Showing posts with label enviro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label enviro. Show all posts

Monday, December 12, 2011

Enviro: Politics, Juridics, Activism: Top 10 environmental issues this year and ahead

-




-




-
VT Digger (December12,2k11)  Read the entire h+ly analytical article!
Stripped and reposted here by Politicarp and Lawt
-

Vermont Law School publishes top 10 environmental watch list for 2012

Top 10 Environmental Watch List 2011-12

#1 With Republicans Bashing the EPA, 2012 Could Be 
a Turning Point for Environmental Regulation

Summary: House Republicans and Republican presidential candidates have launched unprecedented attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency, saying environmental regulations are hurting the economy.

#2 EPA and White House Clash Over Ozone Standards

Summary: President Obama’s rejection of a controversial new air pollution rule pleased industry but angered environmental and public health advocates heading into the presidential election season.

# 3 Powder River Basin’s Mother Lode of Coal 
at the Epicenter of Energy Development

Summary: The federal leasing of the Powder River Basin’s massive coal deposits opens the door to big profits, plentiful electricity, and environmental degradation in a place both remote and central to the world’s energy future.

# 4 Activists Claim Victory, Temporarily, 
on Disputed Keystone XL Pipeline

Summary: The State Department has postponed a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, a controversial proposal to carry [Canadian] tar sands ['ethical'] oil across the U.S. heartland. While opponents of the project view this as a major victory, the fate of the pipeline remains unclear.  [My emendations in brackets— Lawt]

Read more ... click the time-stamp below ...

Sunday, December 11, 2011

PoliticsUN: Enviro global: World government of finances and collections approved by most countries, Kyoto extended 5 yrs until new regime kicks-in

-

   this blog entry's URL to friends.

-
Digg (December11,2k11)
— Reposted here by Politicarp and Lawt
-
Climate conference 

approves 



landmark deal




By 
A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement Sunday on a complex and far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change for the coming decades.

The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all countries under the same legal regime enforcing commitments to control greenhouse gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.
The deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.


Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for another five years under the accord adopted Sunday.
Read more ...

Monday, January 17, 2011

EconomicsGlobal: Rosneft - BP Arctic deal : Billionaire shareholders lashing back








Financial Times email newsletter

Financial Times - UK Homepage 
Backlash over BP deal with Rosneft
BP’s landmark deal with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, 
was facing a backlash from the billionaire shareholders in its other 
main venture in the country

http://link.ft.com/r/0QSDPP/S3KQXQ/70OUJ/JI2UOK/A7PO3D/B7/h?a1=2011&a2=1&a3=16

Backlash re 
BP deal with Rosneft
By Catherine Belton in Moscow and Sylvia Pfeifer in London
Published: January 16 2011 19:45 | Last updated: January 16 2011 19:45
BP’s landmark deal with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, 
was on Sunday night facing a backlash from the billionaire shareholders 
in its other main venture in the country.

AAR, the consortium through which the shareholders hold their stake 
in TNK-BP, said it was examining whether the deal breaches their 
agreement which stipulates that BP can only pursue new opportunities i
n Russia via the venture.

BP’s $16bn share swap with Rosneft, which will see the Kremlin 
indirectly become the single largest shareholder in the UK group, 
already faces scrutiny in the US where the company is a major supplier 
of petroleum to the military.
-- Read the whole article!
-- FT teaser posted by  Politicarp

Friday, January 14, 2011

CanadaEconomics: Oil Sands, Tar Sands: Alberta enviros call business to account, business seeks solutions


Oil Sands Water Management

Business Review Canada and Canadian Business Conferences announce their partnership for Oil Sands Water Management, which is taking place January 26th to the 27th and is the event for senior representatives from across the industry to meet to discuss optimal water sourcing strategies for in-situ production. This event will be taking place at the Calgary Convention Centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 
Representatives will examine the availability of brackish and saline groundwater and surface water sources, advanced treatment technologies focusing on increasing recyclability and maintaining cost-effectiveness, best practice water recycling methods for minimal water withdrawal and environmentally and cost-effective wastewater disposal methods. The mission of this event is to make industry-changing progress in the form of focused and action oriented solutions to water management issues. As the only Oil Sands event designed specifically to target all the key challenges of water management as well as providing an insight into the latest developments in breakthrough follow up processes to determine the viability of a future of non-water based in-situ production, this event is likely to be oversubscribed.
Business Review Canada’s partnership with the Oil Sands Water Management offers its readers the chance to become educated on cutting edge topics, opportunities to connect with high profile industry peers, and customized presentations on the latest technology and innovation from leading suppliers.
For more information about this conference or Business Review Canada magazine, please visit

Canada’s Oil Sands are 
Largest Supplier of Oil to USA
Canada’s oil sands are the largest supplier of oil to the USA and the
Athabasca region alone is estimated to contain 870 billion to 1.3
trillion barrels of oil.
Operators are increasingly moving towards in situ methods for
extraction to harness the potential of oil sands productions and require
large amounts of water for the production of steam to reduce the
viscosity of the bitumen. It is vital that the oil sands producers work
together to cost-effectively minimize water usage and improve 
recyclability. 

-- materials posted by EconoMix

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

EconomicsCanada: Oil Sands: Alberta's project censured, reformational controversy

BBC news [Dec21,2k10]


Canada oil sands, Alberta: 

Pollution monitoring is censured



Academic reports found that extraction plants were sending toxins such as mercury and lead into the water.
The western Canada oil sands are the largest source of crude outside Saudi Arabia.
The region is the largest single source of US oil imports, and produces over 1 million barrels a day.
Opponents say the process of extracting oil from the sands produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases and chemical waste.
The Oil Sands Advisory Panel was commissioned by former environment minister Jim Prentice in response to critisicm about water monitoring.
"Until this situation is fixed there will continue to be uncertainty and public distrust in the environmental performance of the oilsands industry and government oversight," the report concluded.
At a recent news conference, current environment minister John Baird promised to act on the panel's recommendations.
"For far too long we have heard concerns about the quality of water downstream from the oil sands," he said.
"We have heard the panel loud and clear and are ready to act."


------------------------------------------------


Reformational Christians have produced two contrary policy approaches to the Alberta environmental issue -- one prioritizing the Alberta's environment, as advocated by Dr John Hiemstra, retired political science prof at The King's University College, Edmonton; the other prioritizing opportunities for employment as negotiated with the tarsands industry, this position being practiced and advocated by the Christian Labour Association of Canada.


-- BBC materials posted by Politicarp

Monday, September 13, 2010

Enviro: Building: USA's green wave flowing to Canada in construction industry

In a recent column, Korky Koroluk pinpoints connection between govt-triggered green wave in USA with its gradual adoption north of the border in Canada (July 8,2k10).

U.S. green wave is moving north

It’s often possible to predict what will happen in Canada in a year or two or three by watching what’s happening in the United States now.


That’s why our construction industry should be aware of an executive order signed by U.S. President Barack Obama last October. The order sets out numerous green requirements for the U.S. federal government, requiring various government agencies to meet a number of energy, water and waste-reduction goals.


These apply only to federal buildings, of course, but the resulting impact for the construction industry could be profound since government construction is a trend-setter.


Building Information Management, or BIM, is an example of a new technology that was growing slowly until the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) made BIM compulsory for all government buildings. That meant that any company that wanted to bid on a government building had to have BIM capability.


BIM’s growth rate took off. And since more contractors were able to use BIM, more private-sector buyers of construction began to demand it as well.


That has meant more Canadian buyers aware of BIM and the advantages it offers, so its use is growing in Canada, as well — just not as fast.

Read more ...
You can expect something similar to happen as the U.S. government places more and more emphasis on green construction.
For example, there now must be a 26-per-cent improvement in water efficiency by 2020. New emphasis will be placed on sustainability requirements. And there is a net-zero-energy requirement for all federal building projects by 2030.


In a recent speech to members of the U.S. Green Building Council, GSA administrator Martha Johnson said among the organization’s objectives are helping help other federal agencies make greater strides in sustainability, identifying environmentally friendly initiatives, and increasing federal building performance.


The GSA, she said, is setting its sights on “eliminating the impact of the federal government on our natural environment.”
She outlined a number of areas in which the GSA could take a leading role, including cultivating green-oriented public-private partnerships. And it could use the federal government’s stock of buildings as a green proving ground for new sustainable-building and design technologies.


But she placed most emphasis on the search for a zero environmental footprint.


Both industry and the government, she said, had to be willing to fail, and to learn from and share those experiences, and in the process, work together to develop new tools.


All of this sounds great to anyone keen on environmental protection, and scary to anyone wary of increased government involvement in industry. So it’s important to understand that the executive order does not allow agencies to create new regulations governing the private sector. Indeed, it’s really just an extension of what various agencies already do for their internal operations, like the GSA’s internal requirement that their buildings meet the LEED Silver standard.


But although there may not be new rules, the executive order makes clear that the administration is going to require all agencies to enforce existing rules. And by encouraging the promotion of green public-private partnerships, the government is using a powerful lever on the way to sustainable buildings.


All this means that the American building construction industry will have to accommodate a lot of change just during the next 20 years.


Given the Canadian tendency to look southward for innovation, it seems likely that many of the things that are just beginning to happen in the U.S. will slowly find their way into Canadian practice.


Korky Koroluk is an Ottawa-based freelance writer. Send comments to editor@dailycommercialnews.com

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Enviro: G-8 Summit: Bush stuns world leaders with gung-ho freelance carbon-emissions reductions by USA, China and India

Bloomberg.com carries a long and valuable overview of the Brendan Murray and Tina Seeley story, "Bush Proposes Initiative for Cutting Greenhouse Gases (Update5)" (May31,2k7).

President George W. Bush, in a counter-offer to European leaders on climate change, proposed convening a new round of talks with the world's biggest economies to set targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. past opposition to setting global goals to cut the pollution causing the Earth's atmosphere to warm. He said each nation should be free to pursue its own strategy for meeting targets.

``My proposal is this: By the end of next year America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases,'' Bush said in an address that set out the US agenda during next week's meeting of the Group of Eight [G8] industrial nations in Heiligendamm, Germany. The talks would ``establish a new framework'' for when the Kyoto Protocol on emissions expires in 2012.

Bush is heading into the G-8 summit having rejected a proposal by host German Chancellor Angela Merkel to set a target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), effectively cutting emissions to half of 1990 levels by 2050. The administration also opposes a cap-and-trade system, favored by Europeans, that would allow the buying and selling of credits to meet carbon dioxide targets. By proposing to convene talks on climate change, Bush is positioning the US to begin negotiations on the next steps to take.

`Huge Step Forward'

Bush's closest European ally, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, hailed the president's proposal as a ``huge step forward'' for the US.

``For the first time, America is saying it wants to be part of a global deal,'' Blair said in an interview on Sky News during a visit to South Africa. ``For the first time it is saying it wants a global target for the reduction of emissions'' which opens the way ``for a proper global deal.''

Merkel, while calling it an ``important step'' and ``positive,'' was more cautious in her reaction.

``When it comes to the concrete formulation for Heiligendamm, though, we certainly have to continue to work on it,'' she said during a news conference in Berlin. ``But I do see movement on the issue.''

The president's critics said the administration was still trailing behind allies, state officials and US companies in addressing global warming and the proposal didn't offer much in the way of concrete progress.
G8 Summit, Heiligendamm, Germany > Enviro
`Isolated'

``The White House is just trying to hide the fact that the president is completely isolated among the G-8 leaders by calling vaguely for some agreement next year, right before he leaves office,'' Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said in a statement.

National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger called the plan ``is an attempt to muddy the waters for the next president.''

``If President Bush were serious about this plan, he should have offered it six years ago when he rejected the Kyoto treaty,'' Schweiger said in a statement.

The proposal addresses one of Bush's objections to the 1997 Kyoto agreement -- which required industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 -- by including India and China. Bush pulled the US out of the accord.

India and China

``To develop this goal, the United State will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gas emissions [GHGs], including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China,'' Bush said. ``In addition to his long- term global goal, each country would establish mid-term national targets and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs.''

The U.S. is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, among them carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Bush's chief environmental adviser, James Connaughton, said the U.S. had a net reduction of such emissions of 1.3 percent in 2006 even as the economy grew. While part of that is attributable to cooler summers and warmer winters, he said, ``we're getting more output with the same or slightly increasing amount of energy.''

Bush said the US-led climate change talks would include industry leaders so that technological advances are part of the solution.

``We need to harness the power of technology to help nations meet their growing energy needs while protecting the environment and addressing the challenge of global climate change,'' Bush said.

James Hansen, a climatologist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the National Aeronautics Space Administration, said he won't be persuaded that the administration is serious about addressing climate change unless the targets are mandatory. ...

The G-8 countries are the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., France, Italy, Canada and Russia. The U.S. economy accounts for about 45 percent of the group's $29.3 trillion in annual economic output.

More coverage:


* A carbon-neutral house? -- Plan would offset emissions by end of current Congress


* US carbon emissions fell 1.3% in 2k6


* Bush wants greehghouse gas summit


* Bush seeks global warming goal with China, India (2nd roundup)


* International Herald Tribune carries a G8 Summit story, by Brian Knowlton"Bush calls for action to reduce greenhouse gases'" (May31,2k7):

WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush reversed previous policy on Thursday and called for the first time on the world's top greenhouse-gas emitters to meet and agree, by next year, on goals to cut emissions aimed at averting potentially catastrophic global warming.

"In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change; it opened new possibilities for confronting it," Bush said. "The United States takes this issue seriously."

It was the most significant call for action on climate change from a president who angered much of the world in 2000 when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

For the first time, Bush has now accepted the principle of goals for emissions reduction. His effort also would pointedly include India and China, whose fast-growing economies now rank them among the worst greenhouse-gas emitters.

Bush's call came a week before the Group of 8 industrialized countries are to meet in Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel had planned personally to press the president for bolder action on climate change. Bush's comments appeared, at least in part, to be an effort to seize the initiative from the Europeans - while endorsing a less-ambitious approach and giving countries 18 months before taking any action.
Also another story with another slant, this time in the Daily Telegraph [London, UK] by David Blair and Richard Spencer, Bush 'undermines G8 with new climate plan' (May31,2k7):
President George W Bush was accused of "spoiling" next week's G8 summit today after he announced that America would not agree to reduce its carbon emissions before a new conference next year.

Germany, which holds the presidency of the G8 group of rich countries, had hoped to reach a landmark deal on climate change when leaders gather in the Baltic town of Heiligendamm.

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, has proposed a global agreement limiting any increase in world temperatures to no more than two degrees Celsius.

In practice, scientists believe this would require a reduction of 50 per cent in global carbon emissions below the 1990 level by 2050.

But Mr Bush's latest speech might have destroyed any chance of a deal being agreed next week. He said that America and the group of 15 countries forming the world's largest economies should meet to discuss the issue next year.

This conference would convene shortly before America's next presidential election and a few months before Mr Bush steps down.

When this meeting happens, Mr Bush said: "America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gases, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

"Each country would establish mid-term management targets and programmes that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs."
For me, this Bush move makes the G8 Summit vitallty interesting, and the move Bush recently made regarding fiting AIDs increases the likelihood of approval also of Blair's own proposal to renew the G8's Africa Promises from the last summit.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Enviro: North America: Carbon sink, Arctic ice melt, polar bears

Peter N. Spotts on Nature's 'carbon sink' in CSM, "Nature's carbon 'sink' smaller than expected--Earth in 2100 could be up to 2.7 degrees F. hotter than previously predicted, studies say." (May3,2k7):

When it comes to global warming, nature's help is limited.

While the continents and oceans have absorbed much of the carbon dioxide that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere so far, they won't be able to keep up with the expected rise in greenhouse-gas emissions over the next several decades. Indeed, some recent studies suggest that current scientific estimates about natural absorption are too optimistic: Earth's climate by century's end could be on average up to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F.) hotter than current "business as usual" projections suggest.

What this implies is that policy and technological measures to cope with climate change will become even more important. This week, scientists and government negotiators are wrestling over those measures in a key international meeting in Bangkok, Thailand. They will lay out their recommendations in a summary statement slated for release Friday.

"We've been getting a free ride from forests and oceans," says Robert Jackson, a Duke University ecologist who heads the southeastern division of the US Department of Energy's National Institute for Climate Change Research. But "I'm not confident – especially as our fossil-fuel emissions continue to grow – that we can rely on natural systems to bail us out of this."

To be sure, few if any in the climate-policy community advocate a hands-off, let-nature-do-it-all approach. But the use of natural "sinks" – oceans, plants, and soil that can hold carbon – is said to appear in the report researchers and politicians are haggling over this week.
Gregory M. Lamb on Arctic Melt-off, "Arctic melt-off: ahead of schedule--A new analysis shows that well before the century's end, it could be ice-free for part of the year (May3, 2k7).
Hundreds of scientists and government officials from around the world are meeting in Bangkok, preparing to issue a May 4 report on what steps should be taken to combat global warming. But a new study released May 1 showed that one of the group's predictions on climate change, made in an earlier February report, may already be too conservative.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) had said that Arctic sea ice was shrinking by as much as 5.4 percent per decade. At that rate, it could disappear entirely toward the end of this century.
Enviroment > North America
But new analysis from scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric ResearchM and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), both in Boulder, Colo., shows that the rate from 1953 to 2006 was more like 7.8 percent per decade. The earlier IPCC models suggested that about half the polar melting was due to global warming. The NSIDC study says greenhouse gases may play an even more significant role.
Fred Langan on Polar Bears, "Canadian controversy: How do polar bears fare?--Despite global warming, an ongoing study says polar bear populations are rising in the country's eastern Arctic region" (May3,2k7).
Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a ... lot more bears," biologist Mitchell Taylor told the Nunatsiaq News of Iqaluit in the Arctic territory of Nunavut. Earlier, in a long telephone conversation, Dr. Taylor explained his conviction that threats to polar bears from global warming are exaggerated and that their numbers are increasing. He has studied the animals for the Nunavut government for two decades.

Updates from the study by Taylor and his team have received significant media coverage in Canada, shaking the image of the polar bear as endangered.
I usually trust Christian Science Monitor reportage, but there's an unjustified slant running thru all these articles. They're worth clicking-up and reading in their entirety, but they shed no lite on the models of forecasting, especially in the first two articles. In the third, a controversy forces a fairer balancing than in the others. What we should realize is that all the sources have vested interests, and in no case is the science in a state of unanimity. We should get more disinterested assessment of the interests of each source, like factoring in among the truth-possibliities of a sources "scientific claim" the competition for funding of whole institutes in their bid to surpass the money raised by other institutes (money that comes usually from governments or UN agencies). All the major forecasting models are full of unexamined assumptions, and resemble the poor polar bear in the poster of the enviro-scam industry (chiefly NGOs bilking the public more directly than do university-related research units feeding off tax-payers).

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Enviro: Canada: An action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution

Two weeks ago, Canada's Conservative minority-government introduced its EcoAction plan in a presentation by recently-appointed Minister of the Environment, John Baird. His submission launched new draft federal legislation on the environment and is entitled "Turning the Corner: An action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution" (Apr28,2k7). The intro page can be found on the govt's website.

The Government of Canada's plan to regulate both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants from industrial emitters will pave the way for a cleaner, healthier environment.

Released on April 26, 2007, the Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution will:

* Impose mandatory targets on industry to achieve a goal of an absolute reduction of 150 megatonnes in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

* Impose targets on industry so that air pollution from industry is cut in half by 2015.

* Regulate the fuel efficiency of cars and light duty trucks, beginning with the 2011 model year.

* Strengthen energy efficiency standards for a number of energy-using products, including light bulbs.
On May1,2k7, the govt released the following statement to the news media:
Actions by Canada's New Government to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution

May 1, 2007

Canada's New Government is committed to delivering real reductions on greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

Diverse and complementary measures announced to date include:

* The Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions, which imposes mandatory targets on industry and gives them access to a range of cost-effective options to meet the targets, including:
o a capped technology fund to help the Canadian industrial sector develop new solutions critical to reducing greenhouse gases;
o a domestic emissions trading system. We will also look at future linkages with emissions trading systems in the US, and possibly Mexico, with further international linkages to be explored over time;
o domestic offset credits to engage other sectors of the Canadian economy to make greenhouse gas reductions, and;
o access to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

* Our Plan also:
o addresses emissions from transportation by regulating for the first time the fuel efficiency of cars and light duty trucks, beginning with the 2011 model year,
o strengthens energy efficiency standards for a number of energy-using products, including light bulbs, and
o recognizes the urgent need to take action to improve indoor air quality and commits to implement measures to do so.

* $1.5 billion to support to support environmental provincial and territorial projects, to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution;

* $2 billion to support renewable fuel production;
North America > Canada (Enviro)
* 5% renewable fuels content in gasoline by 2010 and 2% renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012 ;

* $2 billion for EcoEnergy Initiatives to help Canadians use energy more efficiently, boost renewable energy supplies and develop cleaner energy technologies;

* $1.3 billion for public transit;

* $100 million for EcoTransport Strategy for new initiatives in clean transportation;

* $36 million over the next two years for "scrappage" programs to retire older vehicles;

* Rebate of up to (+) $2,000 on fuel-efficient vehicles and levy of up to (-) $4,000 on vehicles that are fuel-inefficient;

* Tax credit for the purchase of monthly public transit passes;

* The formation of the EcoEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force to recommend the best ways for Canada to implement on a large scale this promising technology to capture carbon dioxide and store it deep underground; and

* $160 million over two years to offer performance-based rebates on new light duty vehicles.

Canada's New Government is also taking action to preserve Canada's natural heritage, strengthen the implementation of the Species at Risk Act, implement a new National Water Strategy and improve the enforcement of environmental protection laws.
The govt's plan has been severely criticized by all three opposition parties in the House of Commons (Libs, NDP, Bloc Quebecois), by Al Gore, and David Suzuki. So, the criticisms are better known than the plan itself.

One feature of the plan not clearly outlined above is the treatment of two industries. The first is the oil/gas industry in the zone of the Alberta Tar Sands where production willl increase by a factor of five (altho its market has been affected by the announcement of geological studies in Colorado, USA, which are said to hold enuff reserves to obesolesce US dependent on Middle East oil, the USA being a prime market for Albert gas and oil). The govt has in the plan a development effort to remove carbon dioxide emmissions from the product at the source in Alberta and pump it undergone into the empty holes left by extraction. Suzuki has come down very hard on this, but there is interest in the technics of proposal. However, even if feasible, affordable, and technically possible, the idea of storage of CO2 is as welcome in many quarters as is the storage of nuclear waste.

The second zone is located a world away (so to speak) in industrial Ontario, where the auto industry and its workforce are given delays regarding enforcement of the plan's features. Industry generally and the Canadian Auto Workers are pleased with the delays which give them an adjustment period in which Canada's contribution to greenhouse gases [GHG] will increase, rather than decrease. The govt argues that the plan's ambiguity results from balancing environmental concerns with the continuing health of the an economy, that over time can and will adjust. Of couse, Suzuki will have none of this.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Economics: Enviro USA: American businesses stampede to greener standards

MSNBC carries a report by Senior Writer Allison Linn, "Corporations find business case for going green -- Global giants, from Wal-Mart to HP, see cost savings, other benefits" (Apr18,2k7).

Companies ranging from retailing titan Wal-Mart to investment firm Goldman Sachs are jumping on the green bandwagon and pledging to make tangible changes that go beyond the public relations-oriented “greenwashing” of years past.

In another major shift, some big companies are even asking that they be regulated on greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that it is the only way for them to plan for how to deal with the rising threat of global warming. A coalition of businesses and environmental groups earlier this year formed a partnership called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership aimed at doing just that.

Are corporations experiencing a sudden rash of social consciousness? Not exactly. Instead, companies are increasingly realizing that going green could be a new way for companies to save — or even make — more green, as in money.

“The strategies that are being ... implemented by some of the leading-edge companies are done to maximize profits and to mitigate risk,” said Fred Wellington, senior financial analyst for the environmental group World Resources Institute.

Still, the big surprise isn’t so much that companies are getting involved in environmental issues, but what companies are doing it. People expect companies like Whole Foods, Patagonia and REI to have environmental initiatives; not only is it key to their public relations efforts, it also makes good business sense for them to preserve resources.

But DuPont? BP? Wal-Mart? These are companies that still raise the hackles of environmentalists for some of their practices, yet are also taking serious steps toward promoting things like solar power and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. What exactly do they have to gain?

The answer, as always, resides in the bottom line.
Do click-up Ms Linn's long article to read in its entirety. With the online article comes a message board on which to "Speak Out" on the surround of issues -- Going green: social consciousness or profits? (note how "consciousness" has replaced "conscience"--so the issue is not the fostering of a wide ethos of compassion as in Christianity and Buddhism; here what is functioning is not an ethos of compassion but business strategy based distinctly in corporate purposes. The frontier of litigation here will turn on whether a business corporation can go expensively green to the (temporary) lessened-profitability to shareholders who bawt stocks on the market in order to maximize their own individuals profits based on stock ownership. It will be quite interesting to she what Prof Bainbridge, authority on corporate governance, will have to say on these interesting matters.

Hat Tip: ChristianBusinessDaily.com (Apr19,2k7).

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Enviro: Pollution: Climate-changers overlook pollution

I just saw a roundtable discussion show on a Christian TV channel on a specifically Christian programme (in Canada our Christian TV channels by law carry shows originating from other kinds of religious commitments as well, or from common-ground themes, or from presumably neutral ones). The subject tonite was "Climate Change." The show featured an international/local panel of 3 PhDs (Matt Khandekar, Olev Trass, Andrew Roberts--I hope I've spelled correctly), one journalist (Lorrie Goldstein who's written critically and extensively on the subject matter at hand), plus the host who supplies the name for the Michael Coren show.

I learned that I have not been wrong in my self-education on enviro (environometics) in trying more and more carefully to distinguish these often conflated concepts: 1.) climate change; 2.) global warming; and 3.) pollution.

Climate change is the area where the public is being stampeded into the arms of a vast propaganda machine, but where the sciences directly involved (like climatology, a young science) keep reducing their forecasts of doom (like the reduction from a hysterical 17-feet increase in world ocean-levels to the current prediction of a 1-foot rise). Climate change is real, but not what it is presented to be by stampeding science-cattle. That's most of us, cattle who gobble doomsdaying fodder by cowboy "science."

Global warming relates to climate change, but is not the same thing. Indeed, global warming is accompanied by global cooling, when we look at the locations and weather events that are involved in the two sorts of phenomena. We should always speak of globaly warming/cooling, neither without the other. But more than that, global warming is tied to the upper-atmosphere physics of "greenhouse gases," which in places and occasions of cooling, even freezing, are not heated into a greenhouse effect burning us alive, but do become a cloud cover that protects us from the more dreadful activities of the sun, while we continue to benefit (as now we do) from the ben+n solar activities. Climate change includes both warming and cooling, and is currently undergoing huge relocations and unanticipated events of both kinds. Not incidentally, the sustained overall temperature of the earth and its oceans have been decreasing since 1998. On average. Per square mile/hectare.

Meanwhile, there's the very different phenom of particulate matter in the air since the Industrial Age (in ancient Rome some neibourhoods were polluted by lead, poisonous to humans). Particulate matter these days, refers to those particles of alloys (not "pure chemicals" but mixed) that heat up and cool down but do not rise into the upper atmosphere as gases. Instead particulate matter remains behind with us mortals who breathe them into our lungs from our polluted air. This is a major element of pollution. Another is the more chemically-singular sulphuric acid which comes from burning coal (for instance), the burn-off of which rises into the forming clouds, and descends back to earth to poison habitats, as acid rain, capable of killing forests of trees. Then there's mercury poisoning that comes from over-usage of a particular element to be found on the Periodic Table of Elements where all chemicals are classified in their hypothetical pure states as constructed by chemistry according to standards of purity the science sets (Michael Polanyi). Other chemicals, elements and alloys are identified/created over time--so the Periodic Table to changes.

Pollution results in dirty air and dirty water. Not every single life-form is threatened by the known pollutants (there are ancient microbial life-forms still on earth that thrive in h+ temperature acidic water which to the contrary you and I mite consider toxic; so there are significant variations in what pollutants in relation to what life-forms/species are life-threatening, according to the various species affected negatively).

The big confusion I entertained was that between CO2 (carbon dioxide from oxidized carbon) which is a greenhouse gas and rises into the upper atmosphere, and the particulate matter that can be seen close to the ground on the horizon in a smog-filled cityscape in summer (and sometimes in other times of year).

The International Panel on Climate Change--a h+ly politicized body that selected out the participation of scientists who hold views out of step with the conjured consensus--does not deal with pollution. It does not deal with what we breathe and drink. That's the first lesson on these questions that we must distinguish from others. Yet, there are other lessons as well.

Climate change, too, must be dealt with, but there's no need to make it appear as a human responsibility in regard to which "deniers" (a labelling that exploits the Holocaust for mere metaphorical utliity) and "perpetrators" (usually the major pollutors like auto users and various manufacturers (but not major climate-changers like the sun, moving magnetic poles, etc) are constructed as enemies of humanity, haters of living creatures, of the biosphere, and of creation as a whole. The ideologists obsessed with climate change put the whole world's solar givens on the shoulders of ordinary people (de kleine luyden, then these blamers who are also, all too often, Christians within the climate-changist elites go about guilt-tripping ordinary Christians for not being the Atlas of mythology.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Enviro: China: Visit to Japan by Chinese premier opens hope of enviro concern in world's largest country

Today's CSM brings word, in an article by Jason Miks "Chinese premier's visit to Japan marks major thaw--Wen Jiabao will address Japan's Diet, discuss trade, and even play baseball" (Apr11,2k7) that maybe China is becoming consciousness of its tragic overdose of pollution. Japan suffers from what the wind carries from continental China to the Japanese islands.

Despite the extended tensions in political relations, economic ties between the two countries have been thriving. China's trade with Japan in 2006 jumped 12.4 percent from a year earlier, to $207.36 billion – more than double the $101.91 billion recorded in 2002, according to Chinese government figures.

A further sign of the improving economic and political climate was China's decision in January to, in principle, to resume imports of Japanese rice. Imports were suspended in 2003, ostensibly over insects being found in the rice, though the decision was widely viewed as having a political element.

However, though economics have helped drive China-Japan relations forward, China's rapidly growing economy presents its own problems.
This Sino-Japanese trade bonanza includes the nasty enviro consequences that puts China on a projectile to surpass all countries in pollution this year. Not only does this pollution problem infect China's own life and population, it has wider implications as the smog moves on the winds to Japan and across the Pacific to North America. Much of San Fransisco's smog originates in China. Japan is not unaffected. But just as Japan is stressing politeness to the Chinese at the moment (this being a big anniversary of Japan's slawter of Chinese in Nanjing decades ago), so China's premier Wen is stressing politeness since anti-Japan nationalism has previously stirred uncontrollable crowd violence against Japan.

Altho China was exempted from the Kyoto Protocols on the environment (Canada agreed to China's exemption and signed too, the USA refused to exempt China and did not sign), China now wants to give Japan the impression that it will join the worldwide anti-pollution movement. But, while Japan has fostered the manufacture and sale of non-polluting alterntively-fuelled cars, China has simply upped its auto production and the machines are all polluters. Meanwhile, China has made huge deals for the import of oil without alternative fuels appearing on its production schedules. So we may be forgiven when we greet with disbelief, reporter Mik's mention of the Chinese diplomcacy with Japan regarding the environment.
Indeed, an expected joint statement during Wen's visit on tackling global warming suggests that China sees improved relations with Japan as an opportunity to try to burnish its credentials as a good global citizen. China is said to be ready to enter post-Kyoto negotiations on a future framework and also to agree to work with Japan on a number of projects including water purification and reforestation.

Glosserman says that one motivation for the recent shift is China's determination to make Wen's visit a success. "Improving relations with Japan makes China look like a responsible stakeholder," he explains.
The sad truth is that China had a unique opportunity to introduce anti-pollution measures much earlier in its rapid-industrialization process. It could have devoted itself to the manufacture of alternatively-fuelled vehicles, providing first-time auto buyers non-pulluters to start with. No such luck, says the fortune cookie.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Enviro: UK: Govt's new draft bill seeks transition to low-carbon economy

The Left-Anarchist Christian news source, Ekklesia reports on important developments in the United Kingdom regarding the environment. Recent govt initiatives, coming a month after the evangelical missionary organization, Christian Aid published a full-scale environmental report for the UK, will be accompanied by separate legislative proposals by the UK Conservatives and also the UK Liberal Democrats. Meanwhile. all British proposals suffer the same Achilles Heel as do the current and earlier Canadian ones: the UK and Canada are both signatories to the Kyoto Protocols on the environment which treaty gives Communist China a carte blanche on accelerating carbon emmissions to the extent of immediately eating up and surpassing the planned British restraints, considered from a global perspective.

[UK]'s Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Miliband’s draft Climate Change Bill, published on 12 March, which aims to enforce a 60 per cent cut in UK CO2 emissions by 2050, is a significant step in the right direction – but will require many amendments as it goes through consultation and Parliament, Christian Aid said today.

Christian Aid’s senior climate policy officer, Andrew Pendleton, acknowledged that the very act of publishing the bill makes the UK the first country to bring forward a legal framework for a transition to a low-carbon economy. "Mr Miliband is to be congratulated for publishing the bill and he is right to be proud of it – he and the government are an example to the rest of the G8," Mr Pendleton said.

"But if the final legislation is not significantly stronger, the process would represent a massive lost opportunity. It is the first step on a long journey rather than the destination itself."

Christian Aid is campaigning for a climate change bill that includes cuts of at least 80 per cent by 2050 with annual carbon budgeting ‘milestones’ rather than five year budgets – there is too much flexibility and wriggle room in a five-year cycle.

It also wants mandatory reporting of CO2 emissions by companies trading in the UK according to DEFRA’s own, currently voluntary standards.

Campaigners say that the world’s poorest people are already suffering the impact of climate change and stand to lose livelihoods and lives if the situation deteriorates.
But, of course, the situation is deteriorating, as China's emissions have already reached and are rapidly surpassing those of the entire European Union, to the effect that rapid depeening of the worldwide crisis from that source (on the same environmental reasoning) ensures that "the world's poorest people ... stand to lose livellihoods and lives" because "the situation is" indeed "deteriorating."
Even a two degree rise is likely to have massive, negative consequences; anything exceeding this would be an unmitigated disaster.

The Bill has four main pillars: it will set a UK carbon budget every five years; it will set up a committee of experts on climate change to advise the government on the economic impact of carbon; it will set up a system of annual reporting to Parliament on government progress towards each budget and will include enabling powers to set up carbon trading schemes through secondary legislation – which may even eventually mean individuals will have their own carbon budgets.

Mr Pendleton said: "A UK cut of 60 per cent of CO2 emissions is not enough. The ambition at the heart of this bill must be to cut CO2 emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, with as steep a decline as possible as soon as possible, which means 40 per cent cuts by 2020. With the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats both developing proposals of their own there’ll be everything to play for as this bill passes through Parliament.
We should congratulate UK and EU for these efforts (whatever flaws they may yet habour), and we should urge Canada and US to move forward with the best they/we have got to date. But a united diplomatic effort, using all the powers of trade and world propaganda, is called for, especially as the 2008 Olympic Games in China draw closer. Else China will definitely secure for itself by then the Lead Prize as the world's worst polluter.

The struggle for a better and less carbon-incresive environment in Europe, UK, Canada, and USA will involve each responsible person politically and personally; but a united international front to curb China's pollution, while yet encouraging its industrial development and raising the standard of living of its population, is mandated by world conditions today. May the Lord have mercy on us all for the damage done to the good Creation.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Enviro: Canada: Why did Libs (Chretien, Martin, Stewart, Dion) not demand equal carbon-fuel constraints on China?

The irrepressible publisher of the China e-Lobby's email newsletter, JD Maguire offers some astute remarks on Communist China's now-leading role in worldwide pollution.

Whatever one may think of the Kyoto agreement, the fact that it exempts Communist China, has long been a chief argument of its critics against the deal. Proponents have argued that Communist China's emission levels wouldn't challenge America's for years to come.

Well, that line of argument has passed its best-by date, literally. New figures from the Communists themselves (of all people) have revealed that the United States will fall behind Communist China in carbon-dioxide emissions as early as this year. In fact, emissions from Communist China have nearly doubled since 2001 (San Francisco Chronicle). Or, to put it another way, "China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together."

Even those who fervently believe in man-made global warming must now agree that Kyoto is useless without including what will soon be the largest carbon emitter on the planet. All it will do is allow the Communists to continue to rapidly overdevelop, destroy its ecology, build up its military, and arm or otherwise aid terrorists without any qualms while the free world geopolitically handicaps itself.


I checked out the live-links with which Maquire documents his remarks. In the SanFransisco Chronicle, Robert Collier, "A Warming World: China about to pass U.S. as world's top generator of greenhouse gases" (Mar6,2k7).
Far more than previously acknowledged, the battle against global warming will be won or lost in China, even more so than in the West, new data show.

A report released last week by Beijing authorities indicated that as its economy continues to expand at a red-hot pace, China is highly likely to overtake the United States this year or in 2008 as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

This information, along with data from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based alliance of oil importing nations, also revealed that China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together.

"The magnitude of what's happening in China threatens to wipe out what's happening internationally," said David Fridley, leader of the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

"Today's global warming problem has been caused mainly by us in the West, with the cumulative (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere, but China is contributing to the global warming problem of tomorrow."

New statistics released in Beijing on Wednesday by China's National Bureau of Statistics show that China's consumption of fossil fuels rose in 2006 by 9.3 percent, about the same rate as in previous years -- and about eight times higher than the U.S. increase of 1.2 percent.

While China's total greenhouse gas emissions were only 42 percent of the U.S. level in 2001, they had soared to an estimated 97 percent of the American level by 2006.
Maguire also puts us on to a telltale graph accompanying Collier's article but on another page. The graph makes clear that China has well-surpassed Europe, has rapidly risen to American levels, and is now a rapid projectile that is moving without check either to protect its people, air, water, and cities; but is becoming a menace to the whole world.

Meantime, Japan has reached equilibrium and is, for the good of the whole world, manufacturing hybrid-fuelled battery-driven cars that are slowly gaining increased public favour there. While that be true, India which was close behind Japan in the production of carbon-increasive fuel emissions, now without equilibrium it has surpassed Japan on India's upward climb on the chart. But this should be clear, neither Japan nor India come near to producing what Europe, USA, and most/worst of all China are doing. The pace and time factors of China's climb threaten the world's air and water--even if all the other countries mentioned manage to reduce their carbon-incresive emissions to Zero!

Now, Canada doesn't even appear on the lists. However, while Canada under the Liberal Party govts of the last 40 years has slaveringly touted among its own entrepreneurs and abroad thru "trade missions" sponsored mass siginings of Canada/China business deals and investments, became signatory to the Kyoto Protocols without requiring its dubious trade partner China to undergo the same restrictions required of all signers to reduce carbon-increasive emissions. China should have had its feet held to the fire with all the rest of the signers. Instead, Canada was complicit in China's carte blance, free pass, whatever you may wish to call it. This lack of analysis and fores+t regarding China, was the result of extremely poor plannning on the part of the Liberal government, its prime ministers Chretien and Martin, and its environment ministers Stewart and Dion (who is now leader of the Fed Libs). In truth, Dion never cared for the environment and he never cared about either China's or Canada's meeting the targets of the Kyoto Protocol. Allowing China to go scot-free was a kind of Munich that his party's China boosterism foisted on the Canadian people thru short-term thinking. It was a most astounding betrayal of environment.

Dion now talks grandiosely about his commitment to longterm planning, but he's all along been part of unleashing China's rapid-increase worldwide lead in destroying the global human heritage of air and water. He was a cabinet minister of a govt which signed on to giving China a free hand, because he and his party had no longterm plan; now China is repaying Canada by making our own signing of Kyoto irrelevant to the world's sink into deep environmental sickness.

Whether Stephen Harper's minority Conservative govt will make a really positive difference for environmental concerns in Canada longterm (given that any plan from Harper will have to be effective in the huge quintupling of the Alberta oil fields and refining of tar and other impurities out the carbon-increasive oil products, consequently thereby increasing the longevity of carbon emissions from traditional autos [etc]) on Canada's roads--all that remains to be seen.

But Stephane Dion has had his chance. He has proved a lousy steward of the environment, now that the Liberal past is exposed for lack of longterm planning inherent in its signing on to Kyoto while exempting China, all to the world's longterm extreme damage. Dion should not be rewarded for this perfidy by being elected Prime Minister.