Growing plants and then storing the carbon dioxide they have taken up from the atmosphere is no viable option to counteract unmitigated emissions from fossil fuel burning, a new study shows. The plantations would need to be so large, they would eliminate most natural ecosystems or reduce food production if implemented as a late-regret option in the case of substantial failure to reduce emissions. "If we continue burning coal and oil the way we do today and regret our inaction later, the amounts of greenhouse gas we would need to take out of the atmosphere in order to stabilize the climate would be too huge to manage," says Lena Boysen from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany, lead-author of the study to be published in a journal of the American Geophysical Union, Earth's Future. If CO2 emissions reductions are moderately reduced in line with current national pledges under the Paris Climate Agreement, biomass plantations implemented by mid-century to extract remaining excess CO2 from the air still would have to be enormous. In this scenario, they would replace natural ecosystems on fertile land the size of more than one third of all forests we have today on our planet. Alternatively, more than a quarter of land used for agriculture at present would have to be converted into biomass plantations -- putting at risk global food security. "In the climate drama currently unfolding on that big stage we call Earth, CO2 removal is not the hero who finally saves the day after everything else has failed. It is rather a supporting actor that has to come into play right from the beginning, while the major part is up to the mitigation protagonist," says co-author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of PIK. "So this is a positive message: We know what to do -- rapidly ending fossil fuel use complemented by a great variety of CO2 removal techniques. We know when to do it -- now. And if we do it, we find it is still possible to avoid the bulk of climate risks by limiting temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius."
0 Comments
Children and teens exposed to high levels of traffic-related air pollution have evidence of a specific type of DNA damage called telomere shortening. Reports show that a recent study in the May Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine claims young people with asthma also have evidence of telomere shortening. "Our results suggest that telomere length may have potential for use as a biomarker of DNA damage due to environmental exposures and/or chronic inflammation," claims reports by John R. Balmes, MD, of University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues. The study took place in Fesno, California and examined fourteen kids. The study adds to previous evidence that air pollution causes oxidative stress, which can damage lipids, proteins, and DNA. Research has suggested that children may have different telomere shortening regulation than adults, which might make them more vulnerable to the damaging effects of air pollution. With further research, telomeres could provide a new biomarker to reflect the cellular-level effects of exposure to air pollution. Telomeres might also provide new insights into the understanding how pollution exposure leads to adverse health outcomes.
How energy is produced and where it comes from affect jobs, the economy and the environment. Recent presidential nominee's, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump had opposing views on ways to accomplish energy production in America. The election of Donald Trump has led to a multitude of arguments over the affects of energy production on the environment. Replacing fossil fuel power plants with renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal power, would reduce diverse types of pollution. This is the opposite of what Trump planned to do with his new found presidency. The magnitude of difference in pollution between fossil and some renewable energy options is stunning. It was determined that the entire process of manufacturing, setting up and operating photovoltaic panels causes less pollution than only delivering fuel to a coal-fired power plant when mining is included. So, Trump supporters what do you think of Mr. Trump's plan to produce an abundance of high power energy using coal! Some may argue that yes fossil fuels may be worse for the environment but are more effective. Solar panels require much more space to generate the same amount of power as fossil fuel or nuclear power generators. Shouldn’t covering huge areas with solar panels be a problem? Not necessarily. The amount of land needed to generate a kilowatt-hour from PV is comparable to that of coal power, when the land associated with mining coal is accounted for. And about half of the PV installations in our future scenario in 2050 could be placed on rooftops.It is confirmed that fossil fuels, mainly coal place a heavy burden on the environment and that most renewable power projects have lower pollution-related impacts on ecosystems and human health. Nonetheless, no energy source is without adverse environmental side effects. Power plant siting, project design and technology choice are critical issues that investors and governments should consider very carefully.
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/22/does-green-energy-have-hidden-health-and-environmental-costs-yes-but-not-as-much_partner/ The Mariposa Biomass Project or MBP is closer to achieving its goal of building a 2.4 megawatt biomass facility in Mariposa. The California Energy Commission awarded Mariposa with a five million dollar grant to construct a biomass facility in the city of Mariposa. This five million dollar grant was created in response to California's Governor Jerry Browns 2015 proclamation of a Sate of Emergency to protect communities against trees dying due the recent drought. The MBP grant application was one of the two awards that recieved a top score in the competion for the grant. They were pleased to receive the grant but hope the other high-scoring projects will also receive money for their projects. The funding will help develop methods to reduce fire threats in the Mariposa county. By turning excess and dead vegetation into clean, renewable energy. These advancements will also create optimal job opportunists. http://sierranewsonline.com/mariposa-biomass-project-awarded-5-million-cec-grant/
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/sd-fi-rebates-changed-20161025-story.html In recent efforts to try and boost sales on clean air vehicles, California is again tweaking its rebate program when you purchase a clean air car. Soon the new rules will be that high-income earners will be excluded from getting the rebates while prospective buyers from lower-income households will get more money under the state’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project. The changes are designed to push for eventually everyone to be able to afford a clean air vehicle. People with household incomes less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal poverty level will receive $4,500 for buying or leasing battery-electric vehicles, $3,500 for plug-in hybrids and $7,000 for fuel cell vehicles. With the states eye on reducing air pollution this change is hopeful to make progress. Also, in the Central Valley and the Los Angeles region, a “scrap and replace” program offers up to $9,500 in vouchers to low-income owners to trade in their emission-spewing clunkers for clean vehicles. We want to to vastly increase the number of zero-emission vehicles on the state’s highways in the coming years, and this change may be the answer.
https://vimeo.com/40102637 All energy has environmental impacts. The greatest cost in environmental issues is CO2 emissions and one-third of the worlds population comes from oil, and one-half from coal. In order to reduce emissions we should reduce fossil fuels at all costs. But, the cost to install energy efficient solar panels is a great cost. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitro-oxide erodes the ozone layer. Water use is also becoming an environmental concern along with the abundant uses of fossil fuels. Clean energy is also very expensive. In order to prepare for the future we need to minimize environmental impact and keeping energy affordable. We need to invest in the environment therefore, investing in the future. The question most environmentalists ask is, "How much land are we willing to designate to using clean energy."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/us/politics/trump-vehicle-emissions-regulation.html Trump's new laws are said to undo regulations that have been placed on gas gulping cars that have prevented global warming effects. Trump is essentially making a U-turn on the automobile's industry recent efforts to make more electric, fuel efficient cars. Scott Pruitt and the Trump administrations will immediately start to undo one of former President Barack Obama’s most significant environmental legacies. Trump plans to go through the lengthy process of cutting the Clean Power Plan. " The regulatory rollback on vehicle pollution will relax restrictions on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and will not require action by Congress," says NYTimes about Trump's plans. Trump's plans will also heavily affect California and their stricter regulations. The E.P.A. will also begin legal proceedings to revoke a waiver for California that was allowing the state to enforce the tougher tailpipe standards for its drivers. The tailpipe pollution regulations were among Mr. Obama’s major initiatives to reduce global warming and were put forth jointly by the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department. They would have forced automakers to build passenger cars that achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, compared with about 36 miles per gallon today. Obama's plans have been put to a waste thanks to Trump's undoing.
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/scott-pruitts-first-week-at-the-epa/ Scott Pruitt’s nomination was the first time Environmental Defense Fund that has gone on the record to oppose such an appointment in our 50-year history. What we’ve seen so far only reinforces that we must stay hopeful. Despite big talk there has been little action. Pruitt has another reason to not be trusted other than his disruptive environmental plans. Last week the Oklahoma attorney general’s office withheld some emails from release as privileged; the judge will review those emails in chambers to make sure she agrees if not, more will be released. These emails deal with copying and pasting industry requests and sending them in to federal officials on official letterhead. This habit will be court ruled and determined. The emails also exposed in greater detail Pruitt’s close connection with Devon Energy, a large oil and gas company that provided line edits on additional Oklahoma Attorney General letters to federal officials, pushing back against federal safeguards addressing oil and gas pollution. The emails show, among other things, that the lobbying group American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers sent information to Pruitt’s personal email about opposition to the Renewable Fuels Standard and ozone limits. A lot has occurred in a single week and there is no faith the pace of disruption will slow.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-budget-idUSKBN1692XA Above, the new head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, told U.S. mayors on Thursday he would make a priority of cleanups of industrial and hazardous waste sites and improving water infrastructure, even as the White House proposed severe proposed cuts to those programs. Edward Scott Pruitt is an American lawyer and Republican politician from the state of Oklahoma who is currently the 14th Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Under Donald Trump's presidentency Pruitt was placed as head of the EPA which may in terms lead to a not so healthy envionrment. Trump plans to cut EPA's budget by twenty-five percent and cut all staffing by twenty percent. Under the proposal, which was sent to the EPA this week, grants to states for lead cleanup would be cut 30 percent to $9.8 million. The money being reduced from the EPA will be contributed to more military spending. Environmentalists urged to stop the proposed cuts, which must be approved by the Republican-led Congress. The White House has had no comment on the progression of these cuts so far. Donald Trump hopes to diminish the previous work President Obama had made towards bettering the environment. Trump still vows his plan to overhaul the green regulation will not jeopardize America's water and air quality.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/23/california-drought-continues-to-shrink-as-flooding-becomes-the-new-crisis.html According to the latest updates of the drought monitors, past areas in Southern California that were once drought stricken have made huge process and are now facing floods. Recent rains have brought Southern California out of the drought and the Central Valley that was once lacking water is now fleeing the floods. "The precipitation that fell this week continued to reduce long-term drought in California," stated CNBC of drought monitor reports. "Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, which have been the epicenter of drought in California in recent weeks, received much-needed rainfall," exclaims news broadcaster CNBC. These past weeks areas such as Santa Barbra received 7 to 8 inches of rain weekly. These conditions have shown that only 38% of the areas in California are being drought monitored on a moderate drought level. The recent storms have also lawn down a fresh blanket of snow across the Sierra Nevada's. Cold storms are predicated to continue bringing more flood warnings and snow to the Sierra's. This winter has been quit the come back from recent drought years.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2017
Categories |