industrial customers with large energy needs and ample rooftop space,” attorney Robert Josey Jr. wrote in a court filing.

:}

Go there amd read. Go there and weep real tears. More next week.

:}

The slowing even the reversal of the Gulf Stream by fresh water discharge has been talked about for at least 20 or 30 years. It could be an “end state” of global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it. But it is not the BRIEF article citing two studies that caught my eye…it was the snarcky stupid comments that followed. Is it possible for humans to devolve into maggots?

http://www.newser.com/story/257892/the-gulf-stream-is-dying-and-thats-bad.html

Dying Gulf Stream May Trigger a Global Nightmare
Scientists say climate change plays a role
By Neal Colgrass,  Newser Staff
Posted Apr 15, 2018 4:00 PM CDT
Updated Apr 16, 2018 5:03 AM CDT

(Newser) – Scientists are raising alarm bells after two studies found that the Gulf Stream—an ocean current key to regulating Earth’s climate—is the weakest it’s been in 1,600 years, the Guardian reports. The culprit is apparently melting sea ice and glaciers, which inject fresh water into the North Atlantic and weaken the stream. “Fiddling with [the Gulf Stream] is very dangerous, because you may well trigger some surprises,” says climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know.” If the stream dies, scientists say, its equatorial heat would stop reaching the North Atlantic—plunging Europe into bone-numbing winters and affecting weather worldwide. Even subtler changes “could wreak havoc” on the Atlantic Ocean’s “delicate ecosystems,” Smithsonian reports.

vietvet1968
12 hours, 35 minutes ago
The Greenland Ice sheet is not melting. Check out the facts. It’s even with 2015. Danish Meteorological Institute. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
wboehmer
Apr 17, 2018 5:24 PM CDT
To claim the Gulf Stream “is the weakest it’s been in 1,600 years” requires having collected a lot of data which is impossible to have collected. For starters, since the Gulf Stream was only first discovered in 1513 by the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon, for the first 1,095 of those 1,600 years its existence was not even known, let alone how strong or weak it was. Like many claims about the Earth’s climate, this one is utter nonsense.
Francis Kennedy
Apr 16, 2018 11:23 PM CDT
It’s OUR fault, right?? Since humans are the cause, that’s also the solution? You just have to decide how many humans need to die, to save the earth. Simple.

:}

Go there and comment. Oh I mean read. More next week.

:}

Once renewables get a bite of the apple eating it down to the core does not take long. I know that is a really bad metaphor, but right now besides doing my happy dance it is the best I can come up with.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/renewables-conservation-start-pushing-fossil-fuels-off-the-us-grid/?comments=1&post=35009197

US electricity use drops, renewables push fossil fuels out of the mix

2017 saw both coal and natural gas use decline.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney once said that “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.” But in the US, increased energy efficiency has helped drive a drop in total electricity use. That, combined with the rise of renewable power, caused the use of both coal and natural gas to decline last year.

The changes, according to the Energy Information Agency, are relatively small. Total electric generation last year was down 1.5 percent compared to the year before, a drop of 105,000 GigaWatt-hours. But both coal and natural gas saw declines that were even larger. Coal use was down by 2.5 percent, a smaller decline than it has seen in many recent years. But the numbers for its future aren’t promising; no new coal plants were opened, and 6.3 Gigawatts of coal capacity were retired in 2017.

Continuing recent trends, 9.3GW of natural gas capacity were brought online, although that was partly offset by the retirement of 4.0GW of older gas plants. Despite the additional capacity, however, natural gas use was also down, dropping by nearly 8 percent.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

The real important point from this article for me is that, ‘The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”’. In other words, for the last 2o years the utilities should have been investing in renewables and they did not. The point being that renewables are easier to turn “off” when you do not need them. If the utilities start investing heavily now in renewables they may survive. It is a horse race at this point.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2018/2/27/17052488/electricity-demand-utilities

The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes.

In all that bedlam, it’s easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant.

Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”:

:}

Go there and read gleefully. More next week.

:}

The head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, announced in Tennessee that the “War On Coal” was over. This during his announcement that the EPA was with drawing the Clean Power Plan proposed by the Obama Administration. What a joke this administration is. They accuse the former head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy ,  of picking winners and losers. Well guess what? They have already been picked. Coal lost.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2017/10/09/texas-monticello-power-plant-closes-signaling-undeniable-shift-natural-gas-renewable-energy

Texas’ Monticello power plant closes, signaling the undeniable shift to natural gas and renewable energy

Dallas Morning News Editorial

If there were any remaining doubts, the age of coal is over and the era of natural gas and renewables is officially here.

Luminant’s decision last week to shut its Monticello Power Plant near Mount Pleasant, one of Texas’ largest and dirtiest coal-fired electricity plants, is a prime example of this shift. The plant’s pending closure in January is a win for clean air and the result of the new economics of energy that renders coal-fired power plants like the Monticello facility cost-prohibitive relics.

This is particularly true in Texas: Hydraulic fracturing has made natural gas production cleaner and cheaper than coal.  Each year, electricity from the sun and wind contribute more megawatts to the state’s power grid. The state’s deregulated electricity market increases competition, which leaves costly, emissions belching coal-fired power plants like Monticello on the wrong side of a historic transformation.

We’re pleased that Luminant took this step after a year-long review of its operations. A decade ago, this editorial board helped lead the charge against the former TXU Corp.’s plan to build about a dozen coal-fired power plants in the state.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

Next Page »