Earth // Current

Obama to skip UN climate talks

A bit of bad news for those seeking quick action on climate change under the new presidential administration: Barack Obama is not... more

bansheewail
added this

UN climate chief say, World on track to meet Kyoto goals

Emissions by the 40 industrialised nations(EXCEPT THE US) that agreed binding cuts in pollution are down 5% on 1990 levels... more

bansheewail
added this

Bark beetles kill millions of acres of trees

Last year in Wyoming and Colorado it was 1.5 million acres. This year it is expected to total over two million. In the Canadian... more

TravG73
added this

Jon Michael Turner speaks out about Iraq!! MUST SEE!!!

I spent some time watching several times and paid close attention to this video. It is testimony we sure did not hear about on... more

Patio_Patty
added this

Classical music soothes the wanderlust of zoo elephants

The rousing, patriotic sweep of Elgar's Nimrod, the mournful tones of Nessun Dorma and the urgent eight-note allegro con brio... more

bansheewail
added this

Stephen Hawking calls for Moon and Mars colonies

Stephen Hawking called for a massive investment in establishing colonies on the Moon and Mars in a lecture in honour of... more

bonemachine
added this

Life caused explosion in our planet's mineral wealth

As life has evolved into all its abundance and diversity, Earth's rocks have come along for the ride. Two-thirds of the... more

bonemachine
added this

Environmentalists win big EPA ruling on coal emissions

Hoping this ruling keeps new coal plants from being built in this country. We have enough pollution and toxicity to deal with already. Coal plants contribute at least 30% of the carbon emissions that precipitate climate change. They should be responsible for what they burn as well as the lives they ruin and the mountains they destroy. It is about time. It is about time America leads the way to a new renewable energy future. There is a better way.
_________

From the article:

Environmentalists have long known that when it comes to climate change, coal will be a dealbreaker. The carbon-intensive fossil fuel provides nearly half of the United States' electricity, and is responsible for some 30% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions. That's just due to the coal plants already operating — as the U.S. looks to expand its energy supply to meet rising demand in the future, over 100 coal plants are in various stages of development around the country. If those plants are built without the means to capture and sequester underground the carbon they emit — and it's far from clear that such technology will be commercially viable in the near-term — our ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avert climate change will be meaningless.

That's why a decision issued on Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board is so important. Responding to a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club over a new coal plant being build on American Indian reservation land in Utah, the board ruled that the EPA has no valid reason to refuse to regulate the CO2 emissions that come from new coal-powered plants. The decision pointed to a May 2007 ruling by the Supreme Court that recognized CO2, the main cause of climate change, is indeed a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act and therefore needs to be regulated by the EPA.

In the months since that landmark decision, the EPA — with the support of the Bush Administration — has doggedly refuse to regulate CO2, much to the dismay of environmentalists. The board's decision will force the EPA to consider CO2 when issuing permits for new power plants, potentially making it — at least in the short-term — all but impossible to certify new coal power plants. That's because the EPA will need to reconfigure its rules on dealing with CO2, which is found in greater concentrations in coal than any other fossil fuel, that force plants in the permitting process to be reevaluated, delaying them for months or longer. "In a nutshell it sends [new plants ]back to the drawing board to address their CO2 emissions," says Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's National Clean Coal campaign. "In the short term it freezes the coal industry in its tracks."Hoping this ruling keeps new coal plants from being built in this country. We have enough pollution and toxicity to deal with... more

JanforGore
added this

41 responses

4 days ago

Who owns nature?: Monsanto & biotech companies move to monopolize biodiversity

They may be moving to do so but they are coming up against much resistance from farmers, consumers, and various organizations that... more

JanforGore
added this

22 responses

5 days ago

Renewables to top gas as power source by 2015

A change that must be made to keep the climate balance of this planet from reaching a tipping point. But we need a strong climate treaty that holds industrial nations to limits on Co2 and other GHG emissions in order to keep the climate in check. As it is, we are already on track as this report outlines to hit that sixth degree in warming, which scientists call the doomsday scenario. This is now not just a choice, this is a necessity.

From the article:

Renewable energy, such as wind, solar and hydropower, will overtake gas to become the second largest source of electricity behind coal by 2015, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.

That was under a pessimistic forecast for a global climate response, not taking into account a possible hardening of action to penalize greenhouse gases and support low-carbon renewables -- which would see even faster growth.

"Renewables-based electricity generation is expected to grow substantially over the coming decades, benefiting from high fossil-fuel prices, declining investment costs and government support," said the IEA's World Energy Outlook, the setpiece, annual report by the energy adviser to 28 rich countries.

Renewable energy would become mainstream, as the prices of rival gas and coal remained high while the cost of low-carbon alternatives declines as a result of technology advances and government financial backing.

One problem area was the reputation of biofuels, which compete with food crops for limited agricultural land, and some of which deliver limited greenhouse gas emissions cuts compared to conventional fossil fuels.

One of the fastest growing sectors would be offshore wind, its contribution growing more than 100-fold under current trends by 2030, even not allowing for an ambitious global deal to fight climate change.

But no climate deal would see long-term average global temperatures rise by up to 6 degrees Celsius, a disastrous outcome which implies more ambitious policy steps were likely.A change that must be made to keep the climate balance of this planet from reaching a tipping point. But we need a strong climate... more

JanforGore
added this

13 responses

5 days ago

Surfer gets wailed-on by whale! - video

The Whales are pissed!!! Screw Japan!! He said, " Get off my humpback, damn!!"

bansheewail
added this

5 responses

5 days ago

Carl Sagan discusses nuclear self destruction

A great voice from beyond speaks to us about the futililty of war and the arrogance of the human species. And as Carl Sagan asked... more

JanforGore
added this

3 responses

6 days ago

Yonaguni Monuement: Ancient City of the Japans

I found this so very interesting, so I did even more research into the possibility of ancient underwater cities. It seems there... more

csmonut
added this

9 responses

6 days ago

Maldives seek to buy a new homeland, climate change

The Maldives will begin to divert a portion of the country's billion-dollar annual tourist revenue into buying a new homeland... more

bansheewail
added this

21 responses

8 days ago

Quarter of Atlantic sharks and rays face extinction says IUCN

More than a quarter of sharks and rays in the north-east Atlantic face extinction from overfishing, conservationists warned today.... more

bansheewail
added this

10 responses

8 days ago

President Chosen by GOD ?

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Jubilation, pride and relief permeated pews and pulpits at predominantly black churches across the... more

Recycle_psycho
added this

0 responses

9 days ago

Putting the "Public" Back in Public Lands

An open and informative letter to Obama from a Colorado journalist. From the article: Large tracts of public land all around... more

csmonut
added this

0 responses

9 days ago

Cure for global warming? Rock

Apparently, there's a rock that soak up harmful things and might help us out with global warming.

ShadesOfInsanity
added this

3 responses

10 days ago

Gardeners must know their seed suppliers to prevent GM transgenic contamination

With pollen from Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready sugar beets in the wind, gardeners must get to know their... more

JanforGore
added this

5 responses

10 days ago

Why small plastic particles may post a big problem in our oceans

Over the past few years, scientists have begun to realize that the increasing volume of plastic materials slowly decomposing in the world's oceans may present a long-term problem for marine food chains already reeling from overfishing and other anthropogenic insults. Partly as a result of a pair of influential papers published in ES&T, scientists are now exploring the role that fragments of plastic trash may play in transporting marine pollutants.

NOAA MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM
Microplastic debris isn't unattractive, but research shows that it can be highly toxic.

The first international conference about this newly emerging microplastics problem was held in September and sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Attendees from six countries agreed to define microplastics as plastic pieces or fragments smaller than 5 millimeters. Sources of microplastics include both the small plastic particles used in products like body washes and cosmetics and the weathering of larger plastic flotsam and jetsam, says conference organizer Joel Baker of the University of Washington Tacoma, where the event was held.

Larger plastic debris tends mainly to float on the surface, but microplastics also can be found in the water column and on the seabed, says Richard Thompson, a researcher at Plymouth University (U.K) and a coauthor of both ES&T papers.This distribution, together with the smaller size, means that a wider variety of organisms could be exposed to [microplastics], he says. Thompson has been at the forefront of developing methods to definitively identify plastic fragments as small as 20 micrometers.

As plastic items break down, any toxic additives they contain including flame retardants, antimicrobials, and plasticizers may be released into the ocean environment, Thompson explains. Plastics can act like sponges to collect hydrophobic persistent organic pollutants, such as PCBs, adds Holly Bamford, director of NOAA's Marine Debris Program. Microplastic particles have been shown to hold concentrations of PCBs more than 1 million times higher than those in the surrounding water, Baker says.

At the recent conference, Hideshige Takada of the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology presented persuasive data that microplastics can impact marine food chains; the results came from a feeding experiment with streaked shearwaters, a common seabird in Japan and Australia. Takada's group, which has analyzed plastic pellets found on beaches around the world, fed chicks living in their natural environment a diet of fish laced with PCB-laden polyethylene resin pellets collected from Tokyo Bay. The pellet-consuming chicks took in up to 3 times the concentrations of lighter-weight PCB compounds, or congeners, as did chicks fed fish alone, he reported.

snip

The world now uses 230 million pounds of plastic annually, Thompson says, noting that much of this is for one-trip packaging that is thrown out within a year of production, on average. Because the plastic that enters the ocean tends to fragment, it is likely to remain in the environment for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, he says.
________________
I have to wonder, just where did the corporations producing these items with these toxins think it would break down and go to? Did they not think, know, or care where it went? Who has the bigger responsibility here? The producers of these plastic items, or the consumer? I went shopping this morning and saw a woman loading four, FOUR large cases of bottled water into her cart and I just couldn't help myself... I went over to her and nicely told her where Poland Spring comes from, how Nestle gets it, and where those bottles will go when she is done with them, and that bottled water on the whole is really no different than tap water and she would do much better with a Brita. She put two cases back... it's a start. ;-).Over the past few years, scientists have begun to realize that the increasing volume of plastic materials slowly decomposing in... more