California takes coals out of the fire

Byoliveridley

Seriously, for every bit of bad news you read in the New York Times about coal, you read a good news story about the LA Times about coal!

State acts to limit use of coal power – Los Angeles Times

The California Energy Commission on Wednesday imposed new rules that effectively forbid the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and all other municipal utilities in the state from signing new contracts with coal-fired power plants. The move, together with identical regulations imposed on private utilities in January, is a significant step toward reducing the contribution of California, the world’s sixth largest economy, to global warming.

This is important because California is a huge market and is imposing its market power wisely. It will buy coal power if sequestration actually works.

Technorati Tags: ,

Similar Posts

  • ED is not just Erectile Dysfunction.

    Byoliveridley

    The grist features a must read post on endocrine disruption (ED). Great first paragraph, BTW, but read the whole thing. Before Viagra, had any one other than doctors and the unfortunate masses suffering such dysfunction ever heard of erectile dysfunction? The effects of direct to consumer drug marketing of diseases and disorders is the subject of other posts, but this one’s about endocrine disruptors!

    Side note, Erectile dysfunction has 2.3 million hits in google, Endocrine Disruption (or disruptors) has 1.7 million, so, at least google is catching up!

    The ED you should really be worried about: Endocrine disruption | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

    What a crazy world we live in when almost everyone knows what the acronym ED stands for. Millions of dollars have been poured into creating awareness of ED, erectile dysfunction, because it is profitable. This 21st-century sales-pitch strategy — “disease mongering” — has proven to be good for the bottom line. The irony of all this is that there is another ED out there into which millions have also been poured — to keep it a secret. That ED is endocrine disruption, and if the public were to learn about it, bottom lines could shrink instead of grow.

    Endocrine disruption should be right at the top of the list of most critical technological disasters facing the world today, up with climate change. With little notice, vast volumes and combinations of synthetic chemicals have settled in every environment in the world, including the womb environment. Synthetic chemicals at very low concentrations in the womb change how genes are programmed, cells develop, tissues form, and organs function, and thus undermine the potential and survival of developing animals, including humans. The chemicals threatening the integrity of future generations are derived from the processing of crude oil and natural gas, the same processes that are driving climate change. This is an integral part of the climate change story.

  • BC Carbon Tax regressive?

    Byoliveridley

    British Columbians with low incomes will benefit from the carbon tax in its first year, but will pay more by the scheme’s third year, a new study concludes.

    The impact of the tax and its offsetting income tax cuts will become increasingly unequal unless the provincial government increases payments to low-income earners, the study says.

    The study, by Marc Lee, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and Toby Sanger, senior economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, takes a detailed look at the fairness of the controversial tax.

    via Carbon Tax Whacks the Poor, Later :: News :: thetyee.ca

    The report makes some good points. Revenue neutrality (the offsetting of carbon taxes with income/corporate tax cuts) has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions. If I were to redesign this tax, I would do as the report says, increase rebates to lower income people, reduce corporate tax cuts so that the resulting revenue can be used to fund more transit infrastructure, energy efficiency infrastructure and the building of a low carbon economy.

    A carbon tax in itself is not sufficient to reduce emissions. It does its part, but building an energy efficient, low carbon infrastructure will do a lot more and the money’s there, just use it.

    You can read the whole report here.

  • |

    Opinion Polls and Yes Prime Minister

    Byoliveridley

    This story from the grist about a push poll arranged by Rasmussen showing 67% support for the reinstatement of offshore oil drilling in the United States reminded me of this most delightful exchange from Yes Prime Minister, still one of my all time favourite television shows and one that taught me almost everything I needed to know about parliamentary politics at a tender age. The show is about British politics through the eyes of an earnest but bumbling politician, his very experienced bureaucratic handler and his secretary with divided loyalties. The show is incredibly insightful and funny at the same time. But, before I get to my favourite part, some background…

    It’s that time of the year when the republicans want to enrich their oil buddies by opening up oil drilling offshore of the U.S. This year, the high price of gas provides a convenient excuse and rallying point. After all, who wouldn’t want to pay less for gas. Of course, a U.S government study done by the Energy Information Administration in 2007 indicates that at best, you would see a 3% increase in production by 2030, and we all know how much that would affect gasoline prices this summer. Yet, here’s the first question from the “poll”

    In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states

    No really, what are you supposed to say? Can such reputable firms lie to you like that? Anyway, Joseph Romm from the original gristmill post breaks it down completely so I don’t have to. but after reading his post, come back and read the following exchange from Yes Prime Minister, and do listen to the actual audio clip from the show.

    Yes Prime Minister – Season 1Episode 2 (warning: Strangely formatted website)

    Sir Humphrey: “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Oh…well, I suppose I might be.”

    Sir Humphrey: “Yes or no?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”

    Bernard Woolley: “Is that really what they do?”

    Sir Humphrey: “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”

    Bernard Woolley: “How?”

    Sir Humphrey: “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”Sir Humphrey: “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”

    Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

    Sir Humphrey: “There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.”

    That is what I think about opinion polls!

  • | |

    India announces Panel to "study" global warming

    Byoliveridley

    The Hindu News Update Service

    Warning that the threat of climate change was real, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday said future of people will be at peril if they do not change their lifestyles.

    Singh’s warning came on a day when he constituted a high level advisory group to help the government take pro-active measures to deal with global warming.

    “The threat of climate change is real and unless we alter our lifestyles and pursue a sustainable model of development, our future will be at peril”, he said in a message on the occasion of World Environment Day.

    So, what exactly is the Indian position on climate change, something that threatens its coastlines, will put entire villages under water in the Ganga delta, screw around with the monsoon, and accelerate glacier melting in the Himalayas (among many other effects?)

    Here’s India’s position from the talks with Brazil last week…

    “We are willing to work in partnership in this process to cut emissions but we cannot accept equal responsibility (for the global mess caused by the industrialised nations),” an Indian official said.

    The country’s top environmental official, Pradipto Ghosh, said yesterday that “legally mandated measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have significant adverse effects on the GDP growth of developing countries, including India”.

    Yes, obviously. The world is in desperate need of a framework to make development and poverty alleviation happen without burning too much coal. But, as long as the leader of the free world vacillates, obfuscates and procrastinates, not much will happen.

  • |

    Pollution vs. Development? Hardly!

    Byoliveridley

    It’s clean air vs. TV in poor India village – International Herald Tribune

    Across the developing world, cheap diesel generators from China and elsewhere have become a favorite way to make electricity. They power everything from irrigation pumps to television sets, allowing growing numbers of rural villages in many poor countries to grow more crops and connect to the wider world.

    The headline sucks, clean air vs. TV is not really the choice here. Is the implication that third worlders somehow need to make this a “choice”? It’s not as if the rest of the world has to make this “choice”! They do seem to have both. This is a situation where poor choices are made because of poor infrastructure. Other than the headline, it is a good article because it makes all the right points:

    1. Lack of infrastructure – No centralized power to remote areas
    2. Well meaning, but poorly executed subsidies – Cheap Diesel and Kerosene
    3. Subsidy induced corruption – Diesel/Kerosene pilfering
    4. Top down approaches to development – Throw the money, pay no attention to local experts, don’t follow up, then blame the lazy villagers!
    5. Competition for scarce resources with developed countries – Germany will outpay India for photovoltaics every time.

    Biomass burning as an alternative to diesel?

    Given the popularity of generators, perhaps the most promising alternative is a new type like the one at the edge of the village that contributes much less to air pollution and global warming. It burns a common local weed instead of diesel, costs half as much to operate, emits less pollution and contributes less to global warming.

    The main material is dhaincha, a weed commonly grown in India to restore nitrogen to depleted soils. The dhaincha grows 10 feet tall in just four months, with a three-inch-thick green stalk. Wood from shrubs and trees is used when there is not enough dhaincha.

    I am not a big fan of biomass burning, but using a weed that can be replanted repeatedly seems fairly harmless, especially compared to burning diesel.

    The project has succeeded partly because it has the active backing of one landlord family, the Sharans. Family members have gone on to successful business careers in big Indian cities and in Europe, and have dedicated themselves to helping their home village.

    Local involvement, especially by authority figures goes a long way in rural India.
    China does suggests another way forward.

    China has tried another approach: supplementing an expansion of electricity from coal-fired power plants with cheap rooftop solar water heaters that channel water through thin pipes crisscrossing a shiny surface.

    Close to 5,000 small Chinese companies sell these simple water heaters, and together they have made China the world’s largest market for solar water heaters, with 60 percent of the global market and more than 30 million households using the systems, said Eric Martinot, a renewable energy expert at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

    Not so hot during the monsoon, I guess! I remember a friend of mine having a solar heater in their home in the 1980’s. Their company used to make them, so it is old technology, with price being the prime barrier. It will work as a supplemental source, not as the prime source.

    Clearly, the wider availability and ubiquity of consumer electronics, and electricity-dependent agriculture has outpaced India’s, and to a lesser extent, China’s power infrastructure. It is easy to make a billion television, it’s not quite so easy to keep them powered!

  • Nanoparticles the new asbestos?

    Byoliveridley

    I am sure everyone has heard about the wonders of nanotechnology, but what about the other side?

    ScienceDaily: Tiny Inhaled Particles Take Easy Route From Nose To Brain

    In a continuing effort to find out if the tiniest airborne particles pose a health risk, University of Rochester Medical Center scientists showed that when rats breathe in nano-sized materials they follow a rapid and efficient pathway from the nasal cavity to several regions of the brain, according to a study in the August issue of Environmental Health Perspectives

    There was a time when asbestos was the wonder material, malleable and fire resistant, capable of being woven into sheets, and being incorporated into buildings for fire retardation. Unfortunately, many cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma later, not so wonderful. Asbestos is a special case because the fibers started out big and would keep breaking down into smaller particles till they reached that magic size range between 0.1 and 1-2 um where they could stay suspended in the air for a long time, and also take advantage of the lungs’ inability to filter particles that size to any great degree of efficiency.

    Nanoparticles are an order of magnitude smaller, and hence behave more like gases. They may  also contain choice toxic heavy metals such as manganese which are not usually floating around in the air at these small sizes. So, this study is a little scary, especially for the folks in the manufacturing end of things, these miracle particles seem to be going straight to the brain. Traditional masks and air handling systems are not designed to filter such fine particles, so I am sure they’re floating around in the air waiting to be breathed in.

    Update 9:00 AM, 8-3-2006
    Well, I swear, I did not see this before I wrote this morning!

    The question of the day, however, is are they safe for humans and other living things? Earlier this year, Andrew Seaton, A U.K. scientist who was the lead author of a 2004 report investigating the saftey of nanotechnological materials raised a bit of a ruckus by comparing carbon nanotubes to asbestos fibers. Asbestos once had its day in the sun as an all-purpose wonder material. But then we learned that tiny asbestos fibers, once ingested by the human body, could be extremely deadly. Carbon nanotubes: also easy to ingest, and exquisitely capable of penetrating cell structures. Could they be equally toxic?