Dr. Helen Caldicott, the pioneering Australian antinuclear activist and pediatrician who spearheaded the global nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s and co-founded Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has joined with left-leaning environmental groups here in an uphill fight to halt nuclear power as a "solution" to the global warming crisis. "Global warming is the greatest gift the nuclear industry has ever received," Dr. Caldicott told Truthout. The growing rush to nuclear power was only enhanced, experts say, by the weak climate deal at the Copenhagen 15 climate conference.
The prospects for passage of a climate bill in Congress - virtually all versions are pro-nuclear - were enhanced, most analysts say, because it offered the promise that China might voluntarily agree to verify its carbon reductions and it could reassure senators worried about American manufacturers being undermined by polluters overseas. But at the two-week international confab that didn't produce any binding agreements to do anything, Caldicott and environmental activist groups were marginalized or, in the case of the delegates from Friends of the Earth, evicted from the main hall.
The upshot of the latest trends boosting nuclear power - although no nuclear reactor has been built in America since the 1970s - are indeed grim, she said. "Nothing's going to work to stop them but a meltdown," she said, fearing the prospects of such a calamity. "I don't know how else the world is going to wake up."
Her fears may sound apocalyptic, but as Truthout will explore in more depth in part II of this article, the dangers of a meltdown, terrorist attack and radiation damage are far greater than commonly known. That's because of what federal and Congressional investigators, advocacy groups and medical researchers say is a culture of sloppy security, health and safety oversight by a cozily pro-industry Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (An NRC spokesman denied those allegations in a written statement to Truthout.) The quasi-independent agency is funded primarily by fees from nuclear power plants. On top of all that, the Obama administration is planning to offer about $20 billion in loan guarantees to fund two new uncertified and risky reactors designs that have faced safety and cost overrun problems overseas.
Despite nuclear energy's apparent dangers, Dr. Caldicott was a Cassandra crying out at the Copenhagen conference with little or no attention from the major government and media players there. Caldicott, who was featured on major American TV news shows and magazines during the 80s, who met one on one with President Reagan and addressed about a million people opposing nuclear weapons in New York City in June, 1982, found herself speaking to groups as small as 50 people in Copenhagen. Although still an active lecturer, author and radio broadcaster, she was essentially ignored by the media, even with the six minutes or so she was given to speak to an outdoor rally of 100,000 protesting the global leaders' inaction inside the main hall. "It was a shemozzle," she said of the conference, using the Yiddish word for a confusing mess.
In her brief speech outdoors in bitterly cold weather, you can see her speaking more slowly than in her usual lecture, so that not one word or grisly fact is missed by her international audience. But you can almost sense her frustration at boiling down into just over six minutes all that she knows about the dangers of atomic weapons and nuclear plants. While inside the Bella Center, no official who really counted was bothering listening to her - or the protesters:
She told the crowd: ...
Read entire article: Helen Caldicott Slams Environmental Groups on Climate Bill, Nuclear Concessions
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Myths and facts of "clean coal" technologies
It looks like Big Oil, Coal and Nuclear will overshadow any attempts at mitigating climate change - thought these myths and facts about "clean" coal might be interesting.
Myths and facts of "clean coal" technologies
MYTH # 1 Efficient Combustion Technologies can increase efficiency and reduce emissions.
Supercritical Pulverised Coal Combustion (PCC) - uses high pressures and temperatures. This can increase the thermal efficiency of the plant from 35% to 45%. This reduces emissions as less coal is used. Fluidised Bed Coal Combustion (FBC) - allows coal combustion at relatively low temperatures, which reduces NOX formation. A sorbent is used to absorb sulphur. Coal gasification - coal is reacted with steam and air or oxygen under high temperatures and pressures to form syngas (mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen). Syngas can be burnt to produce electricity or processed to produce fuels such as diesel oil.
FACTS:
The world standard for efficiency at a power plant using pulverised fuel technology, the most common technique, stands at 37.5%. Advanced pulverized fuel technology increases the average efficiency to just 41-44 percent with a forecast improvement to 50 percent in the next 100 years. Other clean coal combustion technologies are still in early stages of development and are unlikely to improve efficiency beyond 43%.
MYTH # 2 : Coal washing lowers the level of sulphur and minerals in the coal.
FACTS:
Coal washing results in the formation of large quantities of slurry. This is placed in waste piles. Rain drains through the piles, picking up pollutants which end up in rivers and streams. This runoff is acidic and contains heavy metals.
MYTH # 3 During combustion, “clean coal” technologies utilize pollution controls for existing power plants to reduce emissions of pollutants.
Particulate emissions – can be reduced by Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs) and fabric filters. ESPs are most widely used. Flue gases are passed between collecting plates. These attract particles using an electrical charge. NOX emissions – can be reduced by Low-NOX Burners (LNB). These reduce the formation of NOX by controlling the flame temperature and the chemical environment in which the coal combusts. Selective Catalytic or Non-Catalytic Reduction (SCR/SNCR) are expensive and less widely used. SO2 emissions - can be reduced by Flue Gas Desulpurisation (FGD). Wet FGD, or wet scrubbing, is most common and absorbs SO2 using a sulphur absorbing chemical (sorbent), such as lime. Trace elements emissions – these include mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Some emissions can be reduced by particulate controls, fluidised bed combustion and FGD equipment. Activated Carbon Injection is being trialled to remove mercury.
FACTS:
Between 7 and 30 percent of coal consists of non-combustible material that just has to be eventually disposed of. “Clean coal” technologies attempt to trap these waste products before they leave the smokestalks; waste material that is trapped is then used (despite containing a number of toxic elements) or dumped as landfill.
The use of higher quality coal – lower in ash and sulphur should reduce emissions and increase efficiency, but thermal efficiency is increased by only one percent. If clean coal is used to meet the increased electricity demand predicitions of govenments instead of cleaner renewable alternatives, there will in fact be a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
According to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’ Exposure to it has been associated with serious neurological and developmental damage to humans. The report also states that coal-fired power and heat production is the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions. According to the Coal Utilization Research Council ‘there are no commercial technologies available for mercury capture at coal-fuelled power plants’. Furthermore, a US Department of Energy commissioned report, states that the consistent, long-term performance of mercury control has yet to be demonstrated. Experimental removal of mercury is prohibitively expensive at $761,000/kg mercury removed and even then 10% of the mercury still remains...
Read the rest of the myths and facts about clean coal
Myths and facts of "clean coal" technologies
MYTH # 1 Efficient Combustion Technologies can increase efficiency and reduce emissions.
Supercritical Pulverised Coal Combustion (PCC) - uses high pressures and temperatures. This can increase the thermal efficiency of the plant from 35% to 45%. This reduces emissions as less coal is used. Fluidised Bed Coal Combustion (FBC) - allows coal combustion at relatively low temperatures, which reduces NOX formation. A sorbent is used to absorb sulphur. Coal gasification - coal is reacted with steam and air or oxygen under high temperatures and pressures to form syngas (mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen). Syngas can be burnt to produce electricity or processed to produce fuels such as diesel oil.
FACTS:
The world standard for efficiency at a power plant using pulverised fuel technology, the most common technique, stands at 37.5%. Advanced pulverized fuel technology increases the average efficiency to just 41-44 percent with a forecast improvement to 50 percent in the next 100 years. Other clean coal combustion technologies are still in early stages of development and are unlikely to improve efficiency beyond 43%.
MYTH # 2 : Coal washing lowers the level of sulphur and minerals in the coal.
FACTS:
Coal washing results in the formation of large quantities of slurry. This is placed in waste piles. Rain drains through the piles, picking up pollutants which end up in rivers and streams. This runoff is acidic and contains heavy metals.
MYTH # 3 During combustion, “clean coal” technologies utilize pollution controls for existing power plants to reduce emissions of pollutants.
Particulate emissions – can be reduced by Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs) and fabric filters. ESPs are most widely used. Flue gases are passed between collecting plates. These attract particles using an electrical charge. NOX emissions – can be reduced by Low-NOX Burners (LNB). These reduce the formation of NOX by controlling the flame temperature and the chemical environment in which the coal combusts. Selective Catalytic or Non-Catalytic Reduction (SCR/SNCR) are expensive and less widely used. SO2 emissions - can be reduced by Flue Gas Desulpurisation (FGD). Wet FGD, or wet scrubbing, is most common and absorbs SO2 using a sulphur absorbing chemical (sorbent), such as lime. Trace elements emissions – these include mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Some emissions can be reduced by particulate controls, fluidised bed combustion and FGD equipment. Activated Carbon Injection is being trialled to remove mercury.
FACTS:
Between 7 and 30 percent of coal consists of non-combustible material that just has to be eventually disposed of. “Clean coal” technologies attempt to trap these waste products before they leave the smokestalks; waste material that is trapped is then used (despite containing a number of toxic elements) or dumped as landfill.
The use of higher quality coal – lower in ash and sulphur should reduce emissions and increase efficiency, but thermal efficiency is increased by only one percent. If clean coal is used to meet the increased electricity demand predicitions of govenments instead of cleaner renewable alternatives, there will in fact be a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
According to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’ Exposure to it has been associated with serious neurological and developmental damage to humans. The report also states that coal-fired power and heat production is the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions. According to the Coal Utilization Research Council ‘there are no commercial technologies available for mercury capture at coal-fuelled power plants’. Furthermore, a US Department of Energy commissioned report, states that the consistent, long-term performance of mercury control has yet to be demonstrated. Experimental removal of mercury is prohibitively expensive at $761,000/kg mercury removed and even then 10% of the mercury still remains...
Read the rest of the myths and facts about clean coal
The same Wall Street banksters that got us into the financial mess are now eyeing profits to be made with climate change and global warming.
For those paying attention to the unfolding disaster of climate change, last year ended with a hideous thud. The Copenhagen debacle which resulted in a largely meaningless "accord", left many climate activists shattered and desperately in need of a stiff drink on New Years Eve. For others, however, spirits remain high as the politics of climate disaster represent profitable new opportunities.
Many of these people, representing some of the most powerful institutions and industries in the world, will get together this week to see just how (and how much) they can squeeze out of the Earth's impending woes. On January 12th and 13th - within the conference rooms of the Embassy Suites Hotel in New York City - the Second Annual Carbon Summit will convene, bringing together representatives from industry, finance, government, and the corporate environmental groups.
Inside the summit, these monied interests will be enthusiastically discussing how to best take advantage of the emerging carbon markets. Marketing carbon involves cap and trade and/or offsets. Under a 'cap and trade' system, (like the one in the House climate bill and the pending Senate version), polluters are required to cap emissions at a certain level, declining over time. Permits to pollute are then proferred (handed out for free or auctioned) to the carbon-emitting industries. This scheme enables a company that cannot easily reduce emissions in accordance with the level of the cap, to instead buy (or "Trade") the excess permits from another company that can comply with the cap.
When permits are unavailable or too pricey, industries can instead pay someone else somewhere else - so the theory goes - to lower emissions on their behalf; these are the "Offsets". In reality, and despite whatever good intentions, offsets do not reduce emissions. At best they simply move emissions from one place to another. Often they provide support for destructive practices like palm oil plantations and provide a smokescreen for ongoing pollution.
Unfortunately, theory and practice in carbon markets simply do not jive. We have plenty of evidence that marketing carbon doesn't work to reduce emissions. Worse yet, it impedes real solutions. And perhaps worst of all, it leads to the commodification of things like pollution rights, forests, soils, agriculture, biodiversity and water resources. It puts a "market price" on those things that should belong to the "global commons". It turns our most vital resources into nothing more than the property of wealthy, polluting multi-national corporations.
Read entire article at ClimateShift.com
Many of these people, representing some of the most powerful institutions and industries in the world, will get together this week to see just how (and how much) they can squeeze out of the Earth's impending woes. On January 12th and 13th - within the conference rooms of the Embassy Suites Hotel in New York City - the Second Annual Carbon Summit will convene, bringing together representatives from industry, finance, government, and the corporate environmental groups.
Inside the summit, these monied interests will be enthusiastically discussing how to best take advantage of the emerging carbon markets. Marketing carbon involves cap and trade and/or offsets. Under a 'cap and trade' system, (like the one in the House climate bill and the pending Senate version), polluters are required to cap emissions at a certain level, declining over time. Permits to pollute are then proferred (handed out for free or auctioned) to the carbon-emitting industries. This scheme enables a company that cannot easily reduce emissions in accordance with the level of the cap, to instead buy (or "Trade") the excess permits from another company that can comply with the cap.
When permits are unavailable or too pricey, industries can instead pay someone else somewhere else - so the theory goes - to lower emissions on their behalf; these are the "Offsets". In reality, and despite whatever good intentions, offsets do not reduce emissions. At best they simply move emissions from one place to another. Often they provide support for destructive practices like palm oil plantations and provide a smokescreen for ongoing pollution.
Unfortunately, theory and practice in carbon markets simply do not jive. We have plenty of evidence that marketing carbon doesn't work to reduce emissions. Worse yet, it impedes real solutions. And perhaps worst of all, it leads to the commodification of things like pollution rights, forests, soils, agriculture, biodiversity and water resources. It puts a "market price" on those things that should belong to the "global commons". It turns our most vital resources into nothing more than the property of wealthy, polluting multi-national corporations.
Read entire article at ClimateShift.com
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Obama: Climate Change and Renewables Take Backseat to "Clean" Coal, Nuclear Energy and Offshore Oil!
President Obama's State of the Union Address full text: Climate Change and Renewables Take Backseat to "Clean" Coal, Nuclear Energy and Offshore Oil!
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2010
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address
9:11 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.
Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.
You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.
Read full text of President Obama's State of the Union address
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2010
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address
9:11 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.
Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.
You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.
Read full text of President Obama's State of the Union address
Free Renewable Energy Maps and GIS Shapefiles
A major way of reducing CO2 is moving our electric power production away from fossil fuels and towards alternative renewable sources of energy. I've collected some maps and GIS shapefiles related to renewable energy production and potential sites.
Renewable energy potential maps show fuelwood harvested, solar radiation, wind resources and geothermal potential for regions of the U.S.
Renewable energy ArcGIS shapefiles U.S. Biomass Potential: Wind Density and Speed, Hydrogen Potential, Electric Transmission, and Solar Potential for the U.S. Also, International Wind Density and Speed. These are in GIS format. If you are new to GIS check out this introduction. You can make maps yourself using this data and free GIS software - learn with this free tutorial.
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to the Region's Resource Potential - The Renewable Energy Atlas of the West is designed as a resource for policy makers, advocates, landowners, developers and others interested in furthering the production of electricity from renewable wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy resources. Utilizing state-of-the-art GIS technology.
Maps by country of power resources, minerals, metals, oil, infrastructure
International Nuclear Safety Center Interactive Web Maps - Interactive maps provided by the International Nuclear Safety Center. Beginning with the world map you can drill down to continents and countries. Clicking on a nuclear facility at any level provides access to specific database information. You can also view all of the interactive maps one a single page and begin your investigation there.
hurricanes making landfall in U.S.
Renewable energy potential maps show fuelwood harvested, solar radiation, wind resources and geothermal potential for regions of the U.S.
Renewable energy ArcGIS shapefiles U.S. Biomass Potential: Wind Density and Speed, Hydrogen Potential, Electric Transmission, and Solar Potential for the U.S. Also, International Wind Density and Speed. These are in GIS format. If you are new to GIS check out this introduction. You can make maps yourself using this data and free GIS software - learn with this free tutorial.
Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to the Region's Resource Potential - The Renewable Energy Atlas of the West is designed as a resource for policy makers, advocates, landowners, developers and others interested in furthering the production of electricity from renewable wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy resources. Utilizing state-of-the-art GIS technology.
Maps by country of power resources, minerals, metals, oil, infrastructure
International Nuclear Safety Center Interactive Web Maps - Interactive maps provided by the International Nuclear Safety Center. Beginning with the world map you can drill down to continents and countries. Clicking on a nuclear facility at any level provides access to specific database information. You can also view all of the interactive maps one a single page and begin your investigation there.
hurricanes making landfall in U.S.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
NASA says Last Decade Warmest Ever
The past decade was the warmest ever on Earth, a new analysis of global surface temperatures released by NASA showed Thursday.
The US space agency also found that 2009 was the second-warmest year on record since modern temperature measurements began in 1880. Last year was only a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest yet, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with the other hottest years, which have all occurred since 1998.
According to James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, global temperatures change due to variations in ocean heating and cooling.
"When we average temperature over five or 10 years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated," Hansen said in a statement.
A strong La Nina effect that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean made 2008 the coolest year of the decade, according to the New York-based institute.
In analyzing the data, NASA scientists found a clear warming trend, although a leveling off took place in the 1940s and 1970s...
Read entire article, report and watch video at ClimateShift.com
The US space agency also found that 2009 was the second-warmest year on record since modern temperature measurements began in 1880. Last year was only a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest yet, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with the other hottest years, which have all occurred since 1998.
According to James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, global temperatures change due to variations in ocean heating and cooling.
"When we average temperature over five or 10 years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated," Hansen said in a statement.
A strong La Nina effect that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean made 2008 the coolest year of the decade, according to the New York-based institute.
In analyzing the data, NASA scientists found a clear warming trend, although a leveling off took place in the 1940s and 1970s...
Read entire article, report and watch video at ClimateShift.com
Will You Be a Victim of Killer Coal?
That's the diagnosis that Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) relayed to the public in a comprehensive medical study released on November 18, 2009, called "Coal's Assault on Human Health." In it, the organization, comprised of physicians and public health experts, claimed that coal pollutants damage every major organ in the human body and contribute to four of the top five leading causes of death in the United States.
"The findings of this report are clear: while the U.S. relies heavily on coal for its energy needs, the consequences of that reliance for our health are grave," said Dr. Alan H. Lockwood, a principal author of the report and a professor of neurology at the University at Buffalo.
It is not simply about cleaning up the coal process; it is about halting its production altogether in order to immediately save lives - an estimated 24,000 every single year.
At every stage in its life cycle, coal can negatively impact human health, from mining operations, cleaning, transportation to burning and disposing of the combustion waste. PSR reported that many Americans are being affected daily by coal and the exposure is contributing to horrible health problems; heart attacks, lung cancer, strokes and asthma, among others.
Recently, CoalSwarm*, an environmental group that monitors coal issues, released a list of 126 coal-fired power plants that are surrounded by 10,000 people or more living within a three-mile radius. Most of these hundreds of thousands of Americans are being exposed to deadly coal particulates without even knowing it.
Not since NASA's James Hansen rang the global warming alarm about coal's major contribution to climate change has there been a more dire call to shut down coal operations in the United States.
The majority of the plants are not equipped with the most up-to-date sulfur dioxide reduction equipment, which contributes to lung and heart disease. However, instead of upgrading this technology on coal burners, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, a growing number of activists are pushing for facilities to be closed instead, for the upgrades are essentially prolonging the life of plants that are still polluting in many other ways.
Read entire article and download the report
"The findings of this report are clear: while the U.S. relies heavily on coal for its energy needs, the consequences of that reliance for our health are grave," said Dr. Alan H. Lockwood, a principal author of the report and a professor of neurology at the University at Buffalo.
It is not simply about cleaning up the coal process; it is about halting its production altogether in order to immediately save lives - an estimated 24,000 every single year.
At every stage in its life cycle, coal can negatively impact human health, from mining operations, cleaning, transportation to burning and disposing of the combustion waste. PSR reported that many Americans are being affected daily by coal and the exposure is contributing to horrible health problems; heart attacks, lung cancer, strokes and asthma, among others.
Recently, CoalSwarm*, an environmental group that monitors coal issues, released a list of 126 coal-fired power plants that are surrounded by 10,000 people or more living within a three-mile radius. Most of these hundreds of thousands of Americans are being exposed to deadly coal particulates without even knowing it.
Not since NASA's James Hansen rang the global warming alarm about coal's major contribution to climate change has there been a more dire call to shut down coal operations in the United States.
The majority of the plants are not equipped with the most up-to-date sulfur dioxide reduction equipment, which contributes to lung and heart disease. However, instead of upgrading this technology on coal burners, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, a growing number of activists are pushing for facilities to be closed instead, for the upgrades are essentially prolonging the life of plants that are still polluting in many other ways.
Read entire article and download the report
Coal's Assault on Human Health
Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.
Read and download Coal's Assault on Human Health
International Nuclear Safety Center Interactive Web Maps
Interactive maps provided by the International Nuclear Safety Center. Beginning with the world map you can drill down to continents and countries. Clicking on a nuclear facility at any level provides access to specific database information. You can also view all of the interactive maps one a single page and begin your investigation there.
View the nuclear safety web maps and data
View the nuclear safety web maps and data
Saturday, January 16, 2010
NASA's James Hansen Tells Why He's Pleased that Copenhagen Summit Failed
Democracy Now interview - transcript and video
Leading Climate Scientist James Hansen on Why He’s Pleased the Copenhagen Summit Failed, “Cap and Fade,” Climategate and More
We speak with the nation’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen. He wasn’t at the Copenhagen climate summit and explains why he thinks it’s ultimately better for the planet that the talks collapsed. We also speak with with Dr. Hansen about his new book, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity, and much more.
Guest:
James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He also teaches at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and has published his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity.
AMY GOODMAN: We are just back from Copenhagen. Even as global criticism of the proceedings and final outcome of the two-week climate summit in Copenhagen continues to mount, the United Nations is trying to put a positive spin on the non-binding Copenhagen Accord. Speaking to reporters Monday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon insisted the accord was “quite a significant achievement.”
SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON: While I’m satisfied that we sealed a deal, I’m aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many would have hoped. Nonetheless, they represent a beginning, an essential beginning. We have taken an important step in the right direction.
AMY GOODMAN: Today I’m joined by the scientist who first convinced the world to take notice of the looming problem of global warming back in the 1980s. Yes, I’m talking about the nation’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen.
But the outspoken director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies wasn’t at Copenhagen. He decided to sit out the climate conference, saying it would be better for the planet if the summit ended in collapse.
James Hansen also teaches at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. He’s just out with his first book; it’s called Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth [about] the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity..
Welcome to Democracy Now!
JAMES HANSEN: Thanks for having me.
Read transcript and view video interview with Amy Goodman
Leading Climate Scientist James Hansen on Why He’s Pleased the Copenhagen Summit Failed, “Cap and Fade,” Climategate and More
We speak with the nation’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen. He wasn’t at the Copenhagen climate summit and explains why he thinks it’s ultimately better for the planet that the talks collapsed. We also speak with with Dr. Hansen about his new book, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity, and much more.
Guest:
James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He also teaches at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and has published his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity.
AMY GOODMAN: We are just back from Copenhagen. Even as global criticism of the proceedings and final outcome of the two-week climate summit in Copenhagen continues to mount, the United Nations is trying to put a positive spin on the non-binding Copenhagen Accord. Speaking to reporters Monday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon insisted the accord was “quite a significant achievement.”
SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON: While I’m satisfied that we sealed a deal, I’m aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many would have hoped. Nonetheless, they represent a beginning, an essential beginning. We have taken an important step in the right direction.
AMY GOODMAN: Today I’m joined by the scientist who first convinced the world to take notice of the looming problem of global warming back in the 1980s. Yes, I’m talking about the nation’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen.
But the outspoken director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies wasn’t at Copenhagen. He decided to sit out the climate conference, saying it would be better for the planet if the summit ended in collapse.
James Hansen also teaches at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. He’s just out with his first book; it’s called Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth [about] the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity..
Welcome to Democracy Now!
JAMES HANSEN: Thanks for having me.
Read transcript and view video interview with Amy Goodman
Friday, January 15, 2010
The same Wall Street banksters that got us into the financial mess are now eyeing profits to be made with climate change and global warming.
For those paying attention to the unfolding disaster of climate change, last year ended with a hideous thud. The Copenhagen debacle which resulted in a largely meaningless "accord", left many climate activists shattered and desperately in need of a stiff drink on New Years Eve. For others, however, spirits remain high as the politics of climate disaster represent profitable new opportunities.
Many of these people, representing some of the most powerful institutions and industries in the world, will get together this week to see just how (and how much) they can squeeze out of the Earth's impending woes. On January 12th and 13th - within the conference rooms of the Embassy Suites Hotel in New York City - the Second Annual Carbon Summit will convene, bringing together representatives from industry, finance, government, and the corporate environmental groups.
Inside the summit, these monied interests will be enthusiastically discussing how to best take advantage of the emerging carbon markets. Marketing carbon involves cap and trade and/or offsets. Under a 'cap and trade' system, (like the one in the House climate bill and the pending Senate version), polluters are required to cap emissions at a certain level, declining over time. Permits to pollute are then proferred (handed out for free or auctioned) to the carbon-emitting industries. This scheme enables a company that cannot easily reduce emissions in accordance with the level of the cap, to instead buy (or "Trade") the excess permits from another company that can comply with the cap.
When permits are unavailable or too pricey, industries can instead pay someone else somewhere else - so the theory goes - to lower emissions on their behalf; these are the "Offsets". In reality, and despite whatever good intentions, offsets do not reduce emissions. At best they simply move emissions from one place to another. Often they provide support for destructive practices like palm oil plantations and provide a smokescreen for ongoing pollution.
Unfortunately, theory and practice in carbon markets simply do not jive. We have plenty of evidence that marketing carbon doesn't work to reduce emissions. Worse yet, it impedes real solutions. And perhaps worst of all, it leads to the commodification of things like pollution rights, forests, soils, agriculture, biodiversity and water resources. It puts a "market price" on those things that should belong to the "global commons". It turns our most vital resources into nothing more than the property of wealthy, polluting multi-national corporations.
Read entire article at ClimateShift.com
Many of these people, representing some of the most powerful institutions and industries in the world, will get together this week to see just how (and how much) they can squeeze out of the Earth's impending woes. On January 12th and 13th - within the conference rooms of the Embassy Suites Hotel in New York City - the Second Annual Carbon Summit will convene, bringing together representatives from industry, finance, government, and the corporate environmental groups.
Inside the summit, these monied interests will be enthusiastically discussing how to best take advantage of the emerging carbon markets. Marketing carbon involves cap and trade and/or offsets. Under a 'cap and trade' system, (like the one in the House climate bill and the pending Senate version), polluters are required to cap emissions at a certain level, declining over time. Permits to pollute are then proferred (handed out for free or auctioned) to the carbon-emitting industries. This scheme enables a company that cannot easily reduce emissions in accordance with the level of the cap, to instead buy (or "Trade") the excess permits from another company that can comply with the cap.
When permits are unavailable or too pricey, industries can instead pay someone else somewhere else - so the theory goes - to lower emissions on their behalf; these are the "Offsets". In reality, and despite whatever good intentions, offsets do not reduce emissions. At best they simply move emissions from one place to another. Often they provide support for destructive practices like palm oil plantations and provide a smokescreen for ongoing pollution.
Unfortunately, theory and practice in carbon markets simply do not jive. We have plenty of evidence that marketing carbon doesn't work to reduce emissions. Worse yet, it impedes real solutions. And perhaps worst of all, it leads to the commodification of things like pollution rights, forests, soils, agriculture, biodiversity and water resources. It puts a "market price" on those things that should belong to the "global commons". It turns our most vital resources into nothing more than the property of wealthy, polluting multi-national corporations.
Read entire article at ClimateShift.com
Obama Reveals Secret Evidence of Global Warming Bush Tried to Hide
Revealed: The Secret Evidence of Global Warming Bush Tried to Hide
Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating.
by Suzanne Goldenberg and Damian Carrington
Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military. The photographs, taken by spy satellites over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.
Read full article and download high resolution satellite image
Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating.
by Suzanne Goldenberg and Damian Carrington
Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military. The photographs, taken by spy satellites over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.
Read full article and download high resolution satellite image
Arctic Permafrost Leaking Methane at Record Levels. Methane 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2)
Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.
They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.
Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: "High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions."
Global warming is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates.
Palmer said: "This study does not show the Arctic has passed a tipping point, but it should open people's eyes. It shows there is a positive feedback and that higher temperatures bring higher emissions and faster warming."
The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady.
View entire article.
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.
They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.
Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: "High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions."
Global warming is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates.
Palmer said: "This study does not show the Arctic has passed a tipping point, but it should open people's eyes. It shows there is a positive feedback and that higher temperatures bring higher emissions and faster warming."
The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady.
View entire article.
Pine Island Glacier - Sea Ice Tipping Point - 3.3 meter sea level rise
Ice Sheets Unstable as Climate Warms
A new study examines how ice sheets, such as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, could become unstable as the world warms.
The team from Oxford University and Cambridge University developed a model to explore how changes in the "grounding line" – where an ice sheet floats free from its base of rock or sediment – could lead to the disintegration of ice sheets and result in a significant rise in global sea level.
A report of their research is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A.
"The volume of ice locked up in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is equivalent to a sea level rise of around 3.3 metres," said Dr Richard Katz of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences, an author of the report. "Our model shows how instability in the grounding line, caused by gradual climatic changes, has the potential to reach a 'tipping point' where disintegration of the ice sheet could occur."
Read entire article, abstract of research and download research in PDF format
A new study examines how ice sheets, such as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, could become unstable as the world warms.
The team from Oxford University and Cambridge University developed a model to explore how changes in the "grounding line" – where an ice sheet floats free from its base of rock or sediment – could lead to the disintegration of ice sheets and result in a significant rise in global sea level.
A report of their research is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A.
"The volume of ice locked up in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is equivalent to a sea level rise of around 3.3 metres," said Dr Richard Katz of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences, an author of the report. "Our model shows how instability in the grounding line, caused by gradual climatic changes, has the potential to reach a 'tipping point' where disintegration of the ice sheet could occur."
Read entire article, abstract of research and download research in PDF format
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Corporate Greed: The People vs. Cap and Trade by James Hansen
Corporate Greed: The People vs. Cap and Trade by James Hansen
The public is largely unaware of a momentous battle about to be fought in Washington. The stakes are enormous. Yet the public has not been well informed.
Ignorance of the matter derives in part from the fact that the conflict was initiated via the highly charged issue of climate change. Climate is complex. People have different opinions about the extent to which humans are causing climate change. Fundamental belief systems are involved and discussion can be emotional.
Yet the core issue can be defined independent of climate. It concerns how society can phase out its addictive use of fossil fuels and move on, in the most economically efficient and equitable way, to a clean energy future. Conservatives, independents and liberals should be united in this fight.
Washington could define a path that would lead the world toward a clean energy future. And, incidentally, it would solve the climate problem - without requiring anyone to agree that there even is a climate problem.
Yet Washington appears intent on choosing a path defined by corporate greed. Unless the public gets engaged, the present Administration may jam down the public's throat just such an approach, which, it can be shown, is not a solution at all...
Read entire article, "The People vs. Cap and Trade" by James Hansen
The public is largely unaware of a momentous battle about to be fought in Washington. The stakes are enormous. Yet the public has not been well informed.
Ignorance of the matter derives in part from the fact that the conflict was initiated via the highly charged issue of climate change. Climate is complex. People have different opinions about the extent to which humans are causing climate change. Fundamental belief systems are involved and discussion can be emotional.
Yet the core issue can be defined independent of climate. It concerns how society can phase out its addictive use of fossil fuels and move on, in the most economically efficient and equitable way, to a clean energy future. Conservatives, independents and liberals should be united in this fight.
Washington could define a path that would lead the world toward a clean energy future. And, incidentally, it would solve the climate problem - without requiring anyone to agree that there even is a climate problem.
Yet Washington appears intent on choosing a path defined by corporate greed. Unless the public gets engaged, the present Administration may jam down the public's throat just such an approach, which, it can be shown, is not a solution at all...
Read entire article, "The People vs. Cap and Trade" by James Hansen
Northeast Climate Assessment: Regional and State Impacts
Northeast Climate Assessment: Regional and State Impacts from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Download the Northeast Climate Assessment Reports
Download the Northeast Climate Assessment Reports
Added Free Climate Change Related ArcGIS Shapefiles
Added Free Climate Change Related ArcGIS Shapefile map layers. If you are new to GIS and would like to learn more and make your own maps, there are links here to free GIS programs and a free tutorial.
Check out the Climate Shift shapefiles
Check out the Climate Shift shapefiles
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
New & Improved ClimateShift.com
ClimateShift.com has been online in various forms since 2004. Most recently the ClimateShift.com was redirected to a directory on a sister website, MapCruzin.com. The unfortunate result of this was that, over time, many of the links to climate change, global warming and climate shift news, maps, data, research, impacts, renewal, war & security, skeptics, energy, resources, extreme weather, injustice videos, and Google Earth & Maps mashups became buried. So, we decided that it was time
ClimateShift.com stood on its own.
Please bear with us as we re-format and update many of the pages and links and add new material. Updates are posted on the Climate Shift Blog on a regular basis. You can also follow us on Twitter.
ClimateShift.com stood on its own.
Please bear with us as we re-format and update many of the pages and links and add new material. Updates are posted on the Climate Shift Blog on a regular basis. You can also follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
