After a relatively slow year for environmental reporting, this week saw a significant uptick in stories about environmental and community stewardship issues. Perhaps the most interesting stories are the ones that remain to be written involving the new "energy and environment" team appointed by President Obama this week. The Administrator of the EPA and Secretary of Energy will shape the details of the President's second term commitment to addressing the impacts of climate change.
Cabinet picks could take on climate change
"Mr. Obama nominated Gina McCarthy, a tough-talking native of Boston and an experienced clean air regulator, to take charge at the Environmental Protection Agency, and Ernest J. Moniz, a physicist and strong advocate of natural gas and nuclear power as cleaner alternatives to coal, to run the Department of Energy."
The moves, particularly the appointment of Moniz for Energy, signal a disconcerting focus on "bridging fuels" - namely natural gas and nuclear - to get us from a present of carbon-intensive energy to a future of largely renewable sources. Unless major technological advances find market adoption in the immediate future, switching to natural gas will not have the major climate improvement that most would like us to believe. McCarthy does seem to have good insights into the dangers of methane leaks in natural gas mining, and perhaps some hope this week came to light that will hopefully reduce the methane leaks that make natural gas mining almost as destructive as coal combustion.
Can this contraption make fracking greener?
"Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, even more so than CO2 over the short-term. And natural gas production creates a lot of it: The EPA predicts that methane from the natural gas industry will be one of the top sources of non-CO2 emissions in coming decades. A 2011 federal study [PDF] found that taken all around, the total greenhouse footprint for shale gas could be up to twice that of coal over a 20-year period."
We also do not seem to be capable of learning the lessons of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukishima. I bring this up not entirely as a "stop nuclear now because it cannot be done safely in perpetuity" argument, but as a "after seeing failure occur, why can't we just fix the issues we already know we have" argument. Although I personally believe the former argument - in the absence of new technologies that neutralize the potential injury nuclear waste and nuclear meltdowns can cause - but accept that it might not have mainstream adoption. That said, there is nothing unreasonable about the later argument. It is disconcerting that our nations avoidance of maintaining infrastructure extends to safety at our nuclear facilities.
The NRC and nuclear power plant safety
"Analysis of the near-miss data for the three years covered by UCS reports shows that 40 of the nation's 104 operating commercial reactors experienced a near miss between 2010 and 2012, with 12 reactors experiencing at least two near-miss events, and three—at Fort Calhoun, Palisades, and Wolf Creek—experiencing three or more. The three-year data indicate that the average U.S. reactor is likely to experience seven near misses over its 40-year license period (increasing to about ten if the license is extended by 20 years, as most have been)."
It will be interesting to see whether the signal sent by the New York Times this week indicates a shift away from a specialized focus on environmental reporting to a more robust reporting on the impacts environmental issues have on national, metro, and political issues, or whether it means that in an era of limited resources, media focus on environmental issues has too limited an appeal to justify the expense.
For Times environmental reporting, intentions may be good but the signs are not
"Mr. Baquet said the move was done, in part, for cost-cutting reasons, as The Times eliminated 30 management positions, but more for coverage reasons.
'I think our environmental coverage has suffered from the segregation — it needs to be more integrated into all of the different areas,' like science, politics and foreign news, he said.
He agreed that environmental coverage is of great importance, and said that having The Times’s environmental reporters working on other desks is the best way to 'drive more of these important stories onto the home page and the front page.'"
With the Chicago Blackhawks off to one of the best starts in NHL history, the only hockey sticks I want to be thinking about are the ones that are scoring goals for the men in the Blackhawks sweater. Unfortunately, every time we learn something new about the changing temperatures and climate that arise from our actions, we learn only that it is more drastic and more impactive than we had predicted.
Study: In just a century, globe shifted from one of the coldest decades in 11,000 years to warmest
"Marcott’s data indicates that it took 4,000 years for the world to warm about 1.25 degrees from the end of the ice age to about 7,000 years ago. The same fossil-based data suggest a similar level of warming occurring in just one generation: from the 1920s to the 1940s. Actual thermometer records don’t show the rise from the 1920s to the 1940s was quite that big and Marcott said for such recent time periods it is better to use actual thermometer readings than his proxies."
Editor's prerogative: Post Script
Since national priorities dominated this week's news, it was tough not to include about fifteen stories, but one that caught my eye that I just had to share because of how it exemplifies the potential to have simple solutions that solve multiple problems. One device that promotes activity, reading, environmental protection, and increased quality of life. It's a timely find for me, as my daughter starts her soccer season this week.
Soccer ball generates energy while you play
"This is a real soccer ball. You can head it, kick it, knee it, slap it out of a goal with your fist, or, if you are Diego Maradona, knock it into one. A soccer ball does not need another reason to be a wonderful thing, but this particular soccer ball provides one: Kick it around for 30 minutes and it powers an LED bulb for three hours."
Happy Friday!
No comments:
Post a Comment