We have woven our systems and economies so much that we do not always see the potential for impact on our lives from issues in other parts of the country, much less the world. In all the squabbling over the Keystone XL pipeline, those of us in the Midwest, and specifically Chicago, saw the issue as important but having impacts elsewhere. Now, it has become obvious that people living not more than ten miles from my house will have their lives directly affected, and that it could move its way toward my home unless it is handled.The Kochs' dirty secret is out in Chicago
"There are many reasons that the Keystone XL pipeline will clearly exacerbate the problem of climate pollution…but one that is often overlooked (at our peril) is the problem of petroleum coke (aka “petcoke”). Petcoke is a refining byproduct of tar sands oil, and when burned is substantially dirtier than coal and contributes significantly to greenhouse gas pollution."
In an interesting take on the Keystone XL debate, there is some question as to where and when environmentalists should place their efforts to get policy intervention. If greenhouse gas emissions are ones primary consideration, then there is some evidence that Keystone should not be the issue, and maybe efforts in other areas will have more impact. It is also interesting to see the skepticism that we should levy against any advocacy organization when they speak about the immediacy and the seriousness of an issue.
The Keystone fight a huge environmentalist mistake
"That plan is far from certain. But Keystone won’t affect the outcome much one way or the other. If Obama pulls off the EPA plan, then the U.S. can hit its emissions target even if it builds the pipeline. If he doesn’t, it won’t hit the target, even if it kills the pipeline."
I has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps it would have been best to send Chinese planners a copy of newspaper reports from London in 1873 (or 1800, or 1880, or 1952...) before they decided to make their energy infrastructure so dependent on coal. If anyone thinks that coal is a solution for any energy issue going forward, one need only look at the images in the article.
Shanghai to forbid coal burning as China decides to monitor smog's effects
"The plan’s release comes on the heels of an especially crippling spell of smoggy days in northern China that caused schools, roads, and airports to close with visibility dropping to as little as 50 yards in some area. The PM2.5 index reached 1,000 in some parts of the northeastern capital city of Harbin, far above the 300 which is considered hazardous and the WHO-recommended daily level of no more than 20."
In the absence of national political movement to establish a truly free market in energy, one of the world's largest economies has teamed with other regional governments to take the lead. Just as we used to hear about "California emissions" when purchasing cars 30 years ago, hopefully this will catch on and work its way across the country so that we determine an accurate cost of emissions, and make sure that the cost is applied to the market so consumers have all the information they need when purchasing.
3 states, province sign West Coast climate pact
"The three states and one province won't necessarily use the same approach to putting a price on carbon. There are several options. California last year launched a cap-and-trade system, in which the state sets a declining annual limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies buy and sell permits to emit those gases, with the number of permits shrinking slowly over time. British Columbia, in contrast, uses a simple "carbon tax" of $30 Canadian ($28.73 U.S.) per ton of greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is included in fuel prices and is used to offset other provincial taxes. Washington and Oregon have yet to choose either system. The legislatures of both states considered cap-and-trade bills in 2009 but didn't adopt them because of concerns about the potential economic impact."
Because once a consumer sees the true cost of carbon-based fuels in combustion, they will quickly move to more cost effective solutions. Solar energy has now joined those ranks, and looks to only get more and more cost effective over the coming years.
Solar rebound beating dot-com recovery as demand surges
"Analysts have become more optimistic about solar shares in recent months. The average rating for SunPower, the biggest U.S. supplier of polysilicon-based solar panels, is 3.5, up from 2.4 in December and the highest in more than two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A 5 rating indicates investors should purchase the shares, and 1 means they should sell.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., the only Chinese solar manufacturer to report a profit in the second quarter, has an average rating of 3.7, up from 2.3 in May, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Its shares have more than tripled this year."
Happy Friday!
No comments:
Post a Comment