[TheClimate.Vote] February 5, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Feb 5 07:45:50 EST 2021
/*February 5, 2021*/
[Superbowl ad with Will Ferrell - 30 e-cars by 2025]
*In GM’s new Super Bowl ad, Will Ferrell loves EVs — and hates Norway*
https://twitter.com/i/status/1356966012646789120
https://grist.org/energy/in-gms-new-super-bowl-ad-will-ferrell-loves-evs-and-hates-norway/
[Washington Post]
*Oil companies’ losses in 2020 were staggering. And that was before the
government focused on climate change.*
A bad global economy, Biden’s climate change priorities and the promise
of all-electric vehicles are feeding petroleum pessimism
Will Englund
Energy reporter for the Financial section and a veteran Moscow correspondent
Feb. 4, 2021
So many sets of parentheses show up on the latest oil company earnings
reports denoting losses that long columns of figures seem to be doing a
shimmy right on the page.
An already weakening market was shredded last year by the pandemic, as
prices and volumes fell worldwide. Oil majors that were once the most
powerful corporations in the world lost much of their footing in 2020,
along with many billions of dollars. A bad global economy, a promise by
the Biden administration to get serious about climate change and growing
confidence in a future of all-electric vehicles have started to raise
questions about just how viable these companies will be.
Conoco Phillips announced this week that it lost $2.7 billion in 2020.
BP and Chevron each lost just over $5.5 billion. ExxonMobil posted a
loss of $20 billion. --
Royal Dutch Shell announced Thursday that it made a $4.85 billion
profit, down 71 percent from the year before and less than had been
expected. Still, the company said it would raise its dividend in the
first quarter of 2021 by 4 percent from the previous quarter.
The S&P Global Ratings agency said last week it was placing ExxonMobil,
Chevron, Shell and the French company Total on a “credit watch” — which
means they’re in danger of a downgrade because of the “significant
challenges and uncertainties” they face. ExxonMobil, a descendant of the
mighty Standard Oil Company, was removed from the Dow Jones industrial
average basket of companies in August, a once unthinkable blow to its
prestige.
The companies are not, of course, planning on withering away any time
soon. The price of oil has been rising this past week as U.S. stocks
have been drawn down, Saudi Arabia has cut its production, and optimism
that the end of the pandemic is in sight has been growing...
That, however, is a small part of the oil giant’s battered portfolio.
ExxonMobil, based in Irving, Tex., has probably generated more
schadenfreude among outsiders than any of its rivals. It was the
biggest, the stodgiest, the most arrogant. By some measures, it has now
declined the furthest....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/04/exxonmobil-oil-company-losses/
[Dr James Hansen grandfather of global warming science]
*Dear Prime Minister*
4 February 2021
James Hansen
A letter to Prime Minister Johnson is here. The UK will host the next
Conference of Parties (COP) in Glasgow, hopefully this November. Young
people are fed up – rightfully so. Boris Johnson has a choice. He and
the COP can offer soothing ambitions, while continuing
business-almost-as usual – in which case global emissions will rebound
after Covid and remain high or even grow – and he will be vilified in
the streets of Glasgow, London and around the world.
Or he can use his emergent humanity to help turn the world onto a
different path, one dictated by science. The UK, where the industrial
revolution and coal burning began, could now provide the blueprint by
which other nations may proceed. The science shows that fossil fuel use
will be phased out rapidly via a rising carbon fee with all funds
distributed uniformly to the public. The effect is anti-regressive, as
most wealthy people have a large carbon footprint. Seventy percent of
the people come out ahead. Fee & dividend is a base that aids all other
carbon policies.
The UK (like the US) is 5X more responsible for global warming than the
average nation. With strong leadership from the PM, the UK
parliamentary system is capable of adopting this year such a
science-based system. Just as the industrial revolution moved from the
UK to the US, so too could a proper way to put a price on carbon. The
PM has the opportunity to earn a special place in history and the
gratitude of young people. Let’s see if he can grasp it.
- - -
[clips from the open letter to the Prime Minister]
*Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions*
- -
Prime Minister Johnson, young people are fed up – and for good reason. They
demand that political leaders follow the science and take the actions
needed to
preserve and restore a healthy climate. If this COP is like the prior
ones – with
soothing words and worthless ambitions – they will be justifiably
outraged...
- -
The science that must be followed is clear, not forbidding, and not in
dispute among
the experts. It is feasible to explain to the public what must be done
and to persuade
your Parliament. The great obstacle you must overcome – where others
have failed
– is that posed by the special financial interests that have bribed our
governments
and trashed our planet...
- -
Our large energy use served a good purpose: it raised our standards of
living. But in
recent decades the climate situation has emerged with clarity. We must
find a new
energy path in the mature economies and cooperate with emerging
economies, so
they can raise living standards with clean carbon-free energies...
- -
Thus, one leader with the courage to take on the special interests could
change the
world’s energy course and alter the future for young people and other
life on the
planet. Where may we find such a leader?
I note that there is a Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL-UK) group in the UK that
advocates this policy. I am sure that the leader, James Collis
(james.collis at citizensclimateeurope.org) would be glad to work with your
team on
the fee & dividend approach (which they term “climate income”).
There are also UK citizen climate leaders that are demanding an honest
accounting
of the climate impacts of government decision-making, including
investments in
energy projects. Towards this end, I am certain that Tim Crosland,
director of Plan
B.Earth (tim at planb.earth) would be willing to work with your team.
Prime Minister Johnson, your actions and decisions now will either
establish or
undermine your claim to climate leadership. The upcoming UN climate
conference
will be an excellent venue for you to display your commitment...
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210203_HANSEN-JOHNSON_Letter.pdf
[basic education reports by state]
*America is too often failing students on climate change*
By Ann Reid, Val Benavidez | February 2, 2021
Americans want their children to learn about climate change in the
public schools. More than three in four of us agree that schools should
teach about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global
warming.
So why isn’t it happening?
The main influence on what’s taught in the classroom is state science
standards, which specify what knowledge and abilities students are
expected to acquire in the course of their education. These standards
affect the content of textbooks, statewide testing, and teacher preparation.
But the treatment of climate change in their science standards varies
drastically in quality, according to a recent report from the National
Center for Science Education and the Texas Freedom Network Education
Fund—even though all states are already experiencing the disruptions of
climate change,
For the report, available at ClimateGrades.org, a panel of scientists
reviewed standards for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia,
focusing on how well the standards address four key points central to
the scientific consensus on climate change: It’s real; it’s us; it’s
serious; there’s hope.
Unfortunately, the results of the report are disturbing.
Although there are bright spots—a majority of states managed to earn a
grade of “B+” or better—ten states received a “D” or worse, including
some of the most populous states in the country, such as Florida, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Texas. The worst of the standards failed to
recognize—or even outright denied—that the existence, causes, and
effects of climate change are a matter of overwhelming scientific
consensus. (Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans
are the main cause of global warming.) West Virginia’s standards
actually require students in high school environmental science classes
to debate the reality of climate change in the classroom.
Elsewhere, climate change is ignored altogether, or not described
forthrightly, or is misleadingly described as hypothetical. Alabama’s
standards suggest that human activities “may have caused” a rise in
global temperatures
There’s no “may” about it: human activities have caused it, and they
continue to do so.
Even in states where the standards acknowledge the reality of climate
change, the report observed, there is often a failure to convey the
message that “there’s hope” in ways of mitigating and adapting to the
disruptive effects of climate change on nature and society.
So there’s room for improvement, obviously. Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, and Texas are all in the process of revising their state
science standards. Since their current standards all received an F in
the recent report, at least a degree of improvement seems likely there.
But improvement is needed in general. Even states with a good treatment
of climate change in their existing science standards can, and should,
look for ways of improving the quality and quantity of climate change
education in their public schools. For example, New Jersey recently
incorporated climate change across its state education standards,
providing opportunities for teachers to discuss the issue with their
students where appropriate in practically any of their classes. And over
the last few years legislation has been introduced in a number of
states, including Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, to
ensure that teachers are equipped with the content knowledge and
pedagogical know-how they need to teach climate change effectively.
And don’t think that it’s only in true-blue states that efforts to
improve climate change education can succeed. Among the states with the
best treatment of climate change in their science standards, according
to the National Center for Science Education and the Texas Freedom
Network Education Fund report, were the ruby-red Alaska, North Dakota,
and Wyoming.
The purpose of public education is to prepare today’s students to
flourish in the world they will inherit tomorrow. That is
incontrovertibly going to be a warmer world.
So we can—and must—do a better job when it comes to teaching climate
change in our public schools.
https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/america-is-too-often-failing-students-on-climate-change/
- -
[Evaluating schools]
*Making the Grade?**
**How State Public School Science Standards Address Climate Change*
*Introduction*
More than 11,000 scientists in late 2019, noting that they and their
colleagues “have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any
catastrophic threat,” endorsed a report stating “clearly and
unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.” In fact,
virtually all climate scientists say overwhelming evidence shows that
human-caused climate change is real. That consensus is evident in
official statements from major scientific organizations, including the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. “We are more sure that greenhouse gas is causing climate change
than we are that smoking causes cancer,” explains one NASA atmospheric
scientist...
- -
*State Science Standards*
Every state has adopted and periodically revises its science standards,
which identify the basic information and skills students are expected to
master in their courses of study. These standards guide the content of
statewide testing and assessment, textbooks and other instructional
materials, and classroom instruction. Each state has its own process for
writing and adopting standards...
- -
*Scope of the Study*
Working independently, three expert reviewers, all Ph.D. scientists with
differing specialties, evaluated how climate change is addressed in the
NGSS and then the standards for each of the 30 states that have not
adopted the NGSS. See Appendix A for information on the three reviewers.
Note: The reviewers examined only the state standards, not model
curricula or other guidelines created by some states...
The reviewers considered the treatment of climate change in each set of
standards with respect to four key points that form a basic outline of
the scientific consensus on the issue:
*It’s real: *Recent climate change is a genuine phenomenon.
*It’s us: *Human activity is responsible for the global change in
climate.
*It’s bad:* Climate change is affecting and will continue to affect
nature and society.
*There’s hope:* It is possible to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
In evaluating how the standards addressed those four points, the
reviewers considered six focus questions for each:
To what extent is the treatment of the issue in the standards
helpful in permitting students to reach these conclusions?
To what extent is the treatment of the issue in the standards
appropriately explicit?
To what extent is the treatment of the issue in the standards
integrated in a coherent learning progression?
To what extent do the standards make it clear to teachers what
knowledge and skills students are expected to attain?
To what extent would a student who met the performance expectations
in the standards relevant to the issue be prepared for further study
in higher education?
To what extent would a student who met the performance expectations
in the standards relevant to the issue be prepared for responsible
participation in civic deliberation about climate change?
https://climategrades.org/
[face it]
*Got Climate Anxiety? These People Are Doing Something About It*
Distress over global warming is increasing, but formal and informal
support networks are springing up, too.
By Susan Shain
Feb. 4, 2021
After Britt Wray married in 2017, she and her husband began discussing
whether or not they were going to have children. The conversation
quickly turned to climate change and to the planet those children might
inherit.
“It was very, very heavy,” said Dr. Wray, now a postdoctoral fellow at
Stanford University and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine. “I wasn’t expecting it.” She said she became sad and stressed,
crying when she read new climate reports or heard activists speak.
Jennifer Atkinson, an associate professor of environmental humanities at
the University of Washington, Bothell, became depressed after students
told her they couldn’t sleep because they feared social collapse or mass
extinction.
There are different terms for what the two women experienced, including
eco-anxiety and climate grief, and Dr. Wray calls it eco-distress. “It’s
not just anxiety that shows up when we’re waking up to the climate
crisis,” she said. “It’s dread, it’s grief, it’s fear.”
It’s also not unusual. Over the past five years, according to
researchers at Yale University and George Mason University, the number
of Americans who are “very worried” about climate change has more than
doubled, to 26 percent. In 2020, an American Psychiatric Association
poll found that more than half of Americans are concerned about climate
change’s effect on their mental health.
Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a psychiatrist based in Washington, D.C., and
co-founder of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, an organization building
a directory of climate-aware therapists, said she had “absolutely” seen
a surge in patients seeking help with climate anxiety in recent years...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/climate/climate-anxiety-stress.html#commentsContainer
- -
[Nice little video for really distressing times]
*Mental Illness and Reasons to Live*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7pH0pdM7Qo
The School of Life
Even if we've never spelled them out, each of us carries within us a
private list of 'reasons to live'. Mental illness can threaten these
reasons: to heal, we may need to seek out new ones.
If you are struggling with mental health there are lines where you can
get professional support:
[UK Based ]Get support from a mental health charity
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/mental-health-helplines/
[it will happen, so why not now?]
*This popular and proven climate policy should be at the top of
Congress’s to-do list*
The case for a national clean electricity standard.
Leah Stokes and Sam Ricketts -- Feb 4, 2021
Last year, presidential candidate Joe Biden campaigned on a bold climate
plan that included cleaning up America’s electricity system by 2035 with
a federal Clean Electricity Standard (CES). A national CES, which would
require utilities increase their share of renewable and carbon
pollution-free electricity, is an old idea. But the ambition — 100
percent clean electricity by 2035 — was new.
By the end of the campaign, whenever he brought up climate change, which
he did constantly, Biden had one year on his mind: 2035.
The new deadline reflects the scientific facts and the economic
opportunity. The US must cut emissions by about half this decade to give
the world a shot at limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Doing this
will create millions of good-paying jobs in the American clean energy
economy. But to make progress at the pace and scale that’s necessary,
it’s Congress who must focus on building a 100 percent clean electricity
system.
That’s why we released a major report Thursday, with Evergreen Action
and Data for Progress, which shows how Congress can get this done. As
two policy experts and advocates who have focused on cleaning up the
electricity sector, we think we have the best shot yet to get this
policy passed this year.
Clean electricity is the backbone of the energy transition — the
critical piece that all the other sectors will slot into. Not only will
getting to 100 percent clean electricity directly cut more than a
quarter of US carbon pollution, it will also enable large parts of our
transportation, building, and industrial sectors to run on clean power.
Powering as much of these sectors as we can with carbon-free electricity
would allow us to cut US emissions 70 to 80 percent. It would, in short,
solve a huge chunk of our climate challenge.
The climate demands it. The president campaigned on it. And 81 million
Americans voted for it. It’s now time for Congress and the
administration to deliver. Here’s how they can do it.
*
**A proven, practical, and popular approach*
Over the past three decades, 30 states — red and blue alike — have
passed laws requiring electric utilities to use more clean energy. Since
2015, 10 states have adopted 100 percent clean electricity standards,
requiring the transition to fully 100 percent carbon-free power. And six
more have committed to that goal. State laws are popping up so fast,
it’s hard to keep track. Across the country, 170 cities have policies to
get to 100 percent clean. As a result, more than one in three Americans
already live in a place that’s committed to reaching 100 percent clean
power.
We know this approach is technologically possible. Wind, solar,
batteries, transmission lines, and other technologies can replace dirty
fossil fuels. Google, one of the largest electricity consumers in the
country, is aiming for 100 percent clean power, real-time at all its
facilities by 2030.
With all this state and local leadership, it’s not surprising that this
approach is popular with the public. In independent polls from both Data
for Progress and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, run
over the past few months, more than two-thirds of voters support the
federal government moving the country to 100 percent clean power by 2035.
And once we implement this policy nationally, it should stay popular
because clean energy saves customers money.
Researchers from UC Berkeley, GridLab, and Energy Innovation have shown
that we could dramatically clean up our electricity system by 2035 and
lower electricity bills. Why? Many utilities continue to operate old,
uneconomic coal plants. In just three years, these plants cost customers
an additional $3.5 billion to keep open — and that’s before we add in
all the extra hospital bills for folks breathing in their pollution day
after day. Or the cost of destabilizing our climate. Replacing these
dirty plants with clean power is not only good for our health; it’s also
good for our wallets.
Clean electricity standards are proven, practical, and popular. What’s
missing is federal policy, to ensure that every state and utility is
switching from dirty energy to clean sources at the accelerated pace
that’s necessary. Without a national CES, we know that utilities will
not move fast enough — their own plans show that they won’t. This policy
must be at the top of Congress’s to-do list this year.
*
**How Congress can pass a CES through the budget reconciliation process*
With the election last month in Georgia, Democrats took control of the
Senate. However, their majority is slim. The Democrats and Republicans
each have 50 seats, and Vice President Kamala Harris can cast
tiebreaking votes in Democrats’ favor.
To pass meaningful legislation, Democrats have two options. They can get
rid of the filibuster, an arcane Senate rule that prevents consideration
of a bill without 60 votes. Or they must rely on a unique parliamentary
process known as budget reconciliation, which allows some bills to pass
with a simple majority.
Biden can fight climate change, guarantee housing, and halve poverty —
without the GOP
Reconciliation is complicated. Essentially, it’s a legislative process
that allows Congress to expedite bills that relate to federal government
revenues (like taxes), outlays (spending), or the debt limit. This
process allows legislation to pass with a simple majority in the Senate
— just 51 votes. However, there are limits to what types of legislation
can be included in this process. The criteria are written in the “Byrd
Rule.” And this can’t be done all the time; historically, Congress has
only used budget reconciliation once each fiscal year.
In our research for our report, we spent months talking with
congressional offices, parliamentary experts, think tanks, climate
advocates, and others, and have concluded that it is possible to pass a
CES through the budget reconciliation process. In our report, we
identify several ways a CES can fit with the Byrd Rule.
Most state clean energy laws create a system of credits that utilities
and other power producers can get by producing clean power. These
“zero-emissions electricity credits” — or ZECs — allow us to measure
progress. Through reconciliation, the federal government could create a
system of ZECs that live “on the books,” inside the federal budget.
Utilities would earn ZECs by continuously increasing the amount of
carbon-free electricity they deliver to customers, or else purchase the
credits from the federal program.
Another approach would involve the federal government regularly buying a
quantity of ZECs from power companies, through auctions. Essentially,
companies would submit bids for how much they would like to be paid for
the clean power they are producing. The federal government would set the
quantity needed that year — for example, 80 percent clean power by 2030
— and purchase ZECs until that target was fulfilled. This approach would
keep the costs of the policy low. Auctions have been used successfully
in New York state.
A third approach could involve a twist on either of the first two, but
with utilities earning clean energy credits for every ton of carbon
pollution that they reduce, rather than for every megawatt-hour of clean
electricity that they deliver. This is similar to policy recently
adopted in Arizona’s new 100 percent clean electricity standard.
There are other alternatives that come close to approximating a federal
CES and could also fit within the Byrd Rule. The federal government
could provide funding to states with strings attached to ensure they are
adopting carbon-free electricity requirements with the ambitious
timelines necessary. Another option is a carbon-intensity standard that
penalizes power utilities for failing to reduce their emissions. We
could also continue to use the tax code to penalize and incentivize
utilities, pushing them toward 100 percent clean electricity by 2035.
Each of these approaches can put us on a path to 100 percent clean
electricity, even under the constraints of the Byrd Rule. We are
confident there are other CES designs that could fit within reconciliation.
On the road to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, we need to hit 80
percent clean in 2030. This is a critical target for several reasons. It
places the emphasis where it should be: on urgent and immediate
progress. And it’s doable with the technology we have now.
Some utilities are already aiming for 80 percent clean by 2030,
including practically all the ones in Colorado. These utilities, and
others, recognize that it’s time to move off of fossil fuels. NIPSCO, in
Indiana, has committed to retiring all its coal by 2028 and will not
build new gas.
Focusing on 80 percent clean will ensure that we are not distracted by
how to squeeze the last, and most difficult, 10 to 20 percent of
pollution out of the electricity system. This target is also important
because of congressional rules — the budget reconciliation process
typically limits a law’s budgetary impact to 10 years. For all these
reasons, a federal CES must include this 2030 target.
Congress and the Biden administration must pass other policies alongside
a CES, to drive environmental justice and equitable economic
opportunity, and promote good union jobs. We outline a number of them in
our report, including long-term federal clean energy investments through
tax incentives, grants, and public financing; energy transition support
through debt retirement for coal plants and financial resources for
fossil fuel communities; speeding up electrification of other sectors,
including vehicles and buildings; streamlining clean energy siting and
permitting; promoting electricity market competition; intervenor
compensation to ensure transition costs remain as low as possible; and
policies to address the technology innovation gap.
Realistically, Congress will first tackle Covid-19 relief using budget
reconciliation, and only turn to Biden’s clean infrastructure agenda in
the months to come, during a second budget reconciliation process.
Because Congress didn’t pass a budget resolution last year, there are
two opportunities to use reconciliation this year.
The Biden administration cannot wait for Congress to act. In the
meantime, it must use existing laws to begin making progress toward 100
percent clean electricity right away. Biden’s Environmental Protection
Agency already has a clear legal requirement to regulate greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act, because these pollutants endanger
Americans’ health and well-being. It must also act on other dangerous
pollution from fossil fuel power plants, advancing regulations that the
Trump administration sat on, and reversing rollbacks made over the past
four years.
*Clean electricity is the way forward*
President Biden and Vice President Harris ran and won on a bold plan for
climate action.
As the country faces a terrible economic crisis, and the ongoing
Covid-19 pandemic, a clean energy recovery is our best opportunity for
economic recovery. A CES can create millions of good jobs and drive
environmental justice. With a big push on clean power, we could see a
net increase of 500,000 to 1 million more good-paying jobs in the energy
sector this decade, reaching 2.2 million in the 2030s. If we worked on
energy efficiency at the same time, we could get twice as many jobs.
Imagine what it will feel like in 2035, looking back on this moment 15
years from now. If we act now, all of us — everyday people, utility
executives, and senators alike — can reflect on this moment and know
that when we were called to act, we answered. Solving the climate crisis
is possible, if only we are brave enough to see it, if only we are brave
enough to do it.
Leah Stokes (@leahstokes) is an assistant professor at UC Santa Barbara,
author of Short Circuiting Policy, co-host of the podcast A Matter of
Degrees, and a member of the advisory board of Evergreen.
Sam Ricketts (@samtricketts) is a co-founder of Evergreen Action, and a
former longtime climate adviser to Gov. Jay Inslee. He is also a senior
fellow at the Center for American Progress.
https://www.vox.com/22265119/biden-climate-change-renewable-energy-clean-electricity-standard-congress
- -
[new site]
https://www.endclimatesilence.org/
[video review with Paul Beckwith]
*Monitor Global Climate Change in Real-Time with Climate Change
Indicator Dashboards*
Feb 2, 2021
Paul Beckwith
Recently I Tweeted out links so some excellent climate change
“dashboards” that are chock full of information on our climate system.
Here are some of the best:
UK Met Office: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/monitoring/dashboard.html
Bloomberg Green site:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/climate-change-data-green/
NOAA Climate site: https://www.climate.gov/
NASA Climate site: https://climate.nasa.gov/
[Russia]
*Softening of environmental law paves way for big oil push into pristine
Arctic lands*
A lobby offensive by Russia's biggest oil companies is followed by more
relaxed eco-regulations for the far northern region.
By Atle Staalesen -- February 01, 2021
Companies Rosneft, Gazprom Neft and Lukoil have been pushing on the
federal government for softer environmental regulations in the Arctic.
New industrial projects can not be completed in time unless a more
relaxed environmental regime is introduced, they argue.
The companies especially call on the abolishment of a required
environmental expert assessment, a mandatory part of new project
development since August 2020.
In a joint letter to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, the company
leaders say that new projects might experience significant delays unless
the required expert assessment is dumped.
This “excessive” demand might ultimately hamper social-economical
development in the Arctic, the companies argue. Furthermore, at risk is
the ambition to ship 80 million tons of goods on the Northern Sea Route
by year 2024...
- -
According to Kommersant, the federal Ministry of Natural Resources is
ready to introduce liberalizations that will facilitate the industrial
activities. That reportedly also includes Rosneft’s Vostok Oil project.
Paradoxically, the stronger pressure from the oil companies coincides
with the Ministry’s announcement that it is abolishing its Department on
the Arctic, Antarctic and World Seas. From now on, the activities on
Arctic resources and nature protection will be managed by the Ministry’s
remaining 11 departments, the announcement reads.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/climate-crisis/2021/02/softening-environmental-legislation-paves-way-big-oil-push-pristine-arctic
[Economics video]
*Nothing Can Grow Forever - Bill Shireman & Trammelll Crow*
Feb 3, 2021
Facing Future
Trammell Crow & Bill Shireman join Dale and Stuart for a lively
exploration of where we agree and disagree concerning the
political-economics of the climate and ecological mess humanity is
making of the Earth. The clearest agreement that emerged from this
lively and pertinent chat was that #NothingCanGrowForever. We were
mostly in agreement, despite our differing political affiliations, which
relates back to the concept in their book and Part 1, that we're all
#InThisTogether.
This portends 'trouble' in a modern civilization based upon a defective
economic system and its marketplace, both of which presuppose and teach
'limitless, exponential growth' in nearly every business school.
Eventually there's got to be a 'reckoning' of aiming for the
impossible... limitless economic growth, called 'uneconomic growth' in
Ecological Economics.
That reckoning is the current 'showdown' between Nature and humanity, a
confrontation that will culminate either in a #Collapse, either of
human population or Nature.... or both.
Part 1 of this conversation is at https://youtu.be/V9ZV46DBiGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnteemQdZrU
[Sweden]
*Iron ore miner takes lead in development of all-electric heavy truck
for Arctic roads*
If you thought a battery-powered heavy truck can’t work at -44°C below
zero, think again. A unique pilot project takes place in northern Sweden
this winter.
ByThomas Nilsen -- January 31, 2021
“If the technology works here, it will probably work everywhere,” said
Lars Wallgren, logistic manager with Kaunis Iron, a recently re-started
iron ore mine outside Pajala, north of the Arctic Circle.
Kaunis Iron has teamed up with Swedish power company Vattenfall, Volvo
Trucks, ABB and Wist Last & Bus in a pilot project aimed to prove that
battery-power is well suited for long-distance transport of ore, even in
extreme cold.
The Kaunis mine is located a stone’s throw from Sweden’s northern border
to Finland, but the nearest railway is 150 kilometers away. From the
Pitkäjärvi re-loading terminal near Svappavaara, the electrified Iron
Ore Line brings the ore by train to the port of Narvik, on Norway’s
coast to the North-Atlantic.
The goal of Kaunis Iron is to electrify also the first leg of the route,
the transportation by heavy trucks. Five years from now, all trucks on
the route will be battery-powered.
“This type of challenge cannot be solved by any single stakeholder.
Industrial innovation calls for collaboration between experts. It is
therefore pleasing that we have managed to assemble such a strong team
to challenge the Arctic climate with electrically powered heavy
vehicles,” said Lars Wallgren.
Ebba Bergbom Wallin with Volvo Trucks Sweden is excited about the
truck’s driving performances in Arctic environment.
“It will help us assess how battery-electric trucks can be used to
increase efficiency and reduce climate impact in extremely cold
conditions. The test of the Volvo truck this winter will give real-life
experiences aimed to further improve the technology,” she said.
- -
Previously, Vattenfall and Kaunis Iron entered partnership to develop
solutions for electrification of rock- and passenger transport in the
mine itself and at other parts of the company’s operations.
“The Swedish mining industry is facing major changes to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels and develop climate-efficient and responsible
mining operations. This is a prerequisite for the transition to a
sustainable society, and contributing to local development with a
minimal climate impact. Kaunis Iron wants to take active responsibility
for this development, and that is why this collaboration with Vattenfall
is very important,” said Klas Dagertun, CEO, Kaunis Iron.
Others in northern Sweden that are implementing zero-emission heavy
vehicles running on battery-power include iron ore miner LKAB, Boliden’s
Aitik copper mine outside Gällivare and city busses in both Luleå and Umeå.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/new-energy/2021/01/arctic-iron-ore-miner-takes-lead-development-all-electric-heavy-truck
[New wind power manufacturer seeks investors]
*The wind turbine you want to live and work next to*
We make the most beautiful and efficient small wind turbines advanced
aerodynamics combined with low noise, a pleasure to live next to and
look at.
https://flowerturbines.com/
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - February 5, !990 *
Addressing a special IPCC gathering in Washington, D.C., President
George H. W. Bush acknowledges the reality of human-caused climate
change, but says that solutions to the problem of a warming planet must
not inhibit worldwide economic growth.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100811144431/http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=1514&year=1990&month=all
http://c-spanvideo.org/program/PresidentialAddress28
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-05/news/mn-275_1_global-warming
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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 mailing is text-only. It does not carry
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers. A
text-only message can 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.
Messages have no tracking software.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20210205/dc4cff0c/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list