Environmental Issues

[Legacy]

How is hydraulic fracturing related to earthquakes and tremors? (USGS)

Reports of hydraulic fracturing causing felt earthquakes are extremely rare. However, wastewater produced by wells that were hydraulic fractured can cause “induced” earthquakes when it is injected into deep wastewater wells.

Wastewater disposal wells operate for longer durations and inject much more fluid than the hydraulic fracturing operations. Wastewater injection can raise pressure levels in the rock formation over much longer periods of time and over larger areas than hydraulic fracturing does. Hence, wastewater injection is much more likely to induce earthquakes than hydraulic fracturing.

Most wastewater injection wells are not associated with felt earthquakes. A combination of many factors is necessary for injection to induce felt earthquakes.

Learn more at the USGS Induced Earthquakes website.

Injection Wells: The Poison Beneath Us
Lax oversight, uncertain science plague program under which industries dump trillions of gallons of waste underground (ProPublica)

Over the past several decades, U.S. industries have injected more than 30 trillion gallons of toxic liquid deep into the earth, using broad expanses of the nation's geology as an invisible dumping ground.

No company would be allowed to pour such dangerous chemicals into the rivers or onto the soil. But until recently, scientists and environmental officials have assumed that deep layers of rock beneath the earth would safely entomb the waste for millennia.

There are growing signs they were mistaken.

Records from disparate corners of the United States show that wells drilled to bury this waste deep beneath the ground have repeatedly leaked, sending dangerous chemicals and waste gurgling to the surface or, on occasion, seeping into shallow aquifers that store a significant portion of the nation's drinking water.

In 2010, contaminants from such a well bubbled up in a west Los Angeles dog park. Within the past three years, similar fountains of oil and gas drilling waste have appeared in Oklahoma and Louisiana. In South Florida, 20 of the nation's most stringently regulated disposal wells failed in the early 1990s, releasing partly treated sewage into aquifers that may one day be needed to supply Miami's drinking water.

There are more than 680,000 underground waste and injection wells nationwide, more than 150,000 of which shoot industrial fluids thousands of feet below the surface. Scientists and federal regulators acknowledge they do not know how many of the sites are leaking.

Federal officials and many geologists insist that the risks posed by all this dumping are minimal. Accidents are uncommon, they say, and groundwater reserves — from which most Americans get their drinking water — remain safe and far exceed any plausible threat posed by injecting toxic chemicals into the ground.

But in interviews, several key experts acknowledged that the idea that injection is safe rests on science that has not kept pace with reality, and on oversight that doesn't always work.

"In 10 to 100 years we are going to find out that most of our groundwater is polluted," said Mario Salazar, an engineer who worked for 25 years as a technical expert with the EPA's underground injection program in Washington. "A lot of people are going to get sick, and a lot of people may die."

The boom in oil and natural gas drilling is deepening the uncertainties, geologists acknowledge. Drilling produces copious amounts of waste, burdening regulators and demanding hundreds of additional disposal wells. Those wells — more holes punched in the ground — are changing the earth's geology, adding man-made fractures that allow water and waste to flow more freely.

"There is no certainty at all in any of this, and whoever tells you the opposite is not telling you the truth," said Stefan Finsterle, a leading hydrogeologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who specializes in understanding the properties of rock layers and modeling how fluid flows through them. "You have changed the system with pressure and temperature and fracturing, so you don't know how it will behave."

A ProPublica review of well records, case histories and government summaries of more than 220,000 well inspections found that structural failures inside injection wells are routine. From late 2007 to late 2010, one well integrity violation was issued for every six deep injection wells examined — more than 17,000 violations nationally. More than 7,000 wells showed signs that their walls were leaking. Records also show wells are frequently operated in violation of safety regulations and under conditions that greatly increase the risk of fluid leakage and the threat of water contamination.(con't)

Worth a read.

 

[Irish YJ]

It goes beyond lives lost. My grandparents lived in Duggar, Indiana. Over a period of time, their house was becoming dangerous to live in from all of the vibrations. Gaps in the ducts from the coal furnace and windows not shutting properly are a couple of things I remember. All because the house was very close to being shaken off its foundation.

I didn't know they did a lot of fracking in TH or Dugger. I do know that the area sits on the Wabash Valley Fault. My uncle there in Seelyville/TH says they've had little quakes since he's been a kid, and has always chalked it up to the fault line.

 

[Irish#1]

I didn't know they did a lot of fracking in TH or Dugger. I do know that the area sits on the Wabash Valley Fault. My uncle there in Seelyville/TH says they've had little quakes since he's been a kid, and has always chalked it up to the fault line.

I don't know if they did fracking, but they were blasting all the time. As kids we wanted to go see the big KABOOM, but our grandma wouldn't let us. About 25-30 years ago the world's largest crane/shovel or whatever they are called was in Duggar. It was huge. They built it on site. I don't remember the size, but those giant dump trucks looked little when parked next to it.

 

[Irish YJ]

I don't know if they did fracking, but they were blasting all the time. As kids we wanted to go see the big KABOOM, but our grandma wouldn't let us. About 25-30 years ago the world's largest crane/shovel or whatever they are called was in Duggar. It was huge. They built it on site. I don't remember the size, but those giant dump trucks looked little when parked next to it.

Ah OK. So not really a fracking/hydraulic issue. There are a ton of strip pits and such around that area, just not sure that would cause that kind of seismic activity. I do remember some of the those big ass dump trucks back then. My uncle and father used to take my cousin and I fishing at a few of the strip pits. Incredible bass fishing. Even the rock bass and pan fish were huge.

When we were less than 10, I remember my cousin and I both being armed with Ronco "pocket fisherman" contraptions, and slaying the fish. We caught 30+ via worm and bobber, while my dad and uncle caught a Miller Light buzz. We had a great fish fry that night. I learned how to clean fish that day lol.

 

[Legacy]

How China’s Big Overseas Initiative Threatens Global Climate Progress
China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a colossal infrastructure plan that could transform the economies of nations around the world. But with its focus on coal-fired power plants, the effort could obliterate any chance of reducing emissions and tip the world into catastrophic climate change.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013, has been described as the most ambitious infrastructure project in history. It is a plan to finance and build roads, railways, bridges, ports, and industrial parks abroad, beginning with China’s neighbors in Central, South, and Southeast Asia and eventually reaching Western Europe and across the Pacific to Latin America. The more than 70 countries that have formally signed up to participate account for two-thirds of the world’s population, 30 percent of global GDP, and an estimated 75 percent of known energy reserves.

The first phase — of transport and energy infrastructure and seaports — will enable a level of industrial development and economic integration that Beijing hopes will generate new markets for Chinese companies and create a Chinese-dominated network of countries, tied into China’s economic and industrial realm. If successful, it would create a sphere of technological, economic, diplomatic, and strategic power big enough to challenge that of the United States.

BRI has the potential to transform economies in China’s partner countries. Yet it could also tip the world into catastrophic climate change.

Speaking at a meeting in San Francisco in September, Nicholas Stern, the prominent British economist, laid out his concerns: “The more than 70 countries that are signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative,” he said, “have an average GDP of around one-third of that of China. If they adopt China’s development model, which resulted in a doubling of China’s GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in the first decade of the century, it would make the emissions targets in the Paris Agreement impossible.”

Just building the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road will absorb massive amounts of concrete, steel, and chemicals, creating new power stations, mines, roads, railways, airports, and container ports, many in countries with poor environmental oversight. But more worrying still is the vision of industrial development to follow, and the energy that is planned to fuel it. While China has imposed a cap on coal consumption at home, its coal and energy companies are on a building spree overseas.

Chinese companies are involved in at least 240 coal projects in 25 of the Belt and Road countries, including in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Serbia, Kenya, Ghana, Malawi, and Zimbabwe. China is also financing about half of proposed new coal capacity in Egypt, Tanzania, and Zambia. While a few of these new plants will use the latest technology — in Bangladesh, for example, China is building the country’s first “clean coal” plant — many are less advanced and are not being planned with the carbon capture technology that would make them less threatening to efforts to control climate change.(Cont.)

 

[BleedBlueGold]

AOC, please read:

http://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/blog/carbon-negative-grassfed-beef

For more information, listen to the first hour or so of Chris Kresser on the Joe Rogan podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq4Apc2Xk7Q

The first part of the podcast essentially discusses the future of farming and human diets. Vegan/Vegetarian/Omnivore diets and their effects on agriculture and the environment, etc. I love listening to Chris. He is a very smart guy in the field of nutrition. While listening, I couldn't help but think of some of the b.s. trotted out in The Green New Deal and how ignorant they are.

https://www.drovers.com/article/democrats-green-new-deal-wants-eliminate-farting-cows

Research and Statistics Shows Improvement on “Farting Cows”
While much of what is suggested for agriculture is already being handled through programs funded in the farm bill, the mention of “farting cows” shows a divide between rural and urban America.

According to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), direct greenhouse gas emissions that come from cattle and their manure represents 2% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, or less than 0.4% of global emissions.

Research by Virginia Tech and USDA-ARS determined that if all livestock were eliminated from production agriculture it would only reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6% or 0.36% globally. However, the shift would cause changes in dietary needs as people would not be able to receive enough of several different essential dietary nutrients without animal proteins. There would be deficiencies in calcium, vitamins A and B12 and some important fatty acids. Ultimately, resulting in higher caloric diets.

“A take-home message from the study was that we need to expand the way we think about food production to account for the complex consequences of changing any individual piece within the wider food system,” says Robin R. White, a professor of Animal and Poultry Science at Virginia Tech.

The announcement of the Green New Deal is something that Sara Place, NCBA’s senior director of sustainable beef production research, hopes will serve as starting off point for a conversation between the politicians supporting it and livestock producers.

“I think it highlights the large divide between people that are interacting with the environment and growing food every day, and those that are concerned about environmental issues, but ignorant,” Place says.

You'll often hear numbers thrown out that green house gas emissions from cattle represent 15% of the overall emissions compared to 14% from transportation. However, as you can see in the quote above, that's not direct emissions (which is around 2%). The 15% number is a "life cycle" number, accounting for the entire processes involved in raising/butchering/shipping, etc beef. The 14% number from transportation is not a life cycle number (a figure the EPA has estimated to be 80%). So as you can see, this is just cherry picking data and blatant lying.

I agree that something more sustainable must take place. Holistic farming is a fantastic way to provide net negative carbon emissions and we should create incentives that help promote these techniques. But to talk about reducing emissions and point to "cows farting" as a culprit is beyond ignorant. It irritates the hell out of me that people take AOC and some of her cohorts so seriously.

 

[BGIF]

Scientists have discovered deepest point on land
By Mallika Kallingal, CNN
Updated 9:55 AM ET, Sat December 14, 2019

Scientists say topographic ridges protect major Antarctica glaciers, making the ice sheet there more resilient to melting

(CNN)A new study shows that the deepest point on land is under the Denman Glacier in East Antarctica. Glaciologists at the University of California, Irvine, were mapping the area only to find that the trough under the glacier went far deeper than they had imagined.

The trough is about 3.5 km (about 2 miles) below sea level but there is no ocean water there. Instead, it is filled with ice flowing from the interior of the ice sheet towards the coast. The trough measures about 100 km in length and is 20 km wide, according to the study.

This new discovery was presented at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting in San Francisco.
Dr. Mathieu Morlighem, an associate professor in the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California at Irvine, is leading this project.
"The biggest challenge about the project is that Antarctica is HUGE!" he said, excitedly. "It's bigger than the U.S. and Mexico combined."
Morlighem and his team used a new technology called BedMachine to make this discovery. They developed a new generation ice sheet model but it was not behaving as expected.

The artificial glacier growing in the desert
"After months of investigation, we realized that it was not because we were missing important processes. It was because the bed topography under the ice was missing many important features such as troughs, ridges, valleys, etc," he said.
And because of the size of the area they were trying to map, the process was very time-consuming.
The team combined radar measurements with high-precision surface motion data from satellites and snow accumulation from regional climate models to get a good estimate of the shape of the bed where it had not been measured.
"We applied this mapping technique to the entire ice sheet, and we discovered this very deep valley hidden underneath the ice sheet," Morlighem said.
He said one of the challenges they faced during the project was gathering all the available data since there have been many radar surveys, but done by different institutions in different countries.
They also had some surprises on the way.
"The main ones are these ridges across the Transantarctic Mountains, Denman glacier, but also some other glaciers feeding the Ronne Ice Shelf that seem to be more vulnerable than we thought," Morlighem said.
Morlighem says climate change could impact this region.

"We now have to monitor this glacier carefully. If its grounding line -- where the ice starts to float -- starts to retreat in this deep canyon, it could retreat rapidly due to a mechanism called Marine Ice Sheet Instability." he said. "Glaciers that flow on beds that deepen inland are unstable, and so the glacier will potentially have to retreat all the way until the bed rises again, leading to significant sea level rise. It could be one of the most vulnerable sectors of East Antarctica, which holds significantly more ice than west Antarctica."
But there is good news as far as climate change goes. The study says that major glaciers flowing through the Transantarctic Mountains and across Victoria Land are found to be protected by broad, stabilizing, topographic ridges near their grounding lines that reflect the surrounding topographic relief.

"The glaciers flowing across the Transantarctic Mountains all have a pronounced ridge across their troughs," Morlighem said. "These ridges were unknown and make this sector of the ice sheet extremely resilient to increase in ocean-induced melting."
In other words, he said, "If the Ross Ice Shelf destabilizes, it should not lead to a collapse of East Antarctica."

 

[Old Man Mike]

All of that is good news, as no one, including this old environmental teacher, WANTS GCC effects to be greater than necessary.

But two things about this: the scientists doing this study are worried about antarctic ice melting on large scales elsewhere in Antarctica (esp. the Ross Ice Sheet which is huge on its own), and that they see significant melting across Antarctica (and consequent Ocean level rise) as a big worry. They present their happy findings about the deep troughs in the context of the whole Antarctic picture that, now hopefully, we can do things so that the whole of the East Antarctica ice does not melt into the ocean.

Vulnerable ice sheets on the polar continent can, and will if we don't try seriously to avoid it, produce economically-damaging and culture-effecting ocean volume change. I've always, since reading about it, been mildly fascinated by the military quietly altering the structures of oceanside bases in preparation for what they feel is most likely coming to affect their operations. The "quiet" aspect of this is obviously so as to not go against the publicly stated constant that GCC is not a real problem.

Their activity is also a reminder that if you have real money behind you, you will be able to do "heroic" works to protect your own interests, whereas poorer cultures will be simply be screwed if they are disadvantaged in location.

 

[Legacy]

"There's cost for everything"

"There's cost for everything"

We've previously posted on Cancer Alley, the Oil and Chemical section of Houston and the ship channel, coal ash deposits and their holding ponds seeping into groundwater, West Virginia water contamination from mountain top mining, massive methane venting and more.

The cost in terms of lives shortened, disabilities, and deaths for these falls mostly on those least capable of fighting against those with deep pockets, the ability to circumvent environmental laws, and control of politicians expected to enforce safeguards.

Here's a few more recent excellent articles:
- POLLUTER’S PARADISE
In “Cancer Alley,” Toxic Polluters Face Little Oversight From Environmental Regulators
Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality has been accused of protecting the chemical industry it regulates. The agency is facing cutbacks as new plants are slated for communities that already have some of the country’s most toxic air.
(ProPublica)

- from Harvard Public Health, one of a three part series (Air, Water and Places):
TROUBLED WATERS

- U.S. oil-storage industry fines soar on air, water violations (Reuters)

- Report: Major Texas industrial facilities rank first nationally in illegal water pollution
A study by a Texas environmental group and a California think tank found that about half of Texas’ major industrial facilities released illegal levels of pollution into rivers, lakes and other waterways over the past two years. (Texas Tribune, March 2018, updated)

- Sick and dying workers demand help after cleaning coal ash (AP)

At the end of November, there was another episode of at a Texas petroleum processing plant near Houston two explosions and a fire. When you live near one of these areas with polluters of air and water and cannot afford to move your family, you look to your government to protect you, enforce our laws, and preserve any health benefits that a safety net program provides to all of you. Otherwise, you live in a third world section in the wealthiest country in the world.

 

[Irish YJ]

Over China, coronavirus coincides with plummet in nitrogen dioxide
https://www.foxnews.com/science/china-cornvirus-coincides-plummet-nitrogen-dioxide

 

[MJ12666]

Another enacted policy pushed by environmentalist that has a negative impact on society.

States that introduced “green” regulations that taxed single-use plastic grocery bags in an effort to eventually annihilate them are now welcoming them back as health officials caution of possible contamination with reusable bags.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) said Thursday he was suspending the ten-cent tax on single-use plastic bags at grocery stores and other retail businesses as one of his actions “to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.”

“The latter move is to curb the use of personal bags that could bring the virus into a store,” reported the Journal Inquirer.

Neighboring Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) banned reusable bags in stores this week and lifted bans on plastic bags as well “as part of his administration’s latest steps to limit the spread of the coronavirus,” reported the Boston Business Journal.

“Baker announced Wednesday that stores cannot charge for either paper or plastic bags, which in some communities have previously cost 5 cents per bag,” noted the report.

New York State and Maine will also delay enforcement of their bans on single-use plastic bags.

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) issued an order Saturday banning reusable bags at stores, asserting they pose a risk of spreading the coronavirus.

A report at New Hampshire’s Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy asserted that, as many states forged ahead with plastic bag bans, “concerns about public health tended to be dismissed, even though studies have shown genuine potential health hazards.”

In June 2018, for example, researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health studied the possible transmission of norovirus through reusable grocery bags (RGBs) at the supermarket. After inoculating RGBs with a surrogate virus to evaluate how the pathogens traveled within a grocery store, researchers found the surrogate virus “spread to all surfaces touched by the shopper; the highest concentration occurred on the shopper’s hands, the checkout stand, and the clerk’s hands.”

A now widely reported University of Arizona study from 2011 found so much bacteria in reusable grocery bags that the study’s lead author called reusable bags “a serious threat to public health, especially from coliform bacteria including E. coli, which were detected in half of the bags sampled.” When bags contaminated by meat juices sat in cars for two hours, the number of bacteria increased ten-fold. The study’s author warned that “consumers are alarmingly unaware of these risks and the critical need to sanitize their bags on a weekly basis.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ngle-use-plastic-bags-to-avoid-contamination/

 

[Bluto]

Another enacted policy pushed by environmentalist that has a negative impact on society.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ngle-use-plastic-bags-to-avoid-contamination/

So to avoid this “crisis” people need to sanitize ie wash reusable bags? Sounds complicated.

 

[MJ12666]

So to avoid this “crisis” people need to sanitize ie wash reusable bags? Sounds complicated.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. But that's okay. My point is that a lot of individuals who think they are doing the right thing and are influenced by misinformation distributed by environmental advocacy groups that the media treat as if they are elected officials, actually end up supporting legislation that ends up doing more harm then good.

 

[Bluto]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. But that's okay. My point is that a lot of individuals who think they are doing the right thing and are influenced by misinformation distributed by environmental advocacy groups that the media treat as if they are elected officials, actually end up supporting legislation that ends up doing more harm then good.

Again, according to the source you posted and the study referenced by said article the “risk” can be mitigated by simply washing reusable grocery bags. We can choose that simple step and work to educate the public on it or continue producing mountains of one off use plastic trash.

 

[Old Man Mike]

The concept of "re-use" of anything is in principle a sound concept. That's the near entirety of one's household "goods." The idea of expanding the concept to include all material objects would, in principle, also be a "good." (For everything but the modern economy which is based upon "consumables.") NO ONE just automatically believes that requiring everything at this time to be re-usable is an automatic good --- take toilet paper as your extreme example. So all that environmentally concerned professionals and teachers, AND futurists, AND MANY BUSINESSES, are trying to do is to spot areas in the linear production-to-litter-or-landfill schemes where re-use can replace landfill and litter waste.

THAT hope is hardly one to be mocked and derided.

Once one takes the re-use concept into items which will involve multiple locations and multiple owners/ handlers, then the problems inherent in this regarding contamination become tricky, often. Note that it is not the general idea of the re-use but of the possible contamination of the healthy material hoped to be reused. The contamination makes re-use in the public arena more difficult in that there must be serious cleaning steps (primary examples: any dining establishment.) In the grocery bag example, the hope is that persons would not themselves wish to be carrying around, and sitting in their homes, objects containing any forms of hazards.

This has been pretty reasonable so far. But now comes something that no one saw coming: a VERY infectious virus, which needs near-total isolation. Well, OK. It's a problem. It's also SUCH a problem that the bag-carriers themselves shouldn't be in the stores interacting with the other people.

I find objections to every thing which is tried but runs into honestly unexpected issues very disingenuous. Such anti-environmentalists would be more "refreshing" if they just came out honestly and said that they hate environmentalists and environmental concepts period. We could dispense with a lot of wasteful non-discussion then.

 

[Bluto]

The concept of "re-use" of anything is in principle a sound concept. That's the near entirety of one's household "goods." The idea of expanding the concept to include all material objects would, in principle, also be a "good." (For everything but the modern economy which is based upon "consumables.") NO ONE just automatically believes that requiring everything at this time to be re-usable is an automatic good --- take toilet paper as your extreme example. So all that environmentally concerned professionals and teachers, AND futurists, AND MANY BUSINESSES, are trying to do is to spot areas in the linear production-to-litter-or-landfill schemes where re-use can replace landfill and litter waste.

THAT hope is hardly one to be mocked and derided.

Once one takes the re-use concept into items which will involve multiple locations and multiple owners/ handlers, then the problems inherent in this regarding contamination become tricky, often. Note that it is not the general idea of the re-use but of the possible contamination of the healthy material hoped to be reused. The contamination makes re-use in the public arena more difficult in that there must be serious cleaning steps (primary examples: any dining establishment.) In the grocery bag example, the hope is that persons would not themselves wish to be carrying around, and sitting in their homes, objects containing any forms of hazards.

This has been pretty reasonable so far. But now comes something that no one saw coming: a VERY infectious virus, which needs near-total isolation. Well, OK. It's a problem. It's also SUCH a problem that the bag-carriers themselves shouldn't be in the stores interacting with the other people.

I find objections to every thing which is tried but runs into honestly unexpected issues very disingenuous. Such anti-environmentalists would be more "refreshing" if they just came out honestly and said that they hate environmentalists and environmental concepts period. We could dispense with a lot of wasteful non-discussion then.

Very well said.

 

[MJ12666]

Again, according to the source you posted and the study referenced by said article the “risk” can be mitigated by simply washing reusable grocery bags.

We can choose that simple step and work to educate the public on it or continue producing mountains of one off use plastic trash.

The regs were implemented in as far as I know in primarily northeastern states controlled by Democratic legislatures and governors. These states decided to not enforce the ban presumably at this time do to the fear of spreading the virus. I guess they decided it was easier to not enforce the ban then trying to educate the public that they needed to wash the reusable bags.

 

[Irish#1]

Here we go again. It's really quite simple. Plastic bags were introduced to reduce the consumption of trees. Everyone likes that idea because it helps our ecology. Then someone discovers the plastic bags don't disintegrate and just hang around for a very long time. Then someone comes up with the great idea of reusable cloth bags (The wife and I have some) and problem solved. Well not quite, we have a pandemic and the COVID-19 could be carried in via cloth bags.

Can the bags be washed? Sure, but the problem is not everyone is going to think about washing their bags everytime they go to the store. Right now plastic bags appear to be the best option. The ban on cloth bags is temporary, not permanent. Use plastic bags until this thing is over and then go back to cloth bags. This isn't about one side being right. It's about keeping people safe.

 

[MJ12666]

The United Nations has postponed a pivotal climate conference scheduled for November amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, delaying an international effort to head off the worst consequences of climate change.

The gathering, scheduled to be hosted by the United Kingdom in November in Glasgow, Scotland, typically draws tens of thousands of activists, top government officials and business leaders from around the world. This year’s meeting was envisioned as a moment for nations to offer more ambitious plans to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and transition away from reliance on fossil fuels.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/04/01/un-climate-coronavirus-cop26/

The good news is that freeloading political delegates as well as the business representatives, celebrities and un-elected advocates will not be converging on Glasgow pumping tons of CO2 into the air via their private jets. This might give the Maldives an extra month before it is swallowed by the Indian Ocean later this century. I know I am being snarky regarding the Maldives but not about the conference attendees.

 

[Bluto]

Here we go again. It's really quite simple. Plastic bags were introduced to reduce the consumption of trees. Everyone likes that idea because it helps our ecology. Then someone discovers the plastic bags don't disintegrate and just hang around for a very long time. Then someone comes up with the great idea of reusable cloth bags (The wife and I have some) and problem solved. Well not quite, we have a pandemic and the COVID-19 could be carried in via cloth bags.

Can the bags be washed? Sure, but the problem is not everyone is going to think about washing their bags everytime they go to the store. Right now plastic bags appear to be the best option. The ban on cloth bags is temporary, not permanent. Use plastic bags until this thing is over and then go back to cloth bags. This isn't about one side being right. It's about keeping people safe.

Sure. The previous poster attempted to frame it as a permanent binary choice and that “virus” transmission was some big long term bogeyman with reusable bags. Why not use this moment to educate the public on washing reusable bags as well?

Now to Mike’s point, the constant “this isn’t a perfect solution so why even bother?” reasoning being introduced into such discussions is tiresome.

 

[Irish#1]

Article from ThomasNet Industry on plastic bags.

https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/...source=thomas_industry_update&tinid=220860869

Welcome to the Thomas Index Report for the week of April 6th.

This week, we’re checking out industrial sourcing activity for bags, specifically, those ubiquitous reusable bags you’ve seen in your local grocery store checkout aisles, often emblazoned with a logo from a familiar company.

While specific data points on plastic bag manufacturing are scarce, the UN estimates that between 1 trillion and 5 trillion plastic bags are produced annually worldwide. And according to the EPA, only 2% of those bags are recycled in the U.S. every year. So even though plastic production is forecast to double by 2040, disposable plastic bags are actually likely to become less common over the next few months and years as many states consider community-wide bag bans.

While only eight states – including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Oregon, and Vermont – have banned plastic bags so far, additional legislation is currently in play to expand limitations further across the country.

In response to this accelerating sustainability trend, we’re noticing that sourcing activity on Thomasnet.com is shifting toward categories related to reusable bag materials.

Overall, bag sourcing has grown 125% year-over-year and 87% over last quarter averages. Biodegradable bag sourcing has increased 52% over last year and 44% over Q4.

More specifically, cotton bag sourcing has grown 70% over 2019 figures and 25% over last quarter averages and nylon bag sourcing has gone up 62% year-over-year and 155% over Q4 numbers. Both cotton and nylon are emerging as popular alternatives to standard plastic shopping bags.

That said, we don’t expect this to lead to a drop in sourcing for plastic bags – year-over-year figures for that category on Thomasnet.com are still up 90%. Instead, we expect numbers in the plastic bag category to stay consistent as searches for bags made from alternative materials concurrently gain substantial momentum.

 

[MJ12666]

Interesting article about the new eco-documentary produced by environmentalist Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs. Just a guess, but I don't see this getting positive reviews by the likes of CNN or MSNBC.

Gibbs has a cheeky habit of going backstage at music festivals that solemnly declare themselves to be using 100% renewable energy, only to find that the fancy array of solar panels behind the tent is enough to power a single bass guitar. The rest of the energy is provided by just plugging into the shameful old electricity grid, provided by fossil fuels. He sees it as symptomatic of the mainstream environmental movement, running on delusional piety.

All the green, liberal A-listers – Bill McKibben, Al Gore, Van Jones, Robert F Kennedy Jr – are attacked in this film as a pompous and complacent high-priest caste of the environmental movement, who are shilling for a fossil fuel industry that has sneakily taken them over. (Although it should be said that, for all his radical bravado, Gibbs does not dare criticise Thunberg.)

Solar panels and wind turbines? These provide no energy when there is no sun or wind and degrade after only a few decades, says Gibbs. And in any case they need a lot of fossil fuels in their manufacture: silicon, cobalt, silver, graphite, rare earths – and of course coal. The same goes for manufacturing storage batteries. Factories claiming to have gone “beyond coal” again and again turn out to be relying on natural gas. Corporate behemoths such as Apple make spurious claims for their energy usage. But how about the ultra-fashionable new “renewable” energy source: biomass or wood-chips? This is basically a colossal logging industry that requires a lot of fossil fuel energy to harvest and transport the material. As Gibbs’ interviewees point out, you might just as well as burn the fossil fuels in the first place. And it is laying waste rainforests and areas of natural beauty.

This, says Gibbs, is the queasy merger of environmentalism and capitalism – and he makes a refreshingly skeptical case. But he takes it further, suggesting that unfettered capitalism and its insanity of eternal growth on a finite planet is also what is leading us to the cliff edge. True enough, although his comments on overpopulation have an unintentionally ironic chime, in the middle of the Covid-19 outbreak.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...s-review-environment-michael-moore-jeff-gibbs

 

[MJ12666]

And a second article detailing on how a rapid shift to "green" energy will actually be very harmful to the environment.

No energy is innocent. The only truly clean energy is less energy.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

In some cases, the transition to renewables will require a massive increase over existing levels of extraction. For neodymium—an essential element in wind turbines—extraction will need to rise by nearly 35 percent over current levels. Higher-end estimates reported by the World Bank suggest it could double.

The same is true of silver, which is critical to solar panels. Silver extraction will go up 38 percent and perhaps as much as 105 percent. Demand for indium, also essential to solar technology, will more than triple and could end up skyrocketing by 920 percent.

And then there are all the batteries we’re going to need for power storage. To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction.

That’s just for electricity. We also need to think about vehicles. This year, a group of leading British scientists submitted a letter to the U.K. Committee on Climate Change outlining their concerns about the ecological impact of electric cars. They agree, of course, that we need to end the sale and use of combustion engines. But they pointed out that unless consumption habits change, replacing the world’s projected fleet of 2 billion vehicles is going to require an explosive increase in mining: Global annual extraction of neodymium and dysprosium will go up by another 70 percent, annual extraction of copper will need to more than double, and cobalt will need to increase by a factor of almost four—all for the entire period from now to 2050.

The problem here is not that we’re going to run out of key minerals—although that may indeed become a concern. The real issue is that this will exacerbate an already existing crisis of overextraction. Mining has become one of the biggest single drivers of deforestation, ecosystem collapse, and biodiversity loss around the world.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-limits-of-clean-energy?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

[Old Man Mike]

"No energy is innocent." Breaking news? No environmental scientist EVER claimed that. Every technology requires materials and distribution structure. The vision is making the BETTER energy system as concerns negative impacts, not a comic book one.

The Hickel article is hardly a supporter of business-as-usual despite its picking away at good green ideas. Hickel doesn't propose status quo economics and base technology, he is a proponent of REDUCTION of consumption of everything including therefore consumer attitudes and production. He says in his article: the only clean energy is less energy.

Some of the statements in the article are off-base. The idea of vast amounts of batteries to store the new energy is bogus unless you think that all the energy is going to be backyard energy --- and even then it's bogus. Any serious increase in Green energy will go into the EXISTING power grid (as in most solar-friendly states even the backyard energy already does.) And that increase will replace that now generated by fossil fuels (or nukes.)

The water deprivation in South America comment (aiding the production of lithium --- which will be aimed far more at electric cars than any other E-usage ) is an issue for the Atacama Desert of northern Chile, the famous driest place in the world. The water pumped is deep brine. Even then, BP has changed its plans to go for desalinization rather than pumping.

The neodymium "shortage" is another generally bogus issue. Brazil nearly controls Neodymium supply out of a single huge mine (which is NOT in the Amazon) which is in rather open territory with unusually minimal "new" damage involved --- certainly not eco-catastrophes.

These are a few examples that can be mentioned briefly. Other things would take more time. The point is that this is an article voicing a much more radical view than good green energy planning for the future. Hickel's concerns are worth listening to, but not always expressed on target. ... and they are definitely not in line with so-called conservative anti-green negativity.

 

[Bluto]

"No energy is innocent." Breaking news? No environmental scientist EVER claimed that. Every technology requires materials and distribution structure. The vision is making the BETTER energy system as concerns negative impacts, not a comic book one.

The Hickel article is hardly a supporter of business-as-usual despite its picking away at good green ideas. Hickel doesn't propose status quo economics and base technology, he is a proponent of REDUCTION of consumption of everything including therefore consumer attitudes and production. He says in his article: the only clean energy is less energy.

Some of the statements in the article are off-base. The idea of vast amounts of batteries to store the new energy is bogus unless you think that all the energy is going to be backyard energy --- and even then it's bogus. Any serious increase in Green energy will go into the EXISTING power grid (as in most solar-friendly states even the backyard energy already does.) And that increase will replace that now generated by fossil fuels (or nukes.)

The water deprivation in South America comment (aiding the production of lithium --- which will be aimed far more at electric cars than any other E-usage ) is an issue for the Atacama Desert of northern Chile, the famous driest place in the world. The water pumped is deep brine. Even then, BP has changed its plans to go for desalinization rather than pumping.

The neodymium "shortage" is another generally bogus issue. Brazil nearly controls Neodymium supply out of a single huge mine (which is NOT in the Amazon) which is in rather open territory with unusually minimal "new" damage involved --- certainly not eco-catastrophes.

These are a few examples that can be mentioned briefly. Other things would take more time. The point is that this is an article voicing a much more radical view than good green energy planning for the future. Hickel's concerns are worth listening to, but not always expressed on target. ... and they are definitely not in line with so-called conservative anti-green negativity.

Good post.

The idea has never been the development of a "silver bullet", rather it consists of moving rapidly towards existing carbon reducing tech, while reinvesting in R and D to improve, refine and or develop and implement better/cleaner tech in the future. It's an ongoing and continuous process. It seems that is a hard concept for people to grasp.

When Florida, New Orleans, ect...finally slip beneath the sea (something that seems like it is going to happen sooner rather than later) I'm sure everyone will be scrambling to point fingers and ask for bailouts. Will be strange to watch a History Channel Special exploring the "Lost Cities of America".

 

[MJ12666]

"No energy is innocent." Breaking news? No environmental scientist EVER claimed that. Every technology requires materials and distribution structure. The vision is making the BETTER energy system as concerns negative impacts, not a comic book one.

The Hickel article is hardly a supporter of business-as-usual despite its picking away at good green ideas. Hickel doesn't propose status quo economics and base technology, he is a proponent of REDUCTION of consumption of everything including therefore consumer attitudes and production. He says in his article: the only clean energy is less energy.

Some of the statements in the article are off-base. The idea of vast amounts of batteries to store the new energy is bogus unless you think that all the energy is going to be backyard energy --- and even then it's bogus. Any serious increase in Green energy will go into the EXISTING power grid (as in most solar-friendly states even the backyard energy already does.) And that increase will replace that now generated by fossil fuels (or nukes.)

The water deprivation in South America comment (aiding the production of lithium --- which will be aimed far more at electric cars than any other E-usage ) is an issue for the Atacama Desert of northern Chile, the famous driest place in the world. The water pumped is deep brine. Even then, BP has changed its plans to go for desalinization rather than pumping.

The neodymium "shortage" is another generally bogus issue. Brazil nearly controls Neodymium supply out of a single huge mine (which is NOT in the Amazon) which is in rather open territory with unusually minimal "new" damage involved --- certainly not eco-catastrophes.

These are a few examples that can be mentioned briefly. Other things would take more time. The point is that this is an article voicing a much more radical view than good green energy planning for the future. Hickel's concerns are worth listening to, but not always expressed on target. ... and they are definitely not in line with so-called conservative anti-green negativity.

I am actually somewhat agnostic on this issue, and no disrespect, but I am going to believe the author in this case as he certainly seems to have done the research, knows the facts, and made a strong case against blindly following the 100% renewable crowd; especially since many of the individuals pushing the "green" agenda are profiting handsomely. If you get a chance you should watch the Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs documentary, it's free on YouTube.

 

[Old Man Mike]

"Profiting handsomely" is a red herring when one is talking about technological change. ALL tech change offers the opportunities for "profiting handsomely" THAT's the system of modern capitalism and entrepreneurism. The issue is NOT profiting from economics and engineering but whether the change advocated meets needs and future goods properly. Changes should be judged on their merits and not whether they allow people to profit by building those changes. I wish people would argue merit rather than manufacturing reasons not to do things which do not directly evaluate the goodness of the concepts. If we objected to profiting handsomely we would have never heard of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Edison, .....

 

[TorontoGold]

"Profiting handsomely" is a red herring when one is talking about technological change. ALL tech change offers the opportunities for "profiting handsomely" THAT's the system of modern capitalism and entrepreneurism. The issue is NOT profiting from economics and engineering but whether the change advocated meets needs and future goods properly. Changes should be judged on their merits and not whether they allow people to profit by building those changes. I wish people would argue merit rather than manufacturing reasons not to do things which do not directly evaluate the goodness of the concepts. If we objected to profiting handsomely we would have never heard of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Edison, .....

Hall of fame level post. This hits the issue right on it's head. People poopoo'ing technological change are just disappointed it's new blood behind the change. People will lose their minds at any sort of relief for the poor and disenfranchised, but believe corporate socialism to prop up dying industries is the way to go.

 

[Legacy]

The Midland Michigan dam failure has not only created a disaster for the community but with Dow Chemical retention ponds and a Superfund site whose cleanup seems to have stalled is verging on an environment one. Having visited family there, I understand the presence Dow has although that seems to be waning and that the town is fairly well-to-do. Dow has a poor environmental record throughout the world and recently agreed in a federal court to a $77 million settlement for environmental restoration projects in the area.

Federal, state and tribal agencies previously filed complaints that Dow had polluted local lands and waters with dioxin compounds for decades after it opened in 1897. That "adversely affected fish, invertebrates, birds and mammals," and led to restrictions on hunting, fishing and use of public parks, according to the statement by U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider.

The floodwaters from the dam break forced the evacuation of 10,000 residents and flooded downtown. The retention ponds near their headquarters are fenced off and emit a foul-smelling air. Dioxins are a major concern.

Dow in Midland: Flood water mixed with our containment ponds; no chemicals released

TITTABAWASSEE RIVER, SAGINAW RIVER & BAY
MIDLAND, MI (EPA)

The area is known as the Tri-Cities of Saginaw, Midland, and Bay City since the cities are located so close to each other. Saginaw has had lead contamination in their water. There is a coal ash cleanup of toxic chemicals from an old coal plant in the area that has impacted Saginaw and Bay City.

Trump named Peter Wright as assistant administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM). Wright served as Dow’s managing counsel for environmental health and safety and provided the company legal support for Superfund and other remediation sites, according to the EPA. Wright described himself as Dow's "Dioxin lawyer". The EPA Administrator at the time, Scott Pruitt, described Wright's qualifications: “He has the expertise and experience necessary to implement our ambitious goals for cleaning up the nation’s contaminated lands quickly and thoroughly".

As head of OLEM, Wright oversees the development of guidelines for the land disposal of hazardous waste and underground storage tanks and respond to abandoned and active hazardous waste sites, as well as accidental chemical releases through the Superfund program.

Trump's fiscal budget proposal for 2021, in addition to huge budget cuts in the EPA overall, would cut the Superfund program by 10 percent, despite data showing the agency has the largest backlog of toxic waste cleanups in 15 years.

Having the lawyer for a corporation with such an environmental record in charge of the federal agency for cleanup of his former corporation's toxic spills is the closest I can think of as an example of a fox guarding the henhouse.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Anne Gorsuch is a close comparison. Although a lawyer and mainly politician before being appointed by Reagan as head of the EPA, she made it politically clear that her chief goal was to eliminate the EPA if she could. She promised businesses behind closed doors (since documented and sometimes boasted by her) that she would not pursue their violations vs environmental laws (usually regarding water pollution.) Her actions and opinions were so outrageous to the country in general, that even Reagan had to fire her. He promised her a post-firing job (this time in air regulation in NOAA) but the outcry made her say to he!l with it. She died of cancer, aged 62. RIP; make of that what you will.

Reagan also appointed a man to lead the Department of the Interior who wanted to sell off the National Parks, and a MANY times OSHA violator to head OSHA. All ultimately were forced to be replaced, but not until doing their due damages.