1468533126000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fed-krapels%2Fthe-energy-gangs-of-new-y_b_10998914.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
THE ENERGY GANGS OF NEW YORK
It's not surprising that Governor Andrew Cuomo's "50 by 30" goal - 50 percent of New York's power will come from renewable sources by 2030 - has caused a stir among the energy cognoscenti that is now beginning to seep into the mainstream media. Keeping lights on, factories humming, and people entertained - a.k.a. electric power -- is a huge business in New York and the Governor's ambitious climate-saving program will move profits around from the old to new energy businesses.

Hence it's not surprising that the Governor's energy czar, Richard Kauffman, has had a pointed exchange with New York's electric market operator (the New York ISO, or NYISO) about the cost of New York's Energiewende (the energy transformation, a word coined by the equally ambitious Germany). On Tuesday, the ISO warned in a letter to the New York regulators (the Public Service Commission) that it had "concerns over how the Commission is developing and planning to implement the CES to achieve the 50% by 30 objectives." Specifically, the NYISO estimated that the goal could require nearly 1,000 miles of new bulk power transmission. The next day, Politico reported that "in a sharply worded rebuttal, Richard L. Kauffman, who chairs the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, called the NYISO filing 'misleading, incomplete and grossly inaccurate,' saying that technology and 'simply smarter markets and operations allow the system to easily accommodate renewable resources.'"

This is an understandable exchange. NYISO is doing its job by raising questions, and Kauffman is doing his by challenging the NYISO to think outside the box (while keeping the lights on). For those of us deep in the belly of the electric whale, 50 by 30 is an exciting and challenging opportunity. We love to paraphrase John F. Kennedy's statement about going to the moon: "we do it not because it's easy; we do it because it's hard." On the inside, many of us deeply believe that Kaufmann is right: that the advances of power technology (on both the demand and the supply side) are so remarkable - especially the development of microgrids - that 50 by 30 can be achieved without compromising reliability and without raising the overall cost of electricity.

During this process, however, we do need NYISO and the electric utilities to continue to serve as the platform on which all this innovation happens. New York's regulatory apparatus - called REV for Reforming the Energy Vision -- is being reshaped to allow this to happen. From the inside, we see three essential activities that New York has to enable simultaneously to implement the Vision. First, the rules of the game have to be amended to enable distributed energy (including efficiency and demand management) to thrive. Second, the grid does need to be strategically expanded to bring bulk clean energy from the places it exists (upstate, neighboring states and provinces, western New York, and offshore) to where it's consumed (most of it naturally is consumed downstate). Third, and seldom discussed, the grid needs to be better optimized with modern technology and better software.

If electricity were only lightly regulated, this would happen naturally. But it remains heavily regulated and one of the heaviest hands on it is that of the New York ISO. It's the gatekeeper of what is allowed to be installed into the grid. If it is too heavy-handed, there will be a rebellion from the cleantech innovators, who in the long run command the political power in a progressive state like New York. If NYISO is too permissive, the lights will go out more often than society can tolerate. It's a tough assignment. NYISOs natural propensity is probably to be too conservative. Kauffman's letter is a shot across the bow to nudge it to be more accommodating.

Governor Cuomo's 50 by 30 is a worthy goal for a state like New York. He was indeed channeling his inner JFK when he first proposed it. The NYISO and the rest of New York's powerful old power elite need to come onboard. While 50% of the power in 2030 will come from renewables, they should remember the other 50% will still come from a leaner and more efficient fossil fuel industry.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468532175000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjessica-leader%2Fwill-the-next-natural-disaster_b_10972780.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Will The Next Natural Disaster Doom The Nation's Energy Grid?
California is facing a power calamity. Not only does the state have the most expensive energy in the continental U.S., but also the least reliable. It's leading the nation with more than 470 power outages this year alone, and is expected to enact 14 planned blackout days throughout the summer as a response to power sourcing issues.

Power lines at dusk.

Natural disasters are, and will be, the main undoing of California's power structure. Climate change is already impacting the grid, due to significant shifts in temperature and weather patterns. Because of the ongoing drought, hydro dams (a primary energy source in the state) are only producing 20% of their normal capacity. Extreme heat led the California ISO to post a Flex Alert on the first day of summer, setting the stage for the beginning of rolling blackouts. Wildfires, a yearly and growing grievance in the arid Southern California climate, can impact the grid in a variety of ways; flames damage transmission poles and smoke and particulate matter can ionize the air, leading electricity away from transmission lines and forcing a shutdown of the system.

However, the elephant in the room is not the drought, or rising temperatures, or even wildfires. It is what Kathryn Schulz referred to in The New Yorker as "The Really Big One": An earthquake of epic proportions that is likely to hit the West Coast any day.

While all natural disasters can lead to blackouts and power complications, earthquakes make an exceptional impact. In a 2011 article in IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, Hugh Rudnick points out that countries such as China, Japan and the U.S. have all suffered from serious energy infrastructure damage during earthquake aftermath, leading to extended economic ramifications.

A high magnitude earthquake could destroy California's entire energy system. "The whole western side of (San Francisco) is built on sand," Cal Broomhead, the energy and climate program manager for SF Environment told the website GreenBiz. "If we have a massive earthquake, the gas infrastructure will be shot, and we could face an extended power outage."

Historically, the country relied on diesel and gas generators and large-scale gas turbines for emergency power. Beginning in World War II, naval ships had diesel engines in case one of the main boilers malfunctioned. It wasn't until the 1990s that utilities began exploring flywheel energy storage and deep cycle batteries for emergency power generation.

Yet diesel and gas are both still largely relied upon to provide backup power. Not only are these generators wieldy and loud, but they are also environmentally damaging and require investment in finite resources. By having generation rely on a continuous supply of gas, these systems are not fully independent and can be unworkable in emergency situations. Additionally, they are expensive to keep on hand. Fuel-powered generators require valuable space, and they need to be cycled often to ensure the fuel is fresh and usable.

San Francisco earthquake, 1909.

Although this paints a grim picture of energy inertia, a silver lining exists. As mentioned, batteries and energy storage are becoming increasingly attractive options. Right now, most deep cycled batteries are made of lead-acid, the cheapest material on the market, which is heavier, and lower in power capacity and lifespan than other batteries such as lithium-ion. Lithium-ion is not only superior to lead-acid in performance, but is rapidly dropping in price. These batteries are quickly becoming the main choice for energy storage innovation on both a large and small scale, making them likely to price out lead-acid in the next few years. An influx of second-life lithium ion batteries, which were once in cars and other high-energy positions but still have power capacity for other uses, are a cheap and valuable power source. In addition, flow batteries, made of vanadium and zinc, and sodium-ion options are undergoing testing with large-scale commercial potential.

This research is not solely geared towards one state. Overall, the U.S. energy infrastructure received a D+ from the American Society of Civil Engineers during its most recent assessment, and utilities across the nation are investigating energy technology. However, California is pioneering emergency power preparedness. In 2013, the CPUC passed a mandate requiring the three largest state utilities to add 1.3 gigawatts of energy storage by 2020. That same year, California lead the country (tied with Texas) in smart grid success, receiving 83 out of 100 points awarded by the GridWise Alliance and Smart Grid Policy Center.

Locally, cities are also exploring resilient backup systems, with San Francisco being one of the most prominent examples. In 2015, the Solar Market Pathways Program gave the city funding to integrate renewables and storage into its emergency response plan. Additionally, local government is working with PG&E to develop a series of microgrids -- energy systems that can operate both independently and in tandem with the larger power grid. The city is also urging private developers to build affordable homes that are more resilient to natural disasters.

According to Rudnick, this cooperative strategy is integral to the success of worst-case scenario preparations. "Resilience not only depends on equipment, building codes and technology, but more so on the organization and standardized emergency preparedness of well-structured electric companies," he explains.

Previously an Associate Editor for HuffPost Green, Jessica now works for FreeWire Technologies, a mobile energy storage company based in the Bay Area.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468532172000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ffiona-ma%2Felectric-cars-are-more-and_b_10993668.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Electric Cars Are More And More At Home In California

"2016-07-14-1468513501-5779253-TeslaChargingStation.jpg"

My Sacramento office overlooks a parking lot that recently resurfaced its top level. In addition to new pavement, the proprietors also installed several charging stations for electric vehicles. The owners of that garage are not alone.

Car charging stations are popping up all over California. Drive Solar--a joint venture with the charging station locator app company PlugShare and the solar panel installation company Sungevity--allows individuals to install charging stations in their home at the same time they install solar panels, making both options much cheaper. Virtually every major tourist attraction and event venue, from Disneyland to Levi Stadium, has charging stations for electric vehicles.

And that is exactly what I intended when I introduced AB 631 in 2012, during my last year in the Assembly.

That bill, which was signed into law by Governor Brown, exempted electric charging stations for cars from getting approval by the Public Utilities Commission if the station was only to be used for charging cars.

The Public Utilities Commission is an outgrowth of the old Railroad Commission, which was established during the Progressive Era, to ensure that Californians of that era were getting fair market rates for transporting themselves and the fruits of their labors to market. In the ensuing years, the PUC has grown to regulate virtually all of the utilities in California.

That's an important role, and it requires the PUC to be vigilant and thorough in approving the construction of, say, a new natural gas-fired power plant, or the pipelines that are used to move natural gas from storage to the power plant. But that same level of exhaustiveness makes it difficult to get smaller projects, like a car charging station, approved.

By taking the PUC out of the process, we helped remove one of the major roadblocks to keeping consumers from moving towards electric cars: the "range anxiety" they feel when they worry their car won't be able to make it to their destination on a full charge.

That is a very real concern in a state where commuters can sometimes travel as much as 50 or 100 miles to work every day. More charging stations means greater range for electric car owners, and every single charger doubles as a billboard for electric cars themselves.

In a typical month, anywhere from 3,000 to 6,000 electric cars are sold in the United States, and up to half of that total are purchased right here in California. Almost 185,000 electric cars cruise our roads and highways every day. Now, that's not because of one piece of legislation--it's part of a broader cultural trend towards sustainability.

But those trends are strengthened by legislation, like our efforts to pass AB 631 in 2012, or the efforts of Assemblymember David Chiu, to pass AB 1236 last year. That bill, which was also signed into law by Governor Brown, mandates that cities and counties develop an expedited permit process for electric car charging stations within their borders.

The lack of charging stations was one of the major roadblocks to consumers really embracing electric vehicles. We removed that roadblock, and that helped the market shift gears in fundamental ways.

"2016-07-14-1468515196-8141431-FMElectricCarCharger.jpg"

As recently as a decade ago, consumers only had their choice one or two truly electric (and very expensive) models on the market. But today's consumers have their choice of electric vehicle: stylish sports cars, outdoor friendly utility vehicles for family adventures, and sophisticated sedans for commuters.

And once Assemblymember Chiu's legislation is fully implemented, even more communities will be electric car-friendly.

This September, when we commemorate national Drive Electric Week (9/10-9/18), we will have a lot more to celebrate. California's electric car market is expanding faster than you can say "zero emmissions vehicle," and the ongoing efforts in the legislature to expand public transit and encourage renewable energy shows why the world is looking to us for leadership.

Given California's history as a national trendsetter for new technologies, it's a safe bet that the whole country will be going from 0 to 60 on electric vehicles a lot sooner than anyone expects.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468532170000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ftess-carter%2Fgreen-chemistry-is-the-path_b_10927928.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Green Chemistry Is The Path To Chemical Safety
Co-authored by Glynis Lough

On June 22nd, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law, bringing the first legislative reform to chemical management regulation in 40 years! From car seats to zippers, nearly every product in and out of the home has the potential to change because of this bill - meaning your favorite toy or cooking pan could be reformulated because chemicals toxic to human health are used in the production. And the bill also includes special protections for women's and children's health. Sound great? Sort of. The reality of the bill is that it's a mixed bag - only twenty chemicals of the thousands and thousands that are actually used in consumer goods are required to be tested per year, and there's a 64,000 backlog - but with increased authority, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can prevent new problems from entering the market.

That means that real effort is needed to make this bill more than just public relations. To be sure, there are some good things in this bill, such as setting new safety standards for chemicals with ties to cancer, mental health, and infertility and allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain more information about a chemical before approving its use. We need more action to pollute less.

What this really means is that we need to find other ways to protect people and the environment from the chemicals that we routinely use, like dry cleaning solvents, and this is exactly what green chemistry aims to do. One important way to do this is to promote green chemistry. This is a movement to create products that reduce pollution without sacrificing function. While a nod to green chemistry is hidden at the bottom of this bill (about a Sustainable Chemistry Initiative), in reality, it does not do enough to either raise consciousness or change practice. This rule does present opportunities to really benefit from better integration of a discipline called green chemistry, and we must do more to capitalize on this.

But if education, industry, AND government simultaneously work to integrate green chemistry into our daily lives, then change is possible.

If we practice green chemistry, our daily lives will change and make our kids and the world safer. Food packaging will necessarily change because instead of Styrofoam, which isn't biodegradable but does release cancerous by-products when burned, we can use mushroom-based packaging that's non-toxic and compostable! From how we use transportation (ethanol) to the shoes we wear (thanks, Nike!) green chemistry is already touching our lives. It's time for consumers and the federal government alike to highlight green chemistry! Here are the two key reasons why we should focus more on green chemistry.

First off, green chemistry makes and saves money.

Green chemistry industry is expected to grow from $2.8 billion in 2011 to $98.5 billion by 2020 while saving industry $65.5 billion according to one often-cited study.

Businesses care...

Because businesses tend to emphasize forward-looking, streamlined processes, businesses already implement green chemistry into the production of many of their goods, and even more could be on the way with greater pressure from consumers. Individual businesses and coalitions like the American Chemical Society (ACS) Green Chemistry Institute and the industrial sectors drawn into it (e.g. pharmaceuticals and chemical manufacturers) have begun to respond to their main driver, consumer pressure, and are becoming more competitive by incorporating green chemistry - their gains in productivity are likely to offset any potential costs of reducing their environmental impact.

To fully incorporate the benefits of green chemistry throughout society, what should we change?

Industry is already poised to go big time into green chemistry. That innovation and the effects of green chemistry will be magnified across society if we are better educated about it, and if all sectors - industry, consumer and government - are better connected.

Education - The next generation of consumers should pressure even more

Because green chemistry principles are just now emerging as part of chemistry education in the United States, students, who are the next generation of practitioners and consumers, do not understand the scientific and economic relevance of green chemistry to their lives. We need to leverage increased awareness and funding concurrently because this will lead to more and better sustainable products and processes and funding opportunities.

Better-equipped citizens make informed decisions about green and sustainable technologies, products, and industries that affect their lives, and this Act begins that process. Integrating green chemistry into school curricula will connect chemistry curriculum to students' everyday lives allowing benefits of real world contexts to motivate learning about chemistry. For example, leveraging the popularity of environmental sustainability among youth is a great way to connect chemistry concepts with issues we are passionate about. Imagine encouraging students to use chemistry to develop alternative cosmetics or toys that are more sustainable?

In green chemistry, innovation and education can happen concurrently. Society does not have time to wait for innovation before educating the next generation. Using real world issues as a starting point to introduce science concepts contextualizes environmental and sustainability issues, improves decision-making, and helps to create a scientifically literate citizenry. This approach will also improve consumers' understanding of the products they buy, which has the potential to create a positive feedback where educated consumers demand more sustainable products and processes and where scientists are literate in green chemistry and can employ its principles broadly.

Connect Industry, Government, and the Public

While the EPA has supported many important projects, green chemistry is multi-disciplinary and can support cross-agency efforts from the EPA to the Department of Energy to the US Department of Agriculture. A new model for interagency coordination - modeled after the Sustainable Chemistry Initiative suggested at the very bottom of this Act - would coordinate green chemistry research, development, technology transfer, education, and training across federal agencies and in support of larger US national efforts. This kind of mega effort supported by a green chemistry curriculum can make our use of chemicals more sustainable.

While the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is a good step forward, let's make sure that our government doesn't forget about the Sustainable Chemistry Initiative tucked away at the very bottom of the bill. The more green chemistry is used and understood, the closer we get to fulfilling our legislators' promise to make the chemicals in our lives safer. A coordinated and integrated effort across education, industry, and government can make this Act a truly effective reality.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468532167000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdana-ellis-hunnes%2Fthe-real-differences-between_b_10933162.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
The Real Differences Between Animals And Humans

"2016-07-11-1468277855-1100441-shark.jpg"

Image Credit: Huffington Post Images

While humans evolved to have the largest brain-to-body-size ratio, supposedly making us one of the smartest animals on Earth, we also evolved to be the most destructive.

In 1950 there were 2.5 billion people on Earth, and we created 1.5 million tons of plastic per year. Now there are 7.4 billion people on Earth - a five-fold increase; yet, we create over 300 million tons of plastic each year, a 200-fold difference.

Not only that, but, since 1950, we have also over-fished nearly every inch of our oceans.

So, what does this have to do with the difference between animals and ourselves?

The major difference is that (**most**) animals consume or eat for survival, they kill only what they need to live. That might mean a pod of Orcas kills one seal, or a pride of lions kills one Impala.

Humans, on the other hand, kill indiscriminately.

When we fish in our oceans, we don't just get the one species we are looking for. We trawl the bottom of the ocean killing everything in our path, corals or bottom-dwelling creatures, and irresponsibly catch and kill multiple unintended species of fish, invertebrates, sea mammals such as dolphins, porpoises, or whales, and sometimes, even seabirds.

Our search for oil damages marine habitats, food chains, health, and also may damage the sensitive hearing of marine animals, making it difficult for them to find food, or communicate, and may even cause mass strandings or death from starvation as animals become confused, overwhelmed, or disoriented from the cacophony.

Meanwhile on land, we are destructive in a myriad of other ways: We clear-cut forests, build cities, disrupt waterway, infiltrate and destroy habitats, and indiscriminately kill, again.

Hundreds of thousands of elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, and other endangered species are killed every year for their "medicinal" "purposes, or to demonstrate wealth; and, many of these animals are on the brink of extinction, and may become extinct within the next decade.

The true wealth on our planet is the animals. Their lives. It is what they give to the planet and to each other as part of an intricate web, they have figured out already. They've been here a lot longer than we have.

They know how to live in harmony, and take only what they need.

They know the importance of returning to the land what they take, reaping what they sow, and do not kill without reason.

We may have the largest brains, but I argue that we are not the smartest.

If we would just start paying attention, we would learn so much from our fellow animals about conservation, relationship building, giving back to the earth, and perhaps most importantly contributing to the web in which we are also a part of.

They were here long before we were, yet, we are killing them, and altering the planet faster than they can adapt.

By 2050 it is estimated that more than half of all species on the planet will be extinct, by our hands.

By 2050, It is expected that there will be more plastic in the ocean and fish.

These to me are scary statistics. It is time to stem the wave of destruction, and instead to be leaders and advocates for conservation.

Here's how:

1. If you eat seafood, look only for sustainable sources, that our line-caught, meaning they use traditional, discriminate fishing methods.

2. Write your congressmen and senators.

3. Educate others by Sharing this blog and others like it.

4. Eliminate or significantly reduce your intake of animal products - treat them as a condiment, not a main. For more specific meal suggestions and recipes, please refer to my previous post: "Why Plants are This Summer's "Coolest" Diet."

5. Read and review your food labels, because, it is possible that there are ingredients in them that are unsustainable (such as coconut or palm kernel oil - which destroy several habitats) and or possibly shark fin or cartilage.

6. Give up your fish oil in lieu of plant sources of omega-3 black, such as flax, walnut, and algal sources.

7. Encourage your local coffee shop to invest in eco-lids and cups that are compostable.

8. Reduce your food waste, buy only what you need, cook it, and eat it or store it in a way that it won't go bad. Food storage tips.

To contact Dana: recipe.for.survival@gmail.com
Twitter: recipe4survival
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RecipeForSurvival/
blog: recipeforsurvival.wordpress.com

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468532165000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fadam-m-roberts%2Fputting-your-selfie-and-animals_b_10971884.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Putting Your Self(ie) And Animals At Risk
What's a picture really worth? What's the price for a moment of wonder, excitement, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be just... that... close to a wild animal?

I have written these words before about the concept of having an exotic animal as a pet--a chimpanzee, a macaque, a tiger, or any number of others. I understand it. I understand the profound and emotional yearning to be close to a wild animal. To touch a wild animal. To embrace the companionship of a wild animal. It's got to be magical and exciting.

It's also dangerous, inhumane, and stupid. These are wild animals, meant to be in the wild. They bite and scratch. They experience fear and suffering in the unnatural life we force them to endure. They escape and become invasive species, or they escape and cause harm. They are confiscated and become the burden of the local humane society or wildlife sanctuary.

Wildlife belongs in the wild.

Now, the "selfie" or the photo-op: the moment to take a picture with a wild animal. I have seen it myself in Cancun, Mexico, where hopeless tourists take pictures with helpless animals. For one dollar, you can cuddle an old, chained chimpanzee. I cross my fingers, hold my breath, and close my eyes to a squint. Please don't let this be the moment the chimpanzee has had enough and rips the flesh from that young lady's body.

I have seen it in Thailand, where people sit bottle-feeding a tiger for the chance to get a photograph together. It's dangerous for a tiger cub that young to be that close to people (risk of disease is high). It's also part of a brutal breeding industry that mass-produces tigers. The young ones forcibly pose for pictures; the older ones languish behind bars; and many of them likely end up slaughtered or sold for body parts to China.

But, this "selfie" phenomenon is beyond crazy. It's a perverse abuse of our newfound technology that makes us yearn to document every moment.

Take a picture of a wild animal in the wild, behaving naturally. Yes, absolutely. Do not manipulate wild animals, touch wild animals, or remove wild animals from their natural habitats for the sake of a Facebook update.

The internet is full of them. Argentinian beachgoers pulled a young dolphin from the water and passed her around for pictures until she tragically died. People in Lake Tahoe creep perilously close to wild black bears to capture just the right picture, putting themselves at risk of attack. Hikers in Yellowstone National Park have been attacked by bison and other wild animals while attempting to photograph them. A tourist in Macedonia pulled a swan from the water for a picture together, harming the bird. A shark was pulled from the water in the Dominican Republic for photos--and the shark died. Even the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a warning about taking selfies with seal pups because of the risk to the animals.

I wonder if the destructive and highly dangerous trend of selfies with wild animals stems from a societal view of animals as objects rather than as individuals. Perpetuated by zoo exhibits that place animals in a fishbowl, circus acts forcing highly unnatural behaviors, and media that treat animals as stylish accessories, the exploitation of animals has become normalized and encouraged. We see animals up close. For some, human nature dictates wanting to be even closer.

Wild animals are not novelties, are not safe for human interaction, do not exist to entertain us, and belong in the wild. Period.

While many people have an affinity for wild animals, not all of them are able to moderate their desire to be close to them. Meanwhile, modern society dramatically desensitizes people to the animals' very wildness. The desire to be close to animals, the opportunities to do so, and the misguided, trusting belief that it must be safe... Taken together, they result in people taking massive, dangerous risks for a mere photo opportunity.

A picture is worth a thousand words? Fine. Just don't let those words include "cruelty," "injury," "stress," "suffering," or "death." Take a selfie... with your dog or cat.

Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Adam

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468524790000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fbrad-friedman-and-desi-doyen%2Fgreen-news-report---july_b_10997726.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
'Green News Report' - July 14, 2016
The Green News Report is also available via...

IN TODAY'S RADIO REPORT: Porn is dirty, but coal is clean, says the Republican Party platform; Senate Democrats call out the 'web' of professional climate deniers; June 2016 was the hottest on record for the U.S.; PLUS: Another fracking explosion, this time in New Mexico... All that and more in today's Green News Report!

Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)...

Link:
Embed:

Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (see links below): Republicans just escalated the war over ExxonMobil and climate change; Once-respected science group has one more chance to reject Exxon Mobil funding; Transportation Dept. proposes new oil train rules; Puget Sound to close another coal plant; State's Delta smelt plan calls for more water flowing to sea; Fake bio-diesel factory made millions; Loneliest natural gas terminal bucks pipeline trend; Number of Americans "alarmed" by climate change rises in latest poll... PLUS: Clean energy investment in 2016 undershoots last year's record... and much, MUCH more! ...

'Green News Report' is heard on many fine radio stations around the country. For additional info on stories we covered today, plus today's 'Green News Extra', please click right here to listen!

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468524788000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fcarol-pierson-holding%2Ffossil-fuel-divestiture-c_b_10965192.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Fossil Fuel Divestiture Campaign Focuses On Big Pensions
The fossil fuel divestiture campaign GoFossilFree equates the end of oil, gas and coal to the great moral crusades of our time -- Apartheid and tobacco -- while hoping to reduce demand for fossil fuel stocks and thereby threaten their stock prices.

"2016-07-13-1468421997-189784-DivestScottishParliament.jpg"

It's a tall order. As long as GoFossilFree was focused on divesting university endowments, the campaign was a gnat on the haunch of the elephant. After all, why should an industry worth $5 trillion be afraid of endowments worth $467 billion, whose investments in oil and gas are probably 10%, or $50 billion, at best? Chump change to this industry's behemoths.

But more recently, the FossilFree campaign began targeting pensions as well, and that's a problem. Consider the numbers: as of 2013, US pension assets totaled $21 trillion. Using that same 10%, you're talking $2.1 trillion in fossil fuel stocks. That's a number big enough to scare even Big Oil.

The first real threat came in 2015 from California's state pensions. In April of that year, the California legislature voted to divest its coal stocks from the pensions' $657 billion investment fund. A scary precedent and one that got Big Oil's attention.

Evidence of Big Oil's alarm is clear on the anti-divestment site divestmentfacts.com. Funded by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), the site used to publish letters from University Presidents justifying their decisions not to divest and a few reports on how much individual college endowments would lose through divestment.

In June, the DivestmentFacts site underwent a radical change. Focused now on pension funds, the site promotes the idea that under divestment, pension funds will lose $7 billion over twenty years. Three studies from three separate universities support the claim.

A closer look at the study authors reveals how much more the IPAA is investing to stop pensions from divesting. The lead study is authored by none other than the notorious economist and lawyer Daniel Fischel, the short-lived dean of Chicago Law School who resigned over a sex scandal and one-time expert witness in criminal trials of Mike Milken and Charles Keating as well as officers of Enron and Philip Morris. Fischel is Chairman and President of Compass Lexecon, one of the largest consultancies that specialize in what Charles Ferguson described in the Huffington Post as "The sale of academic 'expertise' for the purpose of influencing government policy, the courts, and public opinion... now a multi-billion dollar business." The other two studies are by academics who are also Senior Consultants at, yes, Compass Lexecon. That's some pricey research.

Shortly after releasing the three studies, the IPAA published a survey of pensioners conducted by FTI Consulting, which owns -- wait for it -- Compass Lexecon. FTI's report warns, "Even the largest college endowment funds in existence today hold only a fraction of the assets managed by public pension funds," then goes on to present "statistics" that prove pensioners don't want divestment. A spokesman from the American Petroleum Institute (API) draws on heart strings when he concludes, "Millions of retirees and pension holders depend on income from oil and natural gas investments to live."

Both oil lobbying organizations, API and IPAA, are funded mostly by the fossil fuel majors, with the bulk coming from Shell, BP and Chevron, companies that have the most to lose from divestiture. And they're right to spend whatever they have to, because the truth is, the smart money in pensions should flee oil and gas for economic reasons. Looking ahead, HSBC Global Research found that global carbon regulations could result in fossil fuel companies losing 40-60% of their value, which will translate into reductions in share price. Similar warnings have come from CitiBank, Standard and Poor's, and the Bank of England.

Big Oil is right to be afraid. Pension fund divestment has moved to Europe. Just two weeks ago, the EU issued a directive that, on ratification, will require all pensions to "consider climate and risks related to...'stranded assets,'", referring to oil and gas reserves that may never be used. EU pensions total £3.2 trillion, $4.4 trillion at today's depressed exchange rates.

Spending on anti-divestment is just a finger in the dike. Big oil and gas will lose to carbon-free energy. Will they follow buggy-manufacturers who never embraced the automobile and were pushed out of business? Or will they imitate American carmakers that entered the electric car market? Perhaps divestment will exact the same financial pressure on oil and gas that forced dramatic innovation in the American auto industry.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Photo courtesy of Friends of the Earth Scotland via Flickr CC.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468524784000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ftim-profeta%2Fthe-climate-post-study-qu_b_10995718.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
The Climate Post: Study Quantifies Climate-Change-Related Deaths
A study in Environmental Research Letters suggests a fifth of premature deaths during a 2003 heatwave in Europe are linked to human-caused climate change.

"We are now able to put a number on the deaths caused by climate change in a heat wave," said lead author Daniel Mitchell of the University of Oxford. "This has never been done before. Previous studies have attributed changes in heat waves to climate change, or related increased heat stress to human deaths, but none have combined the two."

The study's U.S. and U.K researchers calculated that, during a Europe-wide heat wave in summer 2003, 506 of 735 deaths in Paris and 64 of 315 deaths in London were due to a heat wave worsened by anthropogenic climate change. They reached that conclusion after putting the results of several thousand runs of two climate model simulations of the 2003 heat wave into a health impact assessment of death rates.

By comparing two scenarios--one reflecting the climate of 2003 without human influences and one reflecting all known climatic forces contributing to the 2003 heat wave--the researchers determined how climate change had affected that summer's temperatures.

The study, reports Carbon Brief, analyzes a direct impact measure--mortality--rather than an indirect one--temperature. It links mortalities to climate and introduces another level of uncertainty, especially when long and reliable health datasets are not available for use in analyses.

Nevertheless, reports ClimateWire, the study demonstrates that losses can be directly linked to climate change and thus its framework can be used to assign costs of "loss and damage" and to improve planning and adaptation (subscription).

"It is often difficult to understand the implications of a planet that is one degree warmer than preindustrial levels in the global average, but we are now at the stage where we can identify the cost to our health of man-made global warming," Mitchell said. "This research reveals that in two cities alone hundreds of deaths can be attributed to much higher temperatures resulting from human-induced climate change."

Last week at a meeting held by the French government to study Paris Agreement-related actions to reduce health risks linked to climate change, the World Health Organization said that change is likely to kill 250,000 additional people each year by 2030--primarily through malaria, diarrhea, heat stress, and malnutrition. Children, women, older people, and the poor will be most affected.

Climate Change and Cloud Cover

A new study in the journal Nature suggests there's evidence of climate change in satellite cloud records. By comparing satellite data from 1983 to 2009 to climate models, the authors found that the clouds forming most often are not low-lying reflective ones that cool the planet. Instead, cloud patterns were in line with what scientists would expect to see in climate models--an increase in greenhouse gases associated with human activity over the study period.

"Cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature," the authors write. "As cloud tops rise, their greenhouse effect becomes stronger."

Clouds have both an Earth-cooling effect by reflecting solar radiation back to space and an Earth-warming effect by restricting the planet's thermal infrared radiation.

"Even if there is no change in the overall coverage of clouds on the earth, clouds closer to the pole reflect less solar radiation because there is less solar radiation coming in closer to the pole," said lead author Joel Norris of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

In Science magazine, Norris noted one caveat: during the study period, two major volcanic eruptions cooled and then warmed the climate, producing cloud patterns similar to those produced by greenhouse gas-related warming.

Draft Proposes Extension of California Cap-and-Trade Program

The California Air Resources Board released a draft plan to extend the state's cap-and-trade program beyond 2020, when it is set to expire. The program--one of the first economy-wide programs put in place--aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating a fixed number of permits, called allowances, to emit a single ton; compliance entities and other market participants can buy and sell allowances, thereby enabling the market to determine the lowest-cost compliance path.

The draft plan calls to extend the program another decade and to reach emissions levels 40 percent below 1990 levels. It would include preliminary caps through 2050 "to signal the long-term trajectory of the program to inform investment decisions."

No board vote is scheduled on the proposal until March 2017. A state appeals court is considering a challenge from the California Chamber of Commerce, which contends that the pollution-credit program is an illegal tax, not a fee.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia