[TheClimate.Vote] February 8, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Feb 8 08:53:37 EST 2018
/February 8, 2018/
[Dangerous misinformation]
*EPA head Scott Pruitt says global warming may help 'humans flourish'
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/epa-head-scott-pruitt-says-global-warming-may-help-humans-flourish>*
EPA administrator says 'There are assumptions made that because the
climate is warming that necessarily is a bad thing'
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has
suggested that global warming may be beneficial to humans, in his latest
departure from mainstream climate science.
Pruitt, who has previously erred by denying that carbon dioxide is a key
driver of climate change, has again caused consternation among
scientists by suggesting that warming temperatures could benefit
civilization.
The EPA administrator said that humans are contributing to climate "to a
certain degree", but added: "We know humans have most flourished during
times of warming trends. There are assumptions made that because the
climate is warming that necessarily is a bad thing.
"Do we know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year
2100 or year 2018?" he told a TV station in Nevada. "It's fairly
arrogant for us to think we know exactly what it should be in 2100."
Pruitt said he wanted an "honest, transparent debate about what we do
know and what we don't know, so the American people can be informed and
make decisions on their own".
Under Pruitt's leadership, the EPA is mulling whether to stage a
televised "red team blue team" debate between climate scientists and
those who deny the established science that human activity is warming
the planet.
Donald Trump has also repeatedly questioned the science of climate
change, tweeting during a cold snap in December that the US "could use a
little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not
other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against".
The EPA itself is unequivocal that warming temperatures, and resulting
environmental changes, are a danger to human health via heatwaves, smoke
from increased wildfires, worsening smog, extreme weather events, spread
of diseases, water-borne illnesses and food insecurity...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/epa-head-scott-pruitt-says-global-warming-may-help-humans-flourish
-[Las Vegas TV News]
*EXCLUSIVE: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt goes one-on-one with News 3
<http://news3lv.com/news/local/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-goes-one-on-one-with-news-3>*
video 12 mins
LAS VEGAS (KSNV) - Chief Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency Scott Pruitt sat down with News 3's Gerard Ramalho Tuesday
morning to discuss a variety of issues, including mining regulation,
climate change, the Paris Climate Accord and President Trump's desires
to roll back coal regulation.
http://news3lv.com/news/local/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-goes-one-on-one-with-news-3
[New South Wales, Australia]
*NSW court to hear 'landmark' challenge to coalmine over climate change
impact
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/nsw-court-to-hear-landmark-challenge-to-coalmine-over-climate-change-impact>*
Case brought by group from Hunter Valley town, which it says has been
devastated by Peabody Energy's Wilpinjong mine.
In what is described as a landmark case, a New South Wales court will be
asked to overturn a decision to extend the life of a coalmine on the
grounds the state government failed to properly consider the impact on
the climate.
The case is brought by a community group from the tiny Hunter Valley
village of Wollar, which it says has been devastated by the development
and gradual expansion of the Wilpinjong coalmine over the past decade.
Mine owner Peabody Energy won approval last April to further expand the
mine, which sits between the towns of Mudgee and Denman, to extend its
life by seven years to 2033...
In a case starting on Thursday, the Wollar Progress Association will
argue the decision was unlawful as it did not properly consider the
impact of the increased greenhouse gas emissions, including "downstream"
emissions when the coal is burned in NSW and overseas power plants....[more]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/07/nsw-court-to-hear-landmark-challenge-to-coalmine-over-climate-change-impact
[Religion]
*Churches warn firms over pay, gender and climate change
<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/07/churches-warn-firms-over-pay-gender-and-climate-change>*
Slash CEO income, bring more women on board and go low carbon, Church
Investors Group tells companies
The group, which represents church organisations with combined
investment assets of about £17bn, has told companies listed on the FTSE
350 index it will refuse to re-elect directors at firms failing to make
sufficient progress in key area
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/07/churches-warn-firms-over-pay-gender-and-climate-change
[Video, Sea Level Rise Map ]
*3D Maps Show Famous Landmarks Underwater
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UOGoF7HThg>*
Yale Climate Connections
They show how higher sea levels could transform the National Mall,
Battery Park, and other sites.
If global sea levels were to rise eight feet, landmarks such as the
National Mall in Washington, D.C., or Battery Park in New York City,
would be underwater. It's hard to imagine.
But a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
finds that if emissions of carbon pollution continue unchecked
throughout this century, this extreme scenario is possible.
To help people imagine what it would look like locally, the nonprofit
Climate Central created an overlay for Google Earth's 3D maps. Users can
zoom in and see renderings of flooded neighborhoods and streets.
Carl Parker is a meteorologist with The Weather Channel, which shared
some of these images online.
Parker: "When you see these familiar places, being completely covered by
water, you start to really realize the impact of this."
He hopes that reflecting on the consequences of this worst-case-scenario
will inspire people to take action to reduce carbon pollution.
Parker: "If people don't want to see truly profound changes to their
country, to their states, to their cities, we need to start moving in a
different direction."
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/12/3d-maps-show-famous-landmarks-under-water/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UOGoF7HThg
[Winter Sports]
*Cricket and golf join snowsports under threat from climate change
<https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/07/golf-cricket-snowsports-threat-climate-change>*
Skiing industry in Scotland could be finished within 50 years
Cricket hit by increased rainfall while links suffer coastal erosion
The future of snowsports is under threat, according to a report into the
impact of climate change on grassroots and elite sport.
Although it has been well below freezing as athletes prepared for the
Winter Olympics in South Korea this week, winter temperatures in the
Alps, where many British competitors train, could rise by up to 4C by
2100. By then, only six of the past 19 Winter Olympics venues could be
sufficiently cold to act as host cities.
The Met Office has warned the skiing industry in Scotland could collapse
within 50 years as winters become too mild for regular snowfall.
The Team GB snowboarder Aimee Fuller, whose annual training venue in
Switzerland has undergone huge change in the past decade, said:
"Snowboarding is really susceptible to the impact of climate change and
we can see the impact on our sport in the mountains on a daily basis."
In the UK, the governing bodies of cricket and golf are growing
increasingly concerned about the effect of extreme weather related to
climate change. According to the England and Wales Cricket Board, 27% of
England's home one-day internationals have been played with reduced
overs since 2000 because of rain. At least 175 days of play, equivalent
to around 16,000 overs, have been lost in five of the past 10 years in
the County Championship...
Sea-level rise poses the most serious threat to golf in the UK,
including at St Andrews, known as the home of golf. Some believe a 20%
decline in golf club membership since 2005 can be partially ascribed to
worsening weather trends.
Steve Isaac, the director of sustainability at the R&A, said: "Golf is
impacted by climate change more than most other sports. We are
witnessing different types and timings of disease, pest and weed outbreaks."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/07/golf-cricket-snowsports-threat-climate-change
[psych]
*Does Threat of Climate Change Affect Mental Health
<https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/01/19/does-threat-of-climate-change-affect-mental-health/131436.html>*
In the study, UA researcher Sabrina Helm, an associate professor of
family and consumer science found that psychological responses to
climate change seem to vary based on what type of concern people show
for the environment. Individuals displaying the most concern about the
planet's animals and plants were also experiencing the most stress.
The researchers outline three distinct types of environmental concern:
-Egoistic concern is concern about how what's happening in the
environment directly impacts the individual; for example, a person might
worry about how air pollution will affect their own lungs and breathing.
-Altruistic concern refers to concern for humanity in general, including
future generations.
-Biospheric concern refers to concern for nature, plants, and animals.
The findings appear in the journal/Global Environmental Change/.
https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/01/19/does-threat-of-climate-change-affect-mental-health/131436.html
[DESMOG]
*Climate Science Deniers Defend New York's American Museum of Natural
History From Calls to Drop Trustee Rebekah Mercer
<https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/climate-science-deniers-new-york-american-museum-natural-history-rebekah-mercer>*
By Graham Readfearn
With friends like climate science deniers and alt-right megaphones like
Breitbart, you have to wonder whether New York's iconic American Museum
of Natural History (AMNH) needs any enemies right now.
As theNew York Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/rebekah-mercer-natural-history-museum.html>andothers
are reporting
<http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370833-scientists-protest-over-trump-allys-position-at-natural-history>,
the museum is facing calls from hundreds of scientists, its own
curators, campaigners, and the public to drop rich benefactor and major
Trump funder and ally Rebekah Mercer from its board of trustees.
In atypically verbose screed
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/04/delingpole-climate-bully-mob-tries-to-oust-trump-supporter-from-natural-history-museum/>on
Breitbart, climate science denierJames Delingpole
<https://www.desmogblog.com/james-delingpole>called the scientists who
had signed a letter protesting Mercer's presence "basically frauds" and
"imbeciles."
Now climate science deniers have begun to circulate their own "open
letter" calling for theAMNH to keep Mercer on the board and "not to cave
in to this pressure."..
Theletter reads
<https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/amnh18-feb4-petitionletter-1.pdf>:
"The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past
when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the
enrichment of Earth's atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.
"Make no mistake, the agitators are not defending science from quackery
- quite the contrary!"
That statement itself is contradicted by every major scientific
institution in the world and thousands of scientific studies over
many decades.
Many of that letter's signers are affiliated with groups funded by
Mercer's family foundation in recent years. There's retired
ProfessorWill Happer <https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer> of
theCO2Coalition <https://www.desmogblog.com/co2-coalition>; Richard
Lindzen <https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen>, a fellow at
theCato Institute <https://www.desmogblog.com/cato-institute>; andCraig
Idso <https://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso>, the chairman of theCenter
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
<https://www.desmogblog.com/center-study-carbon-dioxide-and-global-change>.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/climate-science-deniers-new-york-american-museum-natural-history-rebekah-mercer
[Denial]
*Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/06/humans-need-to-become-smarter-thinkers-to-beat-climate-denial>*
A new paper shows that climate myths consistently fail critical thinking
tests
Dana Nuccitelli
President Donald Trump points skyward before donning protective glasses
to view the solar eclipse, 21 August 2017, at the White House in Washington
Climate myths are often contradictory - it's not warming, though it's
warming because of the sun, and really it's all just an ocean cycle -
but they all seem to share one thing in common: logical fallacies and
reasoning errors.
John Cook, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkead have just published a paper
in Environmental Research Letters in which they examined 42 common
climate myths and found that every single one demonstrates fallacious
reasoning. For example, the authors made a video breaking down the
logical flaws in the myth 'climate changed naturally in the past so
current climate change is natural.'
Beating myths with critical thinking
Cook has previously published research on using 'misconception-based
learning' to dislodge climate myths from peoples' brains and replace
them with facts, and beating denial by inoculating people against
misinformers' tricks. The idea is that when people are faced with a myth
and a competing fact, the fact will more easily win out if the fallacy
underpinning the myth is revealed. In fact, these concepts of
misconception-based learning and inoculation against myths were the
basis of the free online Denial101x course developed by Cook and
colleagues....
The new paper published today suggests an even more proactive approach
to defeating myths. If people can learn to implement a simple six-step
critical thinking process, they'll be able to evaluate whether
climate-related claims are valid.
*Step 1: Identify the claim being made.* For example, the most
popular contrarian argument: "Earth's climate has changed naturally
in the past, so current climate change is natural."
*Step 2: Construct the argument by identifying the premises leading
to that conclusion. *In this case, the first premise is that Earth's
climate has changed in the past through natural processes, and the
second premise is that the climate is currently changing. So far, so
good.
*Step 3: Determine whether the argument is deductive, *meaning that
it starts out with a general statement and reaches a definitive
conclusion. In our case, 'current climate change is natural'
qualifies as a definitive conclusion.
*Step 4: Check the argument for validity;* does the conclusion
follow from the premises? In our example, it doesn't follow that
current climate change must be natural because climate changed
naturally in the past. However, we can fix that by weakening the
conclusion to "the current climate change may not be the result of
human activity." But in its weakened state, the conclusion no longer
refutes human-caused global warming.
-*Step 4a: Identify hidden premises. *By adding an extra premise
to make an invalid argument valid, we can gain a deeper
understanding of why the argument is flawed. In this example, the
hidden assumption is "if nature caused climate change in the past,
it must always be the cause of climate change." Adding this premise
makes the argument logically valid, but makes it clear why the
argument is false - it commits single cause fallacy, assuming that
only one thing can cause climate change.
*Step 5: Check to see if the argument relies on ambiguity. *For
example, the argument that human activity is not necessary to
explain current climate change because natural and human factors can
both cause climate change is ambiguous about the 'climate change' in
question. Not all climate change is equal, and the rate of current
change is more than 20 times faster than natural climate changes.
Therefore, human activity is necessary to explain current climate
change.
*Step 6: If the argument hasn't yet been ruled out, determine the
truth of its premises. *For example, the argument that "if something
was the cause in the past, it will be the cause in the future" is
invalid if the effect has multiple plausible causes or mechanisms
(as with climate change). In our example, this is where the myth
most obviously falls apart (although it had already failed in Step
4)....
Climate denial suffers badly from a lack of critical thinking, which has
spread all the way to the White House. Teaching people to think
critically can help prevent it from spreading even further.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/06/humans-need-to-become-smarter-thinkers-to-beat-climate-denial
[EcoWatch - psychology]
*4 Lessons Psychology Teaches Us About Inspiring Climate Action
<https://www.ecowatch.com/inspiring-climate-action-2531883295.html>*
Changing the behavior of one person is hard enough-let alone millions of
citizens around the world. Find out what lessons psychology can teach us
about inspiring climate action...
...what happens when understanding alone isn't enough?
But education is the easy part. It's getting people to take action that
can be a challenge-and that's because changing people's attitudes and
behaviors is a daunting task...
Social scientists of all kinds have studied the question of how to
change human behavior in many different contexts from public health to
public policy to environmental psychology and more. In the climate
context, environmental psychologists have begun exploring this larger
question by trying to understand why, for example, more Americans aren't
taking action with their votes and voices. Especially when the majority
agree that humans are causing climate change...
The reality is that changing the behavior of one person is hard
enough-let alone millions of citizens around the world. But psychology
can give us some insight into better ways to motivate people to change
their behavior and stand up for the planet we share...
That's why we've compiled four lessons from the field that any activist
can take and use to help inspire their friends, colleagues, family
members and more to act.
*1. Connect the climate crisis to what's happening in real communities
to reduce psychological distance.*
Climate change is a unique issue because although millions of people in
the U.S. and around the world feel the drastic effects of it in their
daily lives, many people don't (yet).
Why does this matter? Because of a construct known as psychological
distance. Psychological distance refers to things that are not in
our immediate reality or felt in the present moment. For example,
you might think about your first year of marriage if you're still
single (temporal distance), what neighborhood or city you might buy
a home in one day (spatial distance), how your best friend or family
member perceives you (social distance) or how your career would be
different if you had studied a different major in college
(hypothetical distance).
Why is psychological distance relevant to the climate crisis?
Studies have found that people who believe the effects of climate
change are unlikely to happen to them or are more likely to affect
other people and regions of the world are less likely to be
concerned about solving it. In other words, if climate change feels
psychologically distant, you worry less about it in your daily life
and feel less urgency to take action.
To bridge this gap, research suggests that we should discuss how
climate change affects communities and families on the local level.
That means calling attention to real-life examples of how the
climate crisis is affecting real people, especially in regions
experiencing extreme weather. From wildfires destroying homes in the
western U.S. to hurricanes damaging homes and businesses along the
Gulf Coast and southern U.S. to droughts affecting farms in dozens
of countries, it's clear that extreme weather is devastating the
livelihoods of many communities around the world.
*2. Make climate action a group experience to promote social norms.*
Humans are pack animals. In 1943, American psychologist Abraham Maslow
created his Hierarchy of Needs, which proposed that humans have certain
needs that begin with the most basic needs (food, sleep, safety) and end
with ego-centered needs (self-esteem, creativity).
The hierarchy also proposed that once humans have their physical and
safety needs satisfied, the next need in the hierarchy is
belongingness. Put simply, humans are social beings that respond to
group norms, and for our ancestors, group acceptance meant access to
shared resources and feeling protected from predators.
Today, humans are just as keenly aware of social dynamics and
psychology tells us that we fear feeling socially rejected. That's
why the more we can make climate action the norm in our social and
family circles, the more likely others will join in.
*3. Talk about what we're gaining, not what we're losing, to avoid loss
aversion.*
The psychological concept of loss aversion is nothing new, but
behavioral scientists have started thinking about it more as it relates
to the climate movement.
One study examined how framing climate change impacts can affect
attitudes and perceptions. In the experiment, researchers presented
different climate change impacts to participants (sourced from the
2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report), who
then answered questions about what they saw.
The results showed that framing climate change impacts in a way that
highlights possible gains rather than losses increased positive
attitudes toward mitigation responses. Participants also perceived
climate change impacts as more severe when they were framed as gains.
So when talking about climate change with your friends and family,
explain how action is an opportunity. For example, America's Clean
Power Plan, which is now under threat by the Trump administration,
could lead to public health and climate benefits worth an estimated
$34 billion to $54 billion annually in 2030. Those are some serious
gains! If you agree, we invite you to add your name to support the
Clean Power Plan and stand up for clean energy.
*4. Give your friends real ways to take action to prevent "environmental
melancholia."*
We know that the climate crisis isn't just an environmental issue.
Not only do the people who experience extreme weather, warmer
temperatures, drought, rising sea levels and other devastating
impacts feel psychological effects, but many people are affected
simply by hearing about the crisis or seeing unsettling images in
the news.
*Dr. Renee Lertzman, a researcher who promotes climate change
activism inside the workplace, explains that people often experience
"environmental melancholia." She explained that although we know the
climate crisis is a threat, many people feel anxious and powerless
about how they can make a difference, which can prevent them from
doing something.*
By understanding that people may feel powerless when thinking about
the climate crisis, we should communicate and provide real ways to
take action and support them throughout the process. If your friends
or family members feel powerless or have anxiety about getting
involved, one way to help is to share helpful content that gives
them specific ways to take action. Our blog post, Four Ways Anyone
Can Take Climate Action, is a great place to start.
*How You Can Make a Difference*
Humans are complicated and changing behavior is no easy task, but
thinking about how to overcome empathy or powerlessness is the first
step to getting others involved with the movement for solutions. If
you're ready to make a difference in your community, download our Make
It a Reality Action Kit now to get started. Our climate action kit will
give you a thorough look at the climate crisis and ways you can
participate in the fight for a bright, sustainable future.
https://www.ecowatch.com/inspiring-climate-action-2531883295.html
[Vox - Dave Roberts]
*A beginner's guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy
<https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate>*
Is it the right target? Is it even possible?
By David Roberts
Imagine powering civilization entirely with energy from renewable
sources: wind, sun, water (hydroelectricity), naturally occurring heat
(geothermal), and plants.
No coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, or coal trains. No greenhouse gas
emissions, car exhaust, or polluted streams. No wars over oil,
dependence on foreign suppliers, or resource shortages...
A growing number of activists say it is within reach.....
*It's not about whether to go to zero carbon, but how to get there*
The most important political division in the world of climate change is
between those who accept the urgency of the problem and those who don't.
Those who don't are in charge of the federal government these days.
Their energy plans are a celebration of fossil fuels.
The debate over 100 percent renewable energy isn't about that division.
This is about a dispute among people who accept the imperative to
rapidly reduce carbon emissions, sufficient to hold the rise in global
average temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels. To hit that globally agreed upon
target requires "deep decarbonization" - reducing total carbon emissions
80 to 100 percent - across the globe, by mid-century or shortly
thereafter...
.*.electrifying everything. *Specifically, it will involve doing two
things at once: a) eliminating carbon emissions from the electricity
sector and b) moving as many other energy services as possible
(transportation, heating, and industry) over to electricity...
*The heart of the renewables challenge: compensating for variability*
The entire dispute revolves around a simple fact: The most abundant
sources of carbon-free power, wind and sun, are variable. The sun is not
always shining; the wind is not always blowing...
The fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable -
the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as needed...
The dispute comes down to whether these problems can be solved without
nuclear and CCS (carbon capture and storage).
*The last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest*
It is possible to get substantial decarbonization using well-understood
technologies and policies.
A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas
combined cycle power plants for coal plants. While that's going on, you
grow renewables and maintain your existing nuclear and hydroelectric
fleet. That is, practically speaking, how the US has reduced carbon
emissions in recent years.
The strategy works great for a while. Natural gas plants are much more
flexible than coal plants, so they work as a nice complement to variable
renewable energy (VRE), balancing out variability...
But in terms of deep decarbonization, the strategy eventually leads to a
cul de sac. Natural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half, depending
on how you measure methane leakage), but it's still a fossil fuel. At
least without CCS, it is incompatible with decarbonization beyond 60
percent or so.
The balancing act to achieve carbon-free electricity
*Think of a carbon-free grid as a balance of two kinds of electricity
resources, dispatchable and non-dispatchable.*
As we noted earlier, non-dispatchable means VRE (variable renewable
energy) - on and offshore wind, solar PV, solar thermal, run-of-river
hydro, anything based on weather - that can't be turned on and off...
VRE can be made somewhat less variable by linking up resources over a
wide geographical area with more transmission lines. Over a large enough
area, it's usually sunny or windy somewhere. But in a constrained grid,
non-dispatchable resources generally need balancing out with
dispatchable resources.
Dispatchable is a broad (and getting broader) category - it means
anything that grid operators can use to actively manage the balance of
electricity supply and demand...
*There are three basic varieties:*
Dispatchable supply, i.e., power plants - in the low-to-no carbon
family, this includes nuclear (by far the most common, generating 11
percent of the world's electricity as of 2012), fossil fuels with CCS,
reservoir hydro, biomass (though it is controversial), and geothermal.
Dispatchable demand - increasingly, demand for power can be managed,
either reduced or shifted to different parts of the day/week.
Energy storage - storage is interesting because, from a grid operator's
perspective, it can serve either as dispatchable demand (absorbing
surplus VRE) or dispatchable supply (releasing energy during times of
low VRE [variable renewable energy]). And there are a growing number of
ways to store energy. The oldest and highest capacity is pumped hydro,
whereby water is pumped uphill to store energy and then run down through
turbines to release it. (A company in the American West is attempting a
dry-land variation of this, pushing giant blocks uphill on train
tracks.) There are also batteries, which are getting cheaper. And beyond
that power can be stored as heat (in, e.g., molten salt), as cold (in
ice), or as hydrogen (long story). This is also an area of furious research.
*To nuke or not to nuke?*
The folks at the Solutions Project claim that we can - and, on the basis
of a full cost-benefit analysis that takes all environmental impacts
into effect, should - balance out VRE without recourse to nuclear power
or CCS. (Jacobson also excludes biomass, though several other 100
percenters disagree with him on that.)
Doing that will involve three things.
*One, VRE will have to be massively overbuilt.* Because its "capacity
factor" (the amount of time it's running) is relatively low, to fully
meet demand, total capacity will have to far exceed total demand, by
multiples.
*Two, transmission lines will have to be extended everywhere across the
globe*, to link VRE sources with demand and smooth out supply. And
distribution grids will need to be upgraded. Quickly.
*And three, remaining dispatchable resources - demand management,
storage, hydro, maybe biomass - will have to be radically, radically
scaled up.* In particular, storage is going to have to grow exponentially...
On the other side of the dispute are people, many of whom are energy
researchers, who simply don't believe that the above scenario is
feasible, or if it is, that it's the most economic or effective way to
get to zero carbon. They say nuclear and CCS should stay on the table.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate
//
*This Day in Climate History February 8, 2011
<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/bush-epa-recognized-global-warming-threat/>
- from D.R. Tucker*
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) released a letter from (Stephen Johnson,
the EPA administrator) to Bush dated January 31, 2008, in which Johnson
informs the president that the agency has determined that "the latest
science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive
endangerment finding."
In the letter, Johnson outlined a plan that he argues is "prudent and
cautious yet forward thinking," one that "creates a framework for
responsible, cost-effective and practical actions." This is the first
time this particular letter has been made public, though it was pretty
well known that the EPA had made an endangerment determination but was
blocked by the White House from following through on it. The White House
reportedly went so far as to refuse to open an email that contained the
endangerment finding and related materials so that it wouldn’t have to act.
Johnson concluded in his letter to Bush:
After careful and sometime difficult deliberation, I have
concluded that it is in the Administration's best interest to move
forward with this plan in the next few weeks. I appreciate the
senior-level discussions that have enabled me to develop this
approach, and I look forward to working with other members of your
team to discuss details and a rollout.
Of course, that rollout never happened. Instead, the Bush administration
let the clock run down and left the final endangerment determination to
the next administration. The Obama administration followed through with
that finding in April 2009, an action that triggered the EPA's
regulation of greenhouse gases that began phasing in this year (2011).
- Kate Sheppard
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/bush-epa-recognized-global-warming-threat/
/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
Send email to subscribe <a%20href=%22mailto:contact at theClimate.Vote%22>
to news clippings. /
*** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20180208/2baa187f/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list