Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
I guess Alexandria Orcasio Cortez is one of them. Won't have children because of climate change.
Climate Change l Global Warming l Update, News & Discussion
- Thread starter Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
- Start date
I guess Alexandria Orcasio Cortez is one of them. Won't have children because of climate change.
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
I am male and i am sceard of my child
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
Great Janjua
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2016
- Messages
- 3,733
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Mashallah kya danth Hain
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...h-how-can-we-meet-climate-goals/#63ba5a4111d9
New research finds the United States’ energy mix is rapidly decarbonizing largely due to economics, as coal-fired generation keeps retiring in favor of cheaper clean energy additions, but U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions still rose 2.5% in 2018.
Although that may seem counterintuitive, economic growth and extreme weather increased energy demand, despite power sector decarbonization. To help avoid dire consequences of global warming, the U.S. will need to decouple energy productivity and economic growth to accelerate emissions reductions .
Positive steps are underway, from increasing clean energy deployment to critical technology investments, and these need to be continually strengthened. In the past few years, emissions reductions have largely come from state-level action rather than federal policy. But as momentum builds behind sweeping federal climate legislation, policymakers should consider a suite of energy policies that address all economic sectors by combining performance standards, economic signals, and research and development (R&D).
Clean energy growth fuels energy mix transformation
In the past ten years, U.S. electricity generation from coal has declined from 44% to 27%, while the share of renewables has grown from 11% to 18%, according to the 2019 Sustainable Energy in America Factbook by BloombergNEF and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE).
A record 13 gigawatts (GW) of coal plant capacity either closed or was announced for retirement in 2018, but unlike coal, renewables continued growing: 19.5GW of wind and solar were added to the U.S. grid last year, and wind is the largest single source of zero-carbon generation, essentially even with nuclear. Renewable energy capacity has now doubled in the last decade, with wind and solar making up nearly all new additions.
Subsidies and rapidly falling costs have made this growth possible. Solar prices have fallen more than 90% and onshore wind prices have fallen about 65% over the past decade, spurred by expanded deployment and utilities of scale. Building new solar or wind resources is even cheaper than continuing to run existing coal plants in some areas of the country, and renewables are now competitive with fossil fuels even without subsidies.
Meanwhile, grid reliability remained steady even as larger shares of renewables have come online, and utility bills have remained roughly the same – the BNEF/BCSE Factbook reports U.S. households continued spending record lows on electricity and natural gas, and industrial power prices remained the second lowest of the G7 nations.
But despite soaring renewables deployment, electricity generation from natural gas nearly doubled in the last decade, spurred by lower prices due to the U.S. fracking boom. While natural gas generation produces fewer emissions than coal, it is still carbon-intensive, and methane leakage rates greater than 3.2% anywhere from production to generation make it worse for the climate than coal.
As more and more states set aggressive clean energy targets, natural gas becomes increasingly incompatible with climate targets. When coal plants retire, they should be replaced with renewables wherever possible to avoid years of continued fossil fuel reliance.
Economic growth still drives emissions growth
Despite the U.S. power sector transformation, GHG emissions still increased in 2018, which BNEF/BCSE attributes to GDP growth and extreme weather. The U.S. economy expanded at its fastest pace in five years, affecting overall energy demand, and extreme weather helped drive up energy consumption at a faster pace than GDP – 2018 saw the highest demand for building cooling since at least 1990, and the highest heating demand since 2014.
Emissions would have climbed even higher if not for power sector decarbonization. While U.S. electricity consumption rose 2.2%, CO2 emissions from power plants rose just 0.6%, leading BNEF/BSCE to report “the overall jump in CO2 emissions during 2018 is a clear reminder that technological advancements on their own cannot address the climate challenge. Strong supportive policies are needed at the local, state, as well as federal level.”
What could good federal policy look like?
Sufficiently reducing emissions requires enacting smart policies. Modeling shows no one policy can sufficiently tackle emissions – instead, a portfolio of policies that reinforce one another and address all sectors of the economy can drive significant emissions reductions. Smart policy design involves identifying the largest sources of emissions, then evaluating the most effective ways to rapidly decarbonize them.
The most effective policies largely fall into three categories, which strengthen each other when designed well:
Stronger building codes and appliance standards, along with industrial energy efficiency measures could drastically cut U.S. energy demand. In both sectors, efficiency standards should set minimum energy performance requirements and then require continuous improvement over time to drive down emissions year after year while achieving net savings for consumers.
The industry sector has the additional challenge of reducing process emissions – non-fuel emissions like oil and gas pipeline leaks, CO2 released as a byproduct of cement production, or the powerful GHGs called fluorinated gases that are used as refrigerants. Luckily, just seven process emission sources were responsible for nearly 90% of all global process emissions in 2010, meaning a small set of strategies can have an outsized impact. Technological and policy solutions for these specific industrial process emissions challenges exist, and are being successfully deployed worldwide.
Although transportation emissions are expected to fall over time as electric vehicle policies increase EV deployment and charging infrastructure, particularly when powered by clean energy, additional transportation sector policies like vehicle performance standards and vehicle and fuel fees and feebates are needed to sufficiently curb emissions. And transportation emissions also decline with smart urban development like public transit and mixed-use development policies that cut transportation demand while improving air quality.
With strong power sector policies, electrification becomes key for these other energy sectors because a decarbonized electricity system can replace fossil fuels in other parts of the economy. Vehicles, building components that would otherwise burn natural gas, and factory equipment like furnaces and boilers should be electrified wherever possible to reap the maximum benefits of clean energy.
Lastly, carbon pricing reaches across all economic sectors, but its influence will vary by sector. Carbon pricing is considered an effective tool in the power and industry sectors, but transportation and buildings emissions can be more price-resistant. When well-designed, this policy should create a long-term emissions reduction goal to provide business certainty of at least 10 years, become more stringent with time, and be designed to capture 100% of the market and go upstream when possible.
Solutions exist - now we need strong policy
The BNEF/BCSE Factbook reiterates clean energy’s emissions reduction potential, but it also illustrates the need to decouple energy productivity and economic growth to decarbonize fast enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Strong climate policies have been adopted in countries across the world, as well as in many U.S. states. When used in tandem, they have the power to create major emissions reductions. Climate change solutions are in reach – we just need strong policy to get there.
New research finds the United States’ energy mix is rapidly decarbonizing largely due to economics, as coal-fired generation keeps retiring in favor of cheaper clean energy additions, but U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions still rose 2.5% in 2018.
Although that may seem counterintuitive, economic growth and extreme weather increased energy demand, despite power sector decarbonization. To help avoid dire consequences of global warming, the U.S. will need to decouple energy productivity and economic growth to accelerate emissions reductions .
Positive steps are underway, from increasing clean energy deployment to critical technology investments, and these need to be continually strengthened. In the past few years, emissions reductions have largely come from state-level action rather than federal policy. But as momentum builds behind sweeping federal climate legislation, policymakers should consider a suite of energy policies that address all economic sectors by combining performance standards, economic signals, and research and development (R&D).
Clean energy growth fuels energy mix transformation
In the past ten years, U.S. electricity generation from coal has declined from 44% to 27%, while the share of renewables has grown from 11% to 18%, according to the 2019 Sustainable Energy in America Factbook by BloombergNEF and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE).
A record 13 gigawatts (GW) of coal plant capacity either closed or was announced for retirement in 2018, but unlike coal, renewables continued growing: 19.5GW of wind and solar were added to the U.S. grid last year, and wind is the largest single source of zero-carbon generation, essentially even with nuclear. Renewable energy capacity has now doubled in the last decade, with wind and solar making up nearly all new additions.
Subsidies and rapidly falling costs have made this growth possible. Solar prices have fallen more than 90% and onshore wind prices have fallen about 65% over the past decade, spurred by expanded deployment and utilities of scale. Building new solar or wind resources is even cheaper than continuing to run existing coal plants in some areas of the country, and renewables are now competitive with fossil fuels even without subsidies.
Meanwhile, grid reliability remained steady even as larger shares of renewables have come online, and utility bills have remained roughly the same – the BNEF/BCSE Factbook reports U.S. households continued spending record lows on electricity and natural gas, and industrial power prices remained the second lowest of the G7 nations.
But despite soaring renewables deployment, electricity generation from natural gas nearly doubled in the last decade, spurred by lower prices due to the U.S. fracking boom. While natural gas generation produces fewer emissions than coal, it is still carbon-intensive, and methane leakage rates greater than 3.2% anywhere from production to generation make it worse for the climate than coal.
As more and more states set aggressive clean energy targets, natural gas becomes increasingly incompatible with climate targets. When coal plants retire, they should be replaced with renewables wherever possible to avoid years of continued fossil fuel reliance.
Economic growth still drives emissions growth
Despite the U.S. power sector transformation, GHG emissions still increased in 2018, which BNEF/BCSE attributes to GDP growth and extreme weather. The U.S. economy expanded at its fastest pace in five years, affecting overall energy demand, and extreme weather helped drive up energy consumption at a faster pace than GDP – 2018 saw the highest demand for building cooling since at least 1990, and the highest heating demand since 2014.
Emissions would have climbed even higher if not for power sector decarbonization. While U.S. electricity consumption rose 2.2%, CO2 emissions from power plants rose just 0.6%, leading BNEF/BSCE to report “the overall jump in CO2 emissions during 2018 is a clear reminder that technological advancements on their own cannot address the climate challenge. Strong supportive policies are needed at the local, state, as well as federal level.”
What could good federal policy look like?
Sufficiently reducing emissions requires enacting smart policies. Modeling shows no one policy can sufficiently tackle emissions – instead, a portfolio of policies that reinforce one another and address all sectors of the economy can drive significant emissions reductions. Smart policy design involves identifying the largest sources of emissions, then evaluating the most effective ways to rapidly decarbonize them.
The most effective policies largely fall into three categories, which strengthen each other when designed well:
- Performance standards: Set minimum performance requirements pushing more efficient and cleaner technologies into the marketplace.
- Economic signals: Either incentivize clean energy products and outcomes or tax inputs or emissions.
- R&D support: Lowers the cost of performance standards and economic signals while enabling new technologies.
Any suite of policies should apply these design principles to the biggest emissions sources. U.S. emissions are dominated not only by the power sector, but by industry and transportation, along with agriculture and buildings.
Stronger building codes and appliance standards, along with industrial energy efficiency measures could drastically cut U.S. energy demand. In both sectors, efficiency standards should set minimum energy performance requirements and then require continuous improvement over time to drive down emissions year after year while achieving net savings for consumers.
The industry sector has the additional challenge of reducing process emissions – non-fuel emissions like oil and gas pipeline leaks, CO2 released as a byproduct of cement production, or the powerful GHGs called fluorinated gases that are used as refrigerants. Luckily, just seven process emission sources were responsible for nearly 90% of all global process emissions in 2010, meaning a small set of strategies can have an outsized impact. Technological and policy solutions for these specific industrial process emissions challenges exist, and are being successfully deployed worldwide.
Although transportation emissions are expected to fall over time as electric vehicle policies increase EV deployment and charging infrastructure, particularly when powered by clean energy, additional transportation sector policies like vehicle performance standards and vehicle and fuel fees and feebates are needed to sufficiently curb emissions. And transportation emissions also decline with smart urban development like public transit and mixed-use development policies that cut transportation demand while improving air quality.
With strong power sector policies, electrification becomes key for these other energy sectors because a decarbonized electricity system can replace fossil fuels in other parts of the economy. Vehicles, building components that would otherwise burn natural gas, and factory equipment like furnaces and boilers should be electrified wherever possible to reap the maximum benefits of clean energy.
Lastly, carbon pricing reaches across all economic sectors, but its influence will vary by sector. Carbon pricing is considered an effective tool in the power and industry sectors, but transportation and buildings emissions can be more price-resistant. When well-designed, this policy should create a long-term emissions reduction goal to provide business certainty of at least 10 years, become more stringent with time, and be designed to capture 100% of the market and go upstream when possible.
Solutions exist - now we need strong policy
The BNEF/BCSE Factbook reiterates clean energy’s emissions reduction potential, but it also illustrates the need to decouple energy productivity and economic growth to decarbonize fast enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Strong climate policies have been adopted in countries across the world, as well as in many U.S. states. When used in tandem, they have the power to create major emissions reductions. Climate change solutions are in reach – we just need strong policy to get there.
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
These puny humans think they are so great they can change the planet. Tell you what. How about Americans stop making cars and move auto industry to Mexico like Australia did in 2017? That'll work.
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/mar...il-fuel-burning-to-save-the-climate-1.5037028
Scientists have been able to turn CO2 gas back into a solid carbon for safer storage in the ground
Researchers in Australia have developed a method that can convert carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels back into something not very different from coal.
Researcher Torben Daeneke told CBC Radio's Quirks & Quarks that his process could amount to "rewinding the emissions clock," by returning greenhouse gases to a form that can be permanently stored without risking re-release into the atmosphere.
Carbon capture and storage has been proposed as a potential solution to the problem of large scale emissions from fossil fuel power plants. Scrubbers can capture carbon dioxide from smokestacks, and the gas can be liquefied and pumped into sealed reservoirs underground. The technology has been tested in various places around the world, including in a decommissioned oil field in Weyburn, Saskatchewan.
However there are concerns that CO2 stored underground could escape back into the atmosphere. Daeneke, a senior lecturer in the School of Engineering at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia, and his team, were interested in developing a technology that would remove that risk.
"Earthquakes that are seen around the world now are associated with fracking and things like that. When we start to pump things and fluids underground under high pressure all sorts of things can start to happen and we are just starting to realize that this might be a problem."
The technology Daeneke and his group have developed converts CO2 from gas back into its original solid carbon state. The end product is something like coal.
Unburning carbon dioxide
The key to their new technology was a material that could help them efficiently crack carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen. The researchers developed an electrochemical technique that involves using a liquid alloy of gallium as a catalyst.
In their experiment, carbon dioxide was dissolved in an electrolyte liquid with a small amount of the gallium alloy. The contents were then charged with an electric current.
The electric current energized a chemical reaction that split the carbon dioxide into solid carbon and oxygen gas.
"You run the electricity for maybe an hour or two, then you start to see more and more these little black and brown flakes floating inside of the liquid," said Daeneke. "It is mostly made out of carbon with a little bit of oxygen and hydrogen bound in it. So it is essentially like turning CO2 back into a brown coal."
More environmentally friendly, with benefits
Daeneke says that his process is superior to previously explored methods for converting CO2 into a solid state because of its efficiency. Older technologies required high temperatures and a great deal of energy. The new reaction can happen at room temperature, though it still requires electricity to drive it.
The reaction takes about as much energy to restore the carbon to solid form as was released when it was burned in the first place.
He imagines, though, that as the cost of renewable energy continues to drop, this may prove an effective way to deal with captured carbon dioxide because the solid carbon is so easy to transport and store.
It could be stored in the ground safely, without risk to the environment — perhaps buried in the coal mines it came from. But this relatively pure form of carbon could also be a valuable industrial product with many potential uses.
"We can actually use this material to create things that are called supercapacitors. Supercapacitors are often based on carbon materials that are used to store electricity," said Daneke. "You might actually use some potentially in electric cars, batteries, a variety of applications."
The next step for the researchers is to scale up this work beyond their laboratory. "We're working with a small beaker in our lab with a small amount of carbon being generated but we don't see any problem with why this can't be rolled out on a very large scale."
Scientists have been able to turn CO2 gas back into a solid carbon for safer storage in the ground
Researchers in Australia have developed a method that can convert carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels back into something not very different from coal.
Researcher Torben Daeneke told CBC Radio's Quirks & Quarks that his process could amount to "rewinding the emissions clock," by returning greenhouse gases to a form that can be permanently stored without risking re-release into the atmosphere.
Carbon capture and storage has been proposed as a potential solution to the problem of large scale emissions from fossil fuel power plants. Scrubbers can capture carbon dioxide from smokestacks, and the gas can be liquefied and pumped into sealed reservoirs underground. The technology has been tested in various places around the world, including in a decommissioned oil field in Weyburn, Saskatchewan.
However there are concerns that CO2 stored underground could escape back into the atmosphere. Daeneke, a senior lecturer in the School of Engineering at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia, and his team, were interested in developing a technology that would remove that risk.
"Earthquakes that are seen around the world now are associated with fracking and things like that. When we start to pump things and fluids underground under high pressure all sorts of things can start to happen and we are just starting to realize that this might be a problem."
The technology Daeneke and his group have developed converts CO2 from gas back into its original solid carbon state. The end product is something like coal.
Unburning carbon dioxide
The key to their new technology was a material that could help them efficiently crack carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen. The researchers developed an electrochemical technique that involves using a liquid alloy of gallium as a catalyst.
In their experiment, carbon dioxide was dissolved in an electrolyte liquid with a small amount of the gallium alloy. The contents were then charged with an electric current.
The electric current energized a chemical reaction that split the carbon dioxide into solid carbon and oxygen gas.
"You run the electricity for maybe an hour or two, then you start to see more and more these little black and brown flakes floating inside of the liquid," said Daeneke. "It is mostly made out of carbon with a little bit of oxygen and hydrogen bound in it. So it is essentially like turning CO2 back into a brown coal."
More environmentally friendly, with benefits
Daeneke says that his process is superior to previously explored methods for converting CO2 into a solid state because of its efficiency. Older technologies required high temperatures and a great deal of energy. The new reaction can happen at room temperature, though it still requires electricity to drive it.
The reaction takes about as much energy to restore the carbon to solid form as was released when it was burned in the first place.
He imagines, though, that as the cost of renewable energy continues to drop, this may prove an effective way to deal with captured carbon dioxide because the solid carbon is so easy to transport and store.
It could be stored in the ground safely, without risk to the environment — perhaps buried in the coal mines it came from. But this relatively pure form of carbon could also be a valuable industrial product with many potential uses.
"We can actually use this material to create things that are called supercapacitors. Supercapacitors are often based on carbon materials that are used to store electricity," said Daneke. "You might actually use some potentially in electric cars, batteries, a variety of applications."
The next step for the researchers is to scale up this work beyond their laboratory. "We're working with a small beaker in our lab with a small amount of carbon being generated but we don't see any problem with why this can't be rolled out on a very large scale."
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/julian...ment-from-supporting-fossil-fuels-60-minutes/
A lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels
Of all the cases working their way through the federal court system none is more interesting or potentially more life changing than Juliana v. United States. To quote one federal judge, "This is no ordinary lawsuit." It was filed back in 2015 on behalf of a group of kids who are trying to get the courts to block the U.S. government from continuing the use of fossil fuels. They say it's causing climate change, endangering their future and violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. When the lawsuit began hardly anyone took it seriously, including the government's lawyers, who have since watched the Supreme Court reject two of their motions to delay or dismiss the case. Four years in, it is still very much alive, in part because the plaintiffs have amassed a body of evidence that will surprise even the skeptics and have forced the government to admit that the crisis is real.
The case was born here in Eugene, Oregon, a tree-hugger's paradise, and one of the cradles of environmental activism in the United States. The lead plaintiff, University of Oregon student Kelsey Juliana, was only five weeks old when her parents took her to her first rally to protect spotted owls. Today, her main concern is climate change, drought and the growing threat of wildfires in the surrounding Cascade Mountains.
Kelsey Juliana: There was a wildfire season that was so intense, we were advised not to go outside. The particulate matter in the smoke was literally off the charts. I mean, it was so bad it was past severe, in terms of danger to health.
Steve Kroft: And you think that's because of climate change.
Kelsey Juliana: That's what scientists tell me.
It's not just scientists. Even the federal government now acknowledges in its response to the lawsuit that the effects of climate change are already happening and likely to get worse, especially for young people who will have to deal with them for the long term.
"The government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change."
Steve Kroft: How important is this case to you?
Kelsey Juliana: This case is everything. This is the climate case. We have everything to lose, if we don't act on climate change right now, my generation and all the generations to come.
She was 19 when the lawsuit was filed and the oldest of 21 plaintiffs. They come from ten different states and all claim to be affected or threatened by the consequences of climate change. The youngest, Levi Draheim, is in sixth grade.
Steve Kroft: You're 11 years old, and you're suing the United States government, that's not what most 11-year-olds do, right?
Levi Draheim: Yeah…
He's lived most of his life on the beaches of a barrier island in Florida that's a mile wide and barely above sea level.
Steve Kroft: What's your biggest fear about this island?
Levi Draheim: I fear that I won't have a home here in the future.
Steve Kroft: That the island will be gone.
Levi Draheim: Yeah. That the island will be underwater because of climate change.
Steve Kroft: So you feel like you've got a stake in this.
Levi Draheim: Yes.
The plaintiffs were recruited from environmental groups across the country by Julia Olson, an oregon lawyer, and the executive director of a non-profit legal organization called "Our Children's Trust." She began constructing the case eight years ago out of this spartan space now dominated by this paper diorama that winds its way through the office.
Steve Kroft: So what is this?
Julia Olson: So this is a timeline that we put together…
It documents what and when past U.S. administrations knew about the connection between fossil fuels and climate change. The timeline goes back 50 years, beginning with the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.
Julia Olson: So during President Johnson's administration, they issued a report in 1965 that talked about climate change being a catastrophic threat.
Whether it was a Democrat or a Republican in office, Olson says, there was an awareness of the potential dangers of carbon dioxide emissions.
Julia Olson: Every president knew that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.
Fifty years of evidence has been amassed by Olson and her team, 36,000 pages in all, to be used in court.
Julia Olson: Our government, at the highest levels, knew and was briefed on it regularly by the national security community, by the scientific community. They have known for a very long time that it was a big threat.
Steve Kroft: Has the government disputed that government officials have known about this for more than 50 years and been told and warned about it for 50 years?
Julia Olson: No. They admit that the government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change. And they don't dispute that climate change is a national security threat and a threat to our economy and a threat to people's lives and safety. They do not dispute any of those facts of the case.
The legal proceedings have required the government to make some startling admissions in court filings. It now acknowledges that human activity - in particular, elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases - is likely to have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s… That global carbon dioxide concentrations reached levels unprecedented for at least 2.6 million years… That climate change is increasing the risk of loss of life and the extinction of many species and is associated with increases in hurricane intensity, the frequency of intense storms, heavy precipitation, the loss of sea ice and rising sea levels. And the government acknowledges that climate change's effects on agriculture will have consequences for food scarcity.
Steve Kroft: So you've got them with their own words.
Julia Olson: We have them with their own words. It's really the clearest, most compelling evidence I've ever had in any case I've litigated in over 20 years.
The lawsuit claims the executive and legislative branches of government have proven incapable of dealing with climate change. It argues that the government has failed in its obligation to protect the nation's air, water, forests and coast lines. And it petitions the federal courts to intervene and force the government to come up with a plan that would wean the country off fossil fuels by the middle of this century.
Steve Kroft: You're just saying, "Do it. We don't care how."
Julia Olson: Do it well and do it in the timeframe that it needs to be done.
Steve Kroft: You're talking about a case that could change economics in this country.
Julia Olson: For the better.
Steve Kroft: Well, you say it changes the economy for the better, but other people would say it would cause huge disruption.
Julia Olson: If we don't address climate change in this country, economists across the board say that we are in for economic crises that we have never seen before.
The lawsuit was first filed during the final years of the Obama administration in this federal courthouse in Eugene.
Steve Kroft: Did they take this case seriously when you filed it?
Julia Olson: I think in the beginning they thought they could very quickly get the case dismissed.
In November 2016, a federal judge stunned the government by denying its motion to dismiss the case and ruling it could proceed to trial. In what may become a landmark decision, Judge Ann Aiken wrote, "Exercising my reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society."
Steve Kroft: A federal judge ever said that before?
Julia Olson: No judge had ever written that before.
The opinion was groundbreaking because the courts have never recognized a constitutional right to a stable climate.
Ann Carlson: That's a big stretch for a court.
Ann Carlson is a professor of environmental law at UCLA. Like almost everyone else in the legal community, she was certain the case was doomed.
Ann Carlson: There's no constitutional provision that says the that environment should be protected.
Steve Kroft: Why is the idea that the people of the United States have a right to a stable environment such a radical idea?
Ann Carlson: Well, I think that Judge Aiken actually does a very good job of saying it's not radical to ask the government to protect the health, and the lives and the property of this current generation of kids. Look, If you can't have your life protected by government policies that save the planet, then what's the point of having a Constitution?
Steve Kroft: How significant is this case?
Ann Carlson: Well, if the plaintiffs won, it'd be massive, particularly if they won what they're asking for, which is get the federal government out of the business of in any way subsidizing fossil fuels and get them into the business of dramatically curtailing greenhouse gases in order to protect the children who are the plaintiffs in order to create a safe climate. That would be enormous.
So enormous that the Trump administration, which is now defending the case, has done everything it can to keep the trial from going forward. It's appealed Judge Aiken's decision three times to the ninth circuit court in California and twice to the Supreme Court. Each time it's failed.
Julia Olson: They don't want it to go to trial.
Steve Kroft: Why?
Julia Olson: Because they will lose on the evidence that will be presented at trial.
Steve Kroft: And that's why they don't want one.
Julia Olson: That's why they don't want one. They know that once you enter that courtroom and your witnesses take the oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth the facts are the facts and alternative facts are perjury. And so, all of these claims and tweets about climate change not being real, that doesn't hold up in a court of law.
The Justice Department declined our request for an interview, but in court hearings, in briefs, it's called the lawsuit misguided, unprecedented and unconstitutional. It argues that energy policy is the legal responsibility of Congress and the White House, not a single judge in Oregon. And while climate change is real it's also a complicated global problem that was not caused and cannot be solved by just the United States government.
In other words, it's not responsible.
Steve Kroft: Why is the federal government responsible for global warming? I mean it doesn't produce any carbon dioxide. How are they causing it?
Julia Olson: They're causing it through their actions of subsidizing the fossil fuel energy system, permitting every aspect of our fossil fuel energy system, and by allowing for extraction of fossil fuels from our federal public lands. We are the largest oil and gas producer in the world now because of decisions our federal government has made.
Steve Kroft: What about the Chinese government? What about the Indian government?
Julia Olson: Clearly, it's not just the United States that has caused climate change but the United States is responsible for 25 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide that has accumulated over the many decades.
Julia Olson is confident they're going to prevail in court. Ann Carlson and most of the legal community still think it's a longshot, but she says she's been wrong about this case every step of the way.
Ann Carlson: Courts have asked governments to do bold things. The best example would be Brown versus the Board of Education, when the court ordered schools to desegregate with all deliberate speed. So there have been court decisions that have asked governments to do very dramatic things. This might be the biggest.
Steve Kroft: You've been stunned by how far this case has gotten. Why has it gotten this far?
Ann Carlson: I think there are several reasons this case has actually withstood motions to dismiss. I think the first is that the lawyers have crafted the case in a way that's very compelling. You have a number of kids who are very compelling plaintiffs who are experiencing the harms of climate change now and will experience the harms of climate change much more dramatically as they get older. I think the hard question here is the law.
The next oral arguments in Juliana v. United States are scheduled for June in Portland. But whatever happens next will certainly be appealed. Two-thousand miles away, in the aptly named town of Rayne, Louisiana, the family of one of the plaintiffs, 15-year-old Jayden Foytlin, is still rebuilding from the last disaster in 2016 that dumped 18 inches of rain on Rayne and Southern Louisiana in just 48 hours.
Jayden Foytlin: That's just something that shouldn't happen. You can't really deny that it, climate change has something to do with it. And you can't deny that it's something that we have to pay attention to. I'm not sure if most of Louisiana, of South Louisiana is going to be here, that's just a really big worry of mine.
For the foreseeable future, it's impossible to predict when and how the storms and the lawsuit are likely to end.
A lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels
Of all the cases working their way through the federal court system none is more interesting or potentially more life changing than Juliana v. United States. To quote one federal judge, "This is no ordinary lawsuit." It was filed back in 2015 on behalf of a group of kids who are trying to get the courts to block the U.S. government from continuing the use of fossil fuels. They say it's causing climate change, endangering their future and violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. When the lawsuit began hardly anyone took it seriously, including the government's lawyers, who have since watched the Supreme Court reject two of their motions to delay or dismiss the case. Four years in, it is still very much alive, in part because the plaintiffs have amassed a body of evidence that will surprise even the skeptics and have forced the government to admit that the crisis is real.
The case was born here in Eugene, Oregon, a tree-hugger's paradise, and one of the cradles of environmental activism in the United States. The lead plaintiff, University of Oregon student Kelsey Juliana, was only five weeks old when her parents took her to her first rally to protect spotted owls. Today, her main concern is climate change, drought and the growing threat of wildfires in the surrounding Cascade Mountains.
Kelsey Juliana: There was a wildfire season that was so intense, we were advised not to go outside. The particulate matter in the smoke was literally off the charts. I mean, it was so bad it was past severe, in terms of danger to health.
Steve Kroft: And you think that's because of climate change.
Kelsey Juliana: That's what scientists tell me.
It's not just scientists. Even the federal government now acknowledges in its response to the lawsuit that the effects of climate change are already happening and likely to get worse, especially for young people who will have to deal with them for the long term.
"The government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change."
Steve Kroft: How important is this case to you?
Kelsey Juliana: This case is everything. This is the climate case. We have everything to lose, if we don't act on climate change right now, my generation and all the generations to come.
She was 19 when the lawsuit was filed and the oldest of 21 plaintiffs. They come from ten different states and all claim to be affected or threatened by the consequences of climate change. The youngest, Levi Draheim, is in sixth grade.
Steve Kroft: You're 11 years old, and you're suing the United States government, that's not what most 11-year-olds do, right?
Levi Draheim: Yeah…
He's lived most of his life on the beaches of a barrier island in Florida that's a mile wide and barely above sea level.
Steve Kroft: What's your biggest fear about this island?
Levi Draheim: I fear that I won't have a home here in the future.
Steve Kroft: That the island will be gone.
Levi Draheim: Yeah. That the island will be underwater because of climate change.
Steve Kroft: So you feel like you've got a stake in this.
Levi Draheim: Yes.
The plaintiffs were recruited from environmental groups across the country by Julia Olson, an oregon lawyer, and the executive director of a non-profit legal organization called "Our Children's Trust." She began constructing the case eight years ago out of this spartan space now dominated by this paper diorama that winds its way through the office.
Steve Kroft: So what is this?
Julia Olson: So this is a timeline that we put together…
It documents what and when past U.S. administrations knew about the connection between fossil fuels and climate change. The timeline goes back 50 years, beginning with the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.
Julia Olson: So during President Johnson's administration, they issued a report in 1965 that talked about climate change being a catastrophic threat.
Whether it was a Democrat or a Republican in office, Olson says, there was an awareness of the potential dangers of carbon dioxide emissions.
Julia Olson: Every president knew that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.
Fifty years of evidence has been amassed by Olson and her team, 36,000 pages in all, to be used in court.
Julia Olson: Our government, at the highest levels, knew and was briefed on it regularly by the national security community, by the scientific community. They have known for a very long time that it was a big threat.
Steve Kroft: Has the government disputed that government officials have known about this for more than 50 years and been told and warned about it for 50 years?
Julia Olson: No. They admit that the government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change. And they don't dispute that climate change is a national security threat and a threat to our economy and a threat to people's lives and safety. They do not dispute any of those facts of the case.
The legal proceedings have required the government to make some startling admissions in court filings. It now acknowledges that human activity - in particular, elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases - is likely to have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s… That global carbon dioxide concentrations reached levels unprecedented for at least 2.6 million years… That climate change is increasing the risk of loss of life and the extinction of many species and is associated with increases in hurricane intensity, the frequency of intense storms, heavy precipitation, the loss of sea ice and rising sea levels. And the government acknowledges that climate change's effects on agriculture will have consequences for food scarcity.
Steve Kroft: So you've got them with their own words.
Julia Olson: We have them with their own words. It's really the clearest, most compelling evidence I've ever had in any case I've litigated in over 20 years.
The lawsuit claims the executive and legislative branches of government have proven incapable of dealing with climate change. It argues that the government has failed in its obligation to protect the nation's air, water, forests and coast lines. And it petitions the federal courts to intervene and force the government to come up with a plan that would wean the country off fossil fuels by the middle of this century.
Steve Kroft: You're just saying, "Do it. We don't care how."
Julia Olson: Do it well and do it in the timeframe that it needs to be done.
Steve Kroft: You're talking about a case that could change economics in this country.
Julia Olson: For the better.
Steve Kroft: Well, you say it changes the economy for the better, but other people would say it would cause huge disruption.
Julia Olson: If we don't address climate change in this country, economists across the board say that we are in for economic crises that we have never seen before.
The lawsuit was first filed during the final years of the Obama administration in this federal courthouse in Eugene.
Steve Kroft: Did they take this case seriously when you filed it?
Julia Olson: I think in the beginning they thought they could very quickly get the case dismissed.
In November 2016, a federal judge stunned the government by denying its motion to dismiss the case and ruling it could proceed to trial. In what may become a landmark decision, Judge Ann Aiken wrote, "Exercising my reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society."
Steve Kroft: A federal judge ever said that before?
Julia Olson: No judge had ever written that before.
The opinion was groundbreaking because the courts have never recognized a constitutional right to a stable climate.
Ann Carlson: That's a big stretch for a court.
Ann Carlson is a professor of environmental law at UCLA. Like almost everyone else in the legal community, she was certain the case was doomed.
Ann Carlson: There's no constitutional provision that says the that environment should be protected.
Steve Kroft: Why is the idea that the people of the United States have a right to a stable environment such a radical idea?
Ann Carlson: Well, I think that Judge Aiken actually does a very good job of saying it's not radical to ask the government to protect the health, and the lives and the property of this current generation of kids. Look, If you can't have your life protected by government policies that save the planet, then what's the point of having a Constitution?
Steve Kroft: How significant is this case?
Ann Carlson: Well, if the plaintiffs won, it'd be massive, particularly if they won what they're asking for, which is get the federal government out of the business of in any way subsidizing fossil fuels and get them into the business of dramatically curtailing greenhouse gases in order to protect the children who are the plaintiffs in order to create a safe climate. That would be enormous.
So enormous that the Trump administration, which is now defending the case, has done everything it can to keep the trial from going forward. It's appealed Judge Aiken's decision three times to the ninth circuit court in California and twice to the Supreme Court. Each time it's failed.
Julia Olson: They don't want it to go to trial.
Steve Kroft: Why?
Julia Olson: Because they will lose on the evidence that will be presented at trial.
Steve Kroft: And that's why they don't want one.
Julia Olson: That's why they don't want one. They know that once you enter that courtroom and your witnesses take the oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth the facts are the facts and alternative facts are perjury. And so, all of these claims and tweets about climate change not being real, that doesn't hold up in a court of law.
The Justice Department declined our request for an interview, but in court hearings, in briefs, it's called the lawsuit misguided, unprecedented and unconstitutional. It argues that energy policy is the legal responsibility of Congress and the White House, not a single judge in Oregon. And while climate change is real it's also a complicated global problem that was not caused and cannot be solved by just the United States government.
In other words, it's not responsible.
Steve Kroft: Why is the federal government responsible for global warming? I mean it doesn't produce any carbon dioxide. How are they causing it?
Julia Olson: They're causing it through their actions of subsidizing the fossil fuel energy system, permitting every aspect of our fossil fuel energy system, and by allowing for extraction of fossil fuels from our federal public lands. We are the largest oil and gas producer in the world now because of decisions our federal government has made.
Steve Kroft: What about the Chinese government? What about the Indian government?
Julia Olson: Clearly, it's not just the United States that has caused climate change but the United States is responsible for 25 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide that has accumulated over the many decades.
Julia Olson is confident they're going to prevail in court. Ann Carlson and most of the legal community still think it's a longshot, but she says she's been wrong about this case every step of the way.
Ann Carlson: Courts have asked governments to do bold things. The best example would be Brown versus the Board of Education, when the court ordered schools to desegregate with all deliberate speed. So there have been court decisions that have asked governments to do very dramatic things. This might be the biggest.
Steve Kroft: You've been stunned by how far this case has gotten. Why has it gotten this far?
Ann Carlson: I think there are several reasons this case has actually withstood motions to dismiss. I think the first is that the lawyers have crafted the case in a way that's very compelling. You have a number of kids who are very compelling plaintiffs who are experiencing the harms of climate change now and will experience the harms of climate change much more dramatically as they get older. I think the hard question here is the law.
The next oral arguments in Juliana v. United States are scheduled for June in Portland. But whatever happens next will certainly be appealed. Two-thousand miles away, in the aptly named town of Rayne, Louisiana, the family of one of the plaintiffs, 15-year-old Jayden Foytlin, is still rebuilding from the last disaster in 2016 that dumped 18 inches of rain on Rayne and Southern Louisiana in just 48 hours.
Jayden Foytlin: That's just something that shouldn't happen. You can't really deny that it, climate change has something to do with it. And you can't deny that it's something that we have to pay attention to. I'm not sure if most of Louisiana, of South Louisiana is going to be here, that's just a really big worry of mine.
For the foreseeable future, it's impossible to predict when and how the storms and the lawsuit are likely to end.
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau was interrupted several times as he gave a speech on climate change, but the hecklers' motivation remains unclear.
During the address Mr Trudeau also responded to the resignation of Jane Philpott, one of his top ministers.
The Treasury Board President stepped down on Monday, saying she had lost confidence in the government's handling of a corruption inquiry.
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/carbon-pollution-increase-1.4934096
'Every year that we delay serious climate action, the Paris goals become more difficult to meet,' expert says
After several years of little growth, global emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide experienced their largest jump in seven years, discouraging scientists.
World carbon dioxide emissions are estimated to have risen 2.7 per cent from 2017 to 2018, according to three studies released Wednesday from the Global Carbon Project, an international scientific collaboration of academics, governments and industry that tracks greenhouse gas emissions. The calculations, announced during negotiations to put the 2015 Paris climate accord into effect, puts some of the landmark agreement's goals nearly out of reach, scientists said.
"This is terrible news," said Andrew Jones, co-director of Climate Interactive, which models greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures but was not part of the research. "Every year that we delay serious climate action, the Paris goals become more difficult to meet."
The studies concluded that this year the world would spew 37.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, up from 36.2 billion tonnes last year. The margin of error is about one percentage point on either side.
The Global Carbon Project uses government and industry reports to come up with final emission figures for 2017 and projections for 2018 based on the four biggest polluters: China, the United States, India and the European Union.
The U.S., which had been steadily decreasing its carbon pollution, showed a significant rise in emissions — up 2.5 per cent — for the first time since 2013. China, the globe's biggest carbon emitter, saw its largest increase since 2011: 4.6 per cent.
'Reality check'
Study lead author Corinne Le Quéré, a climate change researcher at the University of East Anglia in England, said the increase is a surprising "reality check" after a few years of smaller emission increases. But she also doesn't think the world will return to the even larger increases seen from 2003 to 2008. She believes unusual factors are at play this year.
For the U.S., it was a combination of a hot summer and cold winter that required more electricity use for heating and cooling. For China, it was an economic stimulus that pushed coal-powered manufacturing, Le Quéré said.
John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said the results aren't too surprising because fossil fuels still account for 81 per cent of the world's energy use. The burning of coal, oil and gas releases carbon dioxide, which warms the Earth. Reilly, who wasn't part of the study, praised it as impressive.
Global Carbon Project chair Rob Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist, said he was discouraged.
The Paris accord set two goals. The long-held goal would limit global warming to no more than 1 C from now, with a more ambitious goal of limiting warming to 0.5 C from now.
The trend is such that the world would have to be lucky to keep warming to 1 C, let alone the lower goal, Le Quéré said.
China increased its emissions to 10.3 billion tonnes, while the U.S. jumped to 5.4 billion tonnes. The European Union spewed 3.5 billion tonnes and India soared to 2.6 billion tonnes. Overall, the world is spewing about 1,175 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air every second.
Use of coal — the biggest carbon emitter — is rising. And while countries are using more renewable fuels and trying to reduce carbon from electricity production, emissions from cars and planes are steadily increasing, Le Quere said.
Global carbon dioxide emissions have increased 55 per cent in the last 20 years, the calculations show. At the same time, Earth has warmed on average about 0.38 C, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
'Every year that we delay serious climate action, the Paris goals become more difficult to meet,' expert says
After several years of little growth, global emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide experienced their largest jump in seven years, discouraging scientists.
World carbon dioxide emissions are estimated to have risen 2.7 per cent from 2017 to 2018, according to three studies released Wednesday from the Global Carbon Project, an international scientific collaboration of academics, governments and industry that tracks greenhouse gas emissions. The calculations, announced during negotiations to put the 2015 Paris climate accord into effect, puts some of the landmark agreement's goals nearly out of reach, scientists said.
"This is terrible news," said Andrew Jones, co-director of Climate Interactive, which models greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures but was not part of the research. "Every year that we delay serious climate action, the Paris goals become more difficult to meet."
The studies concluded that this year the world would spew 37.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, up from 36.2 billion tonnes last year. The margin of error is about one percentage point on either side.
The Global Carbon Project uses government and industry reports to come up with final emission figures for 2017 and projections for 2018 based on the four biggest polluters: China, the United States, India and the European Union.
The U.S., which had been steadily decreasing its carbon pollution, showed a significant rise in emissions — up 2.5 per cent — for the first time since 2013. China, the globe's biggest carbon emitter, saw its largest increase since 2011: 4.6 per cent.
'Reality check'
Study lead author Corinne Le Quéré, a climate change researcher at the University of East Anglia in England, said the increase is a surprising "reality check" after a few years of smaller emission increases. But she also doesn't think the world will return to the even larger increases seen from 2003 to 2008. She believes unusual factors are at play this year.
For the U.S., it was a combination of a hot summer and cold winter that required more electricity use for heating and cooling. For China, it was an economic stimulus that pushed coal-powered manufacturing, Le Quéré said.
John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said the results aren't too surprising because fossil fuels still account for 81 per cent of the world's energy use. The burning of coal, oil and gas releases carbon dioxide, which warms the Earth. Reilly, who wasn't part of the study, praised it as impressive.
Global Carbon Project chair Rob Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist, said he was discouraged.
The Paris accord set two goals. The long-held goal would limit global warming to no more than 1 C from now, with a more ambitious goal of limiting warming to 0.5 C from now.
The trend is such that the world would have to be lucky to keep warming to 1 C, let alone the lower goal, Le Quéré said.
China increased its emissions to 10.3 billion tonnes, while the U.S. jumped to 5.4 billion tonnes. The European Union spewed 3.5 billion tonnes and India soared to 2.6 billion tonnes. Overall, the world is spewing about 1,175 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air every second.
Use of coal — the biggest carbon emitter — is rising. And while countries are using more renewable fuels and trying to reduce carbon from electricity production, emissions from cars and planes are steadily increasing, Le Quere said.
Global carbon dioxide emissions have increased 55 per cent in the last 20 years, the calculations show. At the same time, Earth has warmed on average about 0.38 C, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 28,401
- Reaction score
- -82
- Country
- Location
Since 1700s humans increased CH4 concentration in air by 150 percent, to nearly 2 ppm. In comparison, since 1700s humans increased CO2 in air by 48 percent, from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. CH4 is God's creation, you fart out CH4, so you can't beat it no matter how hard you try. You can beat Nazi Germany. You can beat USSR. But no no no you can't beat CH4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
@pakistanipower @nahtanbob @gambit @vostok @F-22Raptor @LeGenD @KAL-EL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
@pakistanipower @nahtanbob @gambit @vostok @F-22Raptor @LeGenD @KAL-EL
Last edited:
Hamza913
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2015
- Messages
- 8,954
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Never before have I seen an elite member with such a huge disparity in the number of messages he has posted, and the ratings he has received.
But after observing this individual's content over the past year, I cannot say I'm surprised that it is rated so poorly.
But after observing this individual's content over the past year, I cannot say I'm surprised that it is rated so poorly.
Similar threads
