[TheClimate.Vote] January 18, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Jan 18 07:49:09 EST 2019
/January 18, 2019/
[NPR radio report]
*How The Government Shutdown Is Affecting Weather Forecasts*
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/18/686451007/how-the-government-shutdown-is-affecting-weather-forecasts
[OK, now this is really serious]
***Trouble brewing? World's top coffee species at risk of extinction
thanks to global warming*
About 60 percent of the world's wild coffee species are at high risk of
extinction, a new study suggests.
According to the new research, coffee species are facing a wide range of
threats, from increasing numbers of droughts to faster spreading of
fungal pathogens as global temperatures rise.
The results showed that 75 wild coffee species are considered threatened
with extinction; which is one of the highest recorded threat rates for a
plant species.
In fact, researchers report that there are several species that haven't
been seen in the wild, or in cultivation, for over 100 years.
Threatened species include the popular commercial coffees arabica and
robusta.
"As temperatures increase and rainfall decreases - the suitable area for
growing ... diminishes," study lead author Aaron Davis told Reuters.
Davis, of Britain's Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, told CNN that
"considering threats from human encroachment and deforestation, some
(coffee species) could be extinct in 10 to 20 years, particularly with
the added influence of climate change."
The study was published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Science
Advances.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/16/coffee-extinction-global-warming-threatens-top-coffee-species/2597511002/
- -
[pour yourself a cup and read the original study]
*High extinction risk for wild coffee species and implications for
coffee sector sustainability*
Abstract
Wild coffee species are critical for coffee crop development and,
thus, for sustainability of global coffee production. Despite this
fact, the extinction risk and conservation priority status of the
world's coffee species are poorly known. Applying IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species criteria to all (124) wild coffee species, we
undertook a gap analysis for germplasm collections and protected
areas and devised a crop wild relative (CWR) priority system. We
found that at least 60% of all coffee species are threatened with
extinction, 45% are not held in any germplasm collection, and 28%
are not known to occur in any protected area. Existing conservation
measures, including those for key coffee CWRs, are inadequate. We
propose that wild coffee species are extinction sensitive,
especially in an era of accelerated climatic change.
INTRODUCTION
Coffee as a crop and wild species
Coffee (Coffea L.) is one of the world's most widely consumed beverages,
supporting a multibillion-dollar sector spanning a lengthy value chain
from farmer to consumer. As coffee production is largely in the hands of
smallholder farmers, the livelihood value is immense, with an estimated
100 million coffee farmers worldwide. Global coffee trade relies on two
species: Arabica (Coffea arabica) comprising c. 60% of traded coffee,
and robusta (Coffea canephora), the remaining 40% . Liberica coffee
(Coffea liberica), a third beverage species, is cultivated worldwide
(and used as a grafting rootstock for Arabica and robusta) but is
insignificant in terms of global trade. C. arabica, a product of the
ancient hybridization of C. canephora and Coffea eugenioides , occurs
naturally in Ethiopia and South Sudan; C. liberica and C. canephora
occur wild across much of wet tropical Africa...
more at - http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaav3473
[carried by the Washington Post]
***The next president must make climate change the top priority*
By Jay Inslee
January 17, 2019
Jay Inslee is governor of Washington.
We are the first generation to feel the sting of climate change, and we
are the last generation that can do something about it.
The Democratic Party must nominate a candidate who will put fighting
climate change at the top of the agenda. And that's why I'm seriously
considering running for president.
The science is clear. We have a short period of time to act. And whether
we shrink from this challenge, or rise to it, is the biggest question we
face, as a nation and as a people.
It is also our chance to realize the greatest economic opportunity of
this century: to create millions of good-paying jobs building a future
run on clean energy.
For millions of Americans, climate change is no longer just a chart or a
graph. It's the smoke on our tongues from massive wildfires. It's the
floodwater invading our homes, and record-breaking hurricanes and heat
waves.
Confronting this change has been the driving force of my time in public
life. About a decade ago, I co-wrote a book about the need to transform
our economy to one run on clean energy and the need for a national
Apollo mission-style project to take on this herculean task.
As governor of Washington, I've seen firsthand what's possible when you
invest in clean energy -- reducing carbon pollution and supporting
family-wage jobs that are growing twice as fast as those in any other
industry.
In my state, I created a Clean Energy Fund and invested in electrifying
our transportation system -- from vehicles and buses to transit and even
ferries. We need much, much larger investments that will be sustained
over time, but we have the blueprint.
I was also the first governor to use executive authority to cap carbon
pollution from all its largest sources. And this year we are pursuing a
comprehensive suite of policies to achieve 100 percent clean
electricity, increase energy efficiency in old buildings and promote
net-zero energy in new buildings, require clean fuels and zero-emission
vehicles, and eliminate climate super-pollutants.
Other states have been tremendous leaders in advancing climate
solutions. The all-out national effort that we need can take some of its
inspiration from strategies that have been pursued in our states.
But to win a national mandate for action everywhere, we must nominate a
candidate who will deploy clean energy and cut carbon pollution on the
ambitious scale required, even if it means deferring other worthy goals.
This will be hard. The oil companies, the big polluters and the climate
deniers are incredibly powerful. They will do everything they can to
protect their profits.
But our next president must summon the full energies of our nation to
realize what the science is demanding of us. We must strive to achieve
net-zero carbon pollution by midcentury, create a 100 percent
clean-energy grid, and deploy new strategies and massive investments to
transition off fossil fuels and decarbonize transportation, buildings
and industries.
The reason I believe we are going to succeed in this -- the reason I'm
optimistic -- is that this is a matter of character as much as it is a
matter of science.
This is an issue of the basic, fundamental character of the American
people. And I know something about the American people. We are
optimists, can-do people. We invent, we create, we build. We do not shy
away from a challenge. This is our nature.
Confronting climate change will require a full-scale mobilization -- a
national mission that must be led from the White House. This is the
challenge we face and the choice facing American voters in 2020.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/17/next-president-must-make-climate-change-top-priority/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.56f3bc1a5c39
[video and interactive data ]
*Global tension is hampering our ability to fight climate change, Davos
survey warns*
Chloe Taylor
The world is facing the increased risk of political confrontations
between major powers, which is hindering solutions to challenges like
climate change and cyberattacks, a new report by the World Economic
Forum (WEF) said Wednesday.
WEF, best known for creating and facilitating its annual economic forum
in Davos, Switzerland, said the breakdown of international cooperation
on major issues had reached "crisis levels," and would continue to
prevent international action on urgent crises this year.
The WEF report, called the Global Risks Report 2019 and released with
risk consultancy Marsh, surveyed around 1,000 experts and
decision-makers with 90 percent saying they expected further economic
confrontation between major powers. Eighty-eight percent said they
expected further erosion of multilateral trading rules.
"Lots of populist political figures are getting elected and changing the
agenda to be more protectionist (and) more nationalist, and as a result
(they are) weakening multilateral bonds -- and that's expected to
continue into 2019," John Drzik, president of global risk and digital at
Marsh, told CNBC's "Street Signs Europe."
"Not only will geopolitical tensions continue, but they will grow in the
economic sphere in the form of tariffs, sanctions, further trade wars,
investment restrictions, restrictions on the use of technology from a
foreign country, and all of these tend to have a depressing impact on
the economy."
A 'multiconceptual' world order
The report also speculated risks would arise from a "multiconceptual"
world order -- where geopolitical instabilities reflected a shift in
power balances as well as disagreements on fundamental values.
"With global trade and economic growth at risk in 2019, there is a more
urgent need than ever to renew the architecture of international
cooperation," said WEF President Borge Brende in a press release on
Wednesday.
"We simply do not have the gunpowder to deal with the kind of slowdown
that current dynamics might lead us towards. What we need now is
coordinated, concerted action to sustain growth and to tackle the grave
threats facing our world today.
When it came to a more long-term outlook, issues including extreme
weather events, failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation, and
natural disasters were named as both high-impact and high-likelihood risks.
*Global threat to business*
The theme of geopolitical tension was also detected as a global threat
to business in Allianz's 2019 Risk Barometer, published on Tuesday.
Allianz's survey of global companies found that business interruption --
arising from issues such as new tariffs and trade disputes -- was the
biggest threat to firms worldwide. Changes in legislation and regulation
-- arising from issues such as Brexit -- were also seen as a threat,
with almost a third of companies citing it as a concern.
Ludovic Subran, the deputy chief economist for Allianz, told CNBC via
email that the U.S.'s end-of-year trade truce with China was only
postponing the growing U.S.-China rivalry.
"Some countries have beefed up anti-acquisition legislations, others
fear further sanctions. Supply chains are at risk, and trade diversion
starts to be a conversation in the boardroom to avoid negative effects
of the new trade regime," he said.
"In 2019, risks loom for Europe with tense elections, fewer growth
prospects for the euro zone and Brexit fatigue. What looks like a soft
landing could become a forced landing if negative political outcomes and
surprising regulatory moves spook investors and companies."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/16/davos-founders-warn-of-rising-tension-between-the-worlds-superpowers.html
[deep in the heart]
*The Next Frontier of the Climate Movement: Texas*
https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2018/8/28/the-next-frontier-of-the-climate-movement-texas
[Why wouldn't they?]
*Utilities Knew: Report Shows Power Industry Studied Climate Change,
Stuck With Coal*
By Kaitlin Sullivan
A report documenting that electric utility companies, like the oil
industry, understood climate change as far back as the 1960s could
potentially make them the next target of climate liability lawsuits.
The report was released by the Energy and Policy Institute (EPI), a
group that works to counter attacks on the renewable energy industry. It
documents that utility companies understood as far back as the late
1960s how burning fossil fuels impacts climate change and describes how
the utilities nonetheless continued to push coal, the largest emitter of
carbon dioxide among fossil fuels, as an energy solution.
The information is similar to what has been uncovered about the oil
industry. Journalistic investigations have over the past several years
uncovered that the major producers have known for decades that their
product overwhelmingly drives global warming but worked to create doubt
about that science and vigorously opposed government action to combat
climate change.
Those investigations, based on troves of industry documents, helped
spawn two state investigations into potential climate fraud by the
world's biggest oil producer, ExxonMobil. It has also prompted more than
a dozen communities across the U.S. to file liability lawsuits against
the oil industry to hold it accountable for climate damages.
The EPI report suggests similar documents from electric utility
companies could give way to similar lawsuits against utilities.
The two industries are not exactly parallel, however, said Carroll
Muffett, president and chief executive of the Center for International
Environmental Law. Because oil producers and utilities sit at different
positions in the fossil fuel supply chain, their potential liability for
climate damages would not be the same.
"It is reasonable, though, to look at this information about what they
knew and when and ask: what are the legal liabilities?" Muffett said.
A spokesman for one of the utilities mentioned in the report, Edison
Electric Institute of Washington DC, did not address the legal liability
question, instead claiming the utility industry is working to lower
emissions.
"As of 2017, the electric power industry's carbon dioxide emissions were
28 percent below 2005 levels, the lowest annual emissions level since
1988," said Brian Reil, spokesman for EEI.
But statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency tell a different
story. In 2016, electricity production accounted for more than 28
percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and those
emissions decreased just 1 percent between 1990 and 2016. Similar data
from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that nearly 63
percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. in 2017 was dependent
on fossil fuels. More than 30 percent of total emissions were from coal.
Past climate lawsuits have already targeted electric utility companies.
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of five
private electric power companies in American Electric Power Company v.
Connecticut, determining that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse
gas emissions under federal common law.
Federal lawsuits against oil companies have run up against similar
precedent because federal courts have typically ruled that because the
EPA is responsible for regulating greenhouse gases, the courts do not
have jurisdiction over the issue. Federal judges last year dismissed
climate liability suits filed by New York City, San Francisco and
Oakland under that reasoning.
Those cities are appealing the dismissals, but they illustrate why the
other communities that have filed suits are striving to keep them in
state courts, where experts believe they have a better chance of
succeeding under state common law.
*Connecting the Legal Dots*
The cases against oil companies have been bolstered by extensive
research that has been able to tie specific amounts of greenhouse gas
emissions, and thus global warming, to individual companies. That
research, dubbed the Carbon Majors, attributes 70 percent of global
warming to just 100 fossil fuel companies and 27 percent to five of the
largest companies, including Exxon...
- - -
According to Joshua M. Pearce, an engineering professor at Michigan
Tech, the threat of being held liable for their emissions could push
energy companies to invest in renewable energy. "When you factor in
liability, how much is their energy really worth?" he said.
Pearce was part of a team that devised formulas to calculate the
financial liability of greenhouse gas emissions. He said utility
companies should consider investing in renewable energy as a way to
mitigate future liability in lawsuits seeking compensation for climate
change-related damages.
"As the science gets better, their risk of being held liable increases,"
Pearce said.
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/01/16/utilities-climate-change-liability/
[Each year is more]
*10 Costliest Climate-Driven Extreme Weather Events of 2018 Caused at
Least $84.8B in Damage: Analysis*
"The world's weather is becoming more extreme before our eyes--the only
thing that can stop this destructive trend from escalating is a rapid
fall in carbon emissions."
From heat waves and hurricanes to fires and floods, the 10 costliest
extreme weather events of 2018--driven by the global climate
crisis--killed thousands of people and caused at least $84.8 billion in
damage, according to a new analysis from Christian Aid.
"The world's weather is becoming more extreme before our eyes--the only
thing that can stop this destructive trend from escalating is a rapid
fall in carbon emissions."--Michael Mann, climate scientist
Counting the Cost: A Year of Climate Breakdown (pdf), published Thursday
by the London-based group, notes that "extreme weather hit every
populated continent in 2018, killing, injuring, and displacing millions,
and causing major economic damage."...
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/28/10-costliest-climate-driven-extreme-weather-events-2018-caused-least-848b-damage
- - -
[read the original post]
Counting the Cost: A Year of Climate Breakdown (pdf)
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Counting_the_Cost-pdf.pdf
[About Tipping Points and collapse - important for prediction]
*Tim Lenton - Tipping Points in Climate and Biosphere Function*
National Academy of Sciences
Published on Nov 20, 2018
November 8, 2018 - Tim Lenton of University of Exeter presents "Tipping
Points in Climate and Biosphere Function".
Learn more about the Raymond and Beverly Sackler U.S. - U.K. Scientific
Forum at http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sac...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F4ET3sQXW4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nhjfrmHv7U
- -
[His important 2008 paper is widely cited]
*Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system*
The term ''tipping point'' commonly refers to a critical threshold at
which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or
development of a system. Here we introduce the term ''tipping element''
to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a
tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping
elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on
the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile
a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert
elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and
the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we
explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to
detect the proximity of some tipping points...
- - -
We have formulated a much broader definition of a tipping
element, because (i) we wish to include nonclimatic variables; (ii)
there may be cases where the transition is slower than the
anthropogenic forcing causing it; (iii) there may be no abruptness, but
a slight change in control may have a qualitative impact
in the future; and (iv) for several important phase changes,
state-of-the-art models differ as to whether the transition is
reversible or irreversible (in principle)...
- - -
It seems wise to assume that we have not yet identified all
potential policy-relevant tipping elements. Hence, a systematic
search for further tipping elements should be undertaken,
drawing on both paleodata and multimodel ensemble studies.
Given the large uncertainty that remains about tipping
elements, there is an urgent need to improve our understanding
of the underlying physical mechanisms determining their
behavior, so that policy makers are able ''to avoid the unmanageable,
and to manage the unavoidable''
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/6/1786.full.pdf?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled
- - -
[Important recent update to the paper... 10 years later]
*Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene*
Abstract
We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth
System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent
stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause
continued warming on a "Hothouse Earth" pathway even as human emissions
are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global
average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years
and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene.
We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it
might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would
likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies.
Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from
a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like
state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth
System--biosphere, climate, and societies--and could include
decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon
sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance
arrangements, and transformed social values.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
[metaphor]
*There's a Rock Heading for Earth*
BY AREK SINANIAN - JANUARY 14, 2019
Arek Sinanian is the author of "A Climate for Denial" and an
international expert on climate change, greenhouse gas abatement and
carbon accountin
Now that we've got your attention, Arek Sinanian examines the global
stalemate over climate change with this analogy about a meteor heading
for Earth.
There is so much in the world to be optimistic about. But when it comes
to the current global position on climate change, I often vacillate
between optimism and despair. My previous articles on Fair Observer
demonstrate this.
Now imagine this: A group of highly-respected astronomers who have been
studying the skies for decades with the latest available technology have
observed a meteor (aka a very large rock), half the size of our moon,
hurtling in our direction. A peer-reviewed scientific paper is submitted
to the United Nations predicting that this very large rock is expected
to collide with Earth in 12 months, with catastrophic effect. The paper
predicts that this event will wipe out humanity and all the rest of
living things on the planet. Action must be taken immediately, otherwise
we are doomed. We can either take drastic action or we can just enjoy
ourselves as much as we can for the next 12 months, and then it's all over.
How would the world deal with such a predicament?
No doubt, there would be the usual denialist responses. How do we know
that these astronomers have got it right? If it's such a large rock
coming our way, how come we can't see it in the sky? What if it's not as
big as they say, and it won't be such a huge catastrophe? What if the
calculations are mistaken and it will take hundreds of years instead of
12 months? Could it hit some other planet on its way to us and,
therefore, get destroyed? And so on.
All the calculations are checked over and over, by hundreds of
astronomers, mathematicians and scientists and the results confirm that
the rock is somewhere between 40% and 60% of the size of our moon, and
it will collide with Earth between 10 months and 18 months?
So the deniers now can latch on the uncertainty: Oh, so there's
disagreement amongst the experts, and we don't know exactly how big it
is, and don't even know exactly when it's going to reach us. A few
scientists even claim that this is a completely fraudulent fabrication
by large corporations and, in particular, the arms industry.
You get the picture.
While all the necessary questioning and reassessment goes on, that
enormous rock is coming in our direction at 50,000 miles an hour. So,
what would probably happen is the gathering of the greatest minds and
technologists, locking them in a large room, give them a limited time
and let them out only when they have a solution to the problem, at any cost.
Now, I'm not suggesting that such a scenario (if it were to happen) is
the same as the current stalemate of climate change. Not least is that
the "large rock coming our way" scenario is a singular effect, while
climate change is more like millions of smaller rocks coming our way for
the rest of time. And the rocks will get bigger as time goes by, unless
of course we do something about it.
And here's the other main difference. While a likely solution for the
"rock" is to destroy it, by contrast, we'll need many solutions on many
fronts, to mitigate climate change (or destroy the numerous and smaller
"rocks" of climate change). In other words, our response isn't to "do
something about it," but we need to do numerous things.
And that's why the challenges of climate change are often described as a
"diabolical problem." As I've described in my book, A Climate for
Denial, climate change is diabolical because, firstly, it is difficult
to define. Some people are now suggesting that it shouldn't be called
climate change because the climate has been and will continue to change.
And continuing the rocks-coming-our-way analogy, the rocks of climate
change are different sizes (some enormous, some the size of a pebble),
all traveling at different speeds, and they will all hit the Earth in
different locations, at different times. Some rocks will be so small
that a simple umbrella will be adequate for protection (is there a pun
in there?). Some places on Earth will not even be hit or be affected by
any rocks at all.
Climate change is diabolical also because its impacts are environmental,
physical, social, and economic, and the solutions include technology,
economic and social change, political will and global agreements amongst
nations with enormously disparate economies, social structures and
technological capabilities. And the impacts (the rocks) will be
completely different in different parts and nations of the world.
Ironically, tragically, some of those most impacted will be least
capable of dealing with them.
CLIMATE PARALYSIS
There is no doubt that the current stalemate in addressing climate
change is mainly due to its diabolical nature. The appropriate way to
deal with such problems is not to see them as a singular "rock" to
destroy, but to tackle them in small steps and in achievable chunks.
I'm often asked, "What's the one thing we must do?" The answer is that
there are many things we must do, and we must all do them all now. And
we must all do them, all of us contributing to the desired outcome.
Because of that complexity, we get paralyzed. It's all too much to bear
and that contributes to denialism. We know what to do -- we must
drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil
fuels -- but there's so much to do to achieve this. It's so complex and
debilitating that even an "agreement to agree to do something about it"
becomes an exciting outcome of a UN climate conference.
As it turns out, actions are being taken on many fronts: renewable
energy for power generation, electric and hydrogen cars for transport,
energy efficiency in manufacturing and agriculture. But much of this is
being driven by market forces, rather than urgent global responses to a
significant existential threat. It's almost equivalent to responding to
the threat of the "rock" half the size of our moon coming our way
because it's likely to affect property prices in New York City. Market
forces rarely get it right when it comes to addressing social and
environmental issues. It's been suggested by eminent economists that
climate change demonstrates the failure of market forces because of
their lack of consideration of long-term environmental costs.
It may not be a stalemate. It may be described as paralysis. But
relative to the required speed for climate action, it's at best
advancing at a snail's pace while the rocks keep coming.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Fair Observer's editorial policy.
https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/climate-change-impact-earth-global-warming-environmental-news-headlines-today-97241/
*This Day in Climate History - January 18, 2015 - from D.R. Tucker*
January 18, 2015:
The New York Times reports:
"Before dawn one morning in October, a handful of Americans gathered
at a lonely pier on Samso, a small Danish island about four hours
from Copenhagen. Bundled in layers of fleece and wool, the
Americans, mostly from islands off the Maine coast, had come to get
a closer look at a wind farm -- 10 mighty turbines spinning in the
Kattegat strait -- that has helped make Samso a symbol for a greener
future, one powered entirely by renewable energy.
"Among them was Marian Chioffi, the bookkeeper at the electric
company in Monhegan, Me., whose population of about 60 swells to
include hundreds of residents and thousands of tourists in the
summer. They -- along with generations of artists like Edward
Hopper, Rockwell Kent and Jamie Wyeth -- have been drawn by the
island's lost-in-time charm and picturesque setting in the Gulf of
Maine.
"Monhegan faces challenges as stark as its beauty. Foremost among
them -- and the spur for the journey to Denmark -- is dependence on
expensive, dirty fuels for heating and electricity. Even with the
recent fall in oil prices, Monhegan residents pay among the highest
power rates in the nation -- almost six times the national average
-- and the electric company, locally owned and operated, struggles
to keep the lights on.
"Twenty years ago, Samso faced similar problems. Its farming and
fishing industries were in decline, and its electricity and heating
costs, mostly from diesel and coal, were rising. Its young people
were leaving the island to attend high school and choosing not to
return.
"But in 1997, the island began a long-term transformation. It won a
government-sponsored contest to create a model community for
renewable energy and, through a combination of wind and solar (for
electricity) and geothermal and plant-based energy (for heating),
the island reached green energy independence in 2005. That means
Samso actually generates more power from renewable sources than it
consumes over all. Attached by a power cable to the mainland 11
miles away, the island sells its excess electricity to the national
utility, bringing income to the hundreds of residents who own shares
in the island's wind farms, both on land and at sea.
"Samso has attracted global attention for its accomplishments. Soren
Hermansen, 55, and his wife, Malene Lunden, 49, worked for years to
develop the program on the island and now have created an institute,
the Samso Energy Academy, to spread their story and methods to
international visitors.
"The Maine islanders, along with students from the College of the
Atlantic in Bar Harbor, had traveled to Samso to attend the academy
and hear the Danes' advice. If all went well, each islander would go
home with a team of students dedicated to solving an energy problem
using ideas borrowed from Samso.
"Beyond that, the planners hoped, new Maine island projects could
become templates for broader adoption of renewable energy. Because
of their particular geography, islands often lack the resources and
infrastructures to meet their own needs. Fuel, like other
necessities, is often imported -- sometimes with great difficulty --
and electric grids, when they even exist, are often underdeveloped
or out of date, all of which leads to higher prices and less
reliable service. With residents open to cheaper and better
alternatives, islands are becoming seedbeds of innovation, living
labs in which to test and refine technologies and approaches that
are too new or expensive to establish on a mainland. And their small
size makes the systems easier to manage and analyze."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/business/energy-environment/green-energy-inspiration-from-samso-denmark.html?ref=business
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
to news digest./
*** 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
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list