Author Topic: Environmental issues  (Read 85694 times)




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17438
    • View Profile
Re: Mexico bans single use plastic bags
« Reply #306 on: January 01, 2020, 09:27:33 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17438
    • View Profile
Re: China's rivers and plastics in the oceans
« Reply #309 on: January 04, 2020, 03:44:34 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12042
    • View Profile
Re: Plant trees!!!
« Reply #311 on: January 13, 2020, 05:23:17 AM »
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/how-many-trees-to-plant-to-stop-climate-crisis/#.XglpJmdapro.facebook

And maintain our forests better than Calif and Australia do.  There is a lot of warming released in a forest fire.

Imagine all that money spent on falsifying data put into planting seedlings.`

It would be a setback for Big Pharma if we address the issue instead teaching children the planet will die before they grow up.


rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Australian Brush Fires
« Reply #313 on: January 15, 2020, 07:14:22 AM »
Interesting video about the Australian bush fires.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_tn8f0uaB4
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 07:27:10 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #314 on: January 15, 2020, 07:46:32 AM »
I went to post it on FB and was told by FB:

"Independent fact-checkers at Science Feedback say this post has false information. To help stop the spread of false news, a notice will be added to your post if you decide to share this.
Pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share false news will see their overall distribution reduced and be restricted in other ways."

I posted anyway.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 07:49:01 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12042
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #316 on: January 15, 2020, 08:41:48 AM »
I went to post it on FB and was told by FB:

"Independent fact-checkers at Science Feedback say this post has false information. To help stop the spread of false news, a notice will be added to your post if you decide to share this.
Pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share false news will see their overall distribution reduced and be restricted in other ways."

I posted anyway.

What is the "false information"?  Arsonists lit the fires?  Lack of fire breaks allowed the spread?  All true.  Lack of warming shown on a specific December chart he cites?  That's false(?) but the adjusted NOAA data is true?  Says whom?  Not the thermometers in Australia:
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/australia-shows-no-warming-since-1876/

Can you post a warning to warn to warn of their warning? 

False information spread by mis-named,"independent fact-checkers" along with repeated curtailment of our ability to communicate here without interruption will result in reduced future market share for biased proprietary websites. 

  * For Environmental Posts with a different set of fact checkers, please visit:
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=recent
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?board=4.0
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?board=5.0

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12042
    • View Profile
Re: Ecuador sold 1/3 of its rain forest to China
« Reply #317 on: January 15, 2020, 08:47:53 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10148
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Green Leap Forward in Action
« Reply #320 on: January 17, 2020, 11:25:38 AM »
The Best-Laid Energy Plans
The feds bet $737 million on a salt tower for solar power. You’ll never guess the result.
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 16, 2020 7:03 pm ET

Government planning and subsidies will make America the world’s green-energy superpower, create millions of jobs, and supercharge the economy—or so we’re told. The reality is closer to Crescent Dunes, a Nevada solar-energy plant that has gone bust after receiving a $737 million federal loan guarantee.

An inconvenient truth is that the sun sets each day, but the Obama Administration’s green planners had an app for that. They decided to invest in the Crescent Dunes facility that would use molten salt to store heat from the sun, produce steam, and generate electricity even at night. The utility NV Energy had already agreed to buy the electricity. Government support would carry the project to sunny success.

Warren Plays the Gender Card Against Sanders


SUBSCRIBE
In September 2011, the Energy Department described how the 110-megawatt facility would “be the first of its kind in the United States and the tallest molten salt tower in the world,” powering more than 43,000 homes a year. The precedent was Solar Two, a small pilot plant decommissioned in 1999 that had shown it was technically feasible to use molten salt to store and generate power. But in a 2006 report the Energy Department said the 10-megawatt facility “was never expected to be a viable commercial-scale plant and, in fact, did not validate economic feasibility.”

No worries. It’s only taxpayer money, and the feds jumped into Crescent Dunes anyway. The Department of Energy finalized its loan guarantee on Sept. 23, 2011, a week before the federal loan program expired. A month earlier Nevada had approved $119.3 million in tax abatements for Crescent Dunes over 20 years. The plant also received some $140 million in private investment.

Crescent Dunes began by missing the deadline established by its agreement with NV Energy, becoming operational months late. Commercial operations began in November 2015, but less than a year later the facility went offline because of a “massive leak in the hot salt tank,” according to SolarReserve, a partial owner of Crescent Dunes.

Through the first half of 2017 the plant generated no electricity and no sales, according to its disclosures to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Yet in April 2017 the Department of Energy proclaimed Crescent Dunes a “success story” taken from “mirage to reality,” “a milestone for the country’s energy future,” and a global “blueprint for solar projects.”

In a fact sheet advertised as “up-to-date as of June 2017,” the Energy Department claimed Crescent Dunes was “operational” and projected energy generation of up to 482,000 megawatt hours a year. The plant never generated that much power in the entirety of its operations. An Energy Department spokesman declined comment.

Crescent Dunes resumed operations in the latter half of 2017, but problems persisted. In a June 2019 report to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, NV Energy described how the plant “has experienced frequent and prolonged outages.” Crescent Dunes’ performance problems were so severe that they posed “the most significant risk” for NV Energy’s ability to meet its renewable portfolio standard obligations, the utility said.

Last summer Crescent Dunes’ hot salt tanks “suffered a catastrophic failure, which caused ground contamination and required the removal of the solar tower that is essential to the plant’s ability to generate any electrical power to function as designed,” SolarReserve said in recent court filings.

Operations halted again. The Department of Energy sent a formal default notice in September. Weeks later Crescent Dunes’ sole customer, NV Energy, terminated its power purchase agreement. The plant has no prospective clients and couldn’t supply energy even if it found a buyer. Even if the plant began running again, it would face competition from solar photovoltaic projects. Crescent Dunes’ average price was more than $132 per megawatt hour, but Techren Solar II in Nevada’s Eldorado Valley offered the same unit of power for $31.15 in the fourth quarter of 2019.

SolarReserve, which did not respond to requests for comment, is now suing for the equitable dissolution of Tonopah Solar Energy LLC, the entity created to run Crescent Dunes. In November SolarReserve told a federal court that “the plant is moribund—neither generating energy nor revenue” and that Tonopah is “insolvent,” has debt of more than $440 million with “assets of much less value,” and is “unable to pay its debts as they come due.”

Scores of new businesses fail, but private investors lose their own money. Government investments turn on politics more than feasibility. Hand the energy economy over to the government in the name of climate change, and there will be countless more Crescent Dunes fiascoes.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile
China banning single use plastics?
« Reply #321 on: January 22, 2020, 12:17:16 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12042
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #322 on: January 22, 2020, 05:37:38 AM »
I agree.  Like some of my tenants, you shouldn't be allowed to use plastics if you can't successfully land them in a garbage can.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12042
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #324 on: January 23, 2020, 09:58:20 AM »
https://audioboom.com/posts/7394528-1-2-five-hundred-climate-scientists-to-the-unsg-no-climate-emergency-natural-factors-cause-war

Great post, great points made.  This is not denial; it is realism.

* Main points
1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
 2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
 3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
 4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
 5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
 6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
 7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would add that fracking has reduced emissions more than wind and solar and that new nuclear power along with greater world prosperity could virtually end man-made emissions - if anyone really cared.

More than half the reported problem is falsified, "adjusted" or manipulated data.  You will change behavior voluntarily after you gain people's trust.  So far, they are only trying to change behavior coercively.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #328 on: February 02, 2020, 08:14:24 PM »
KISS-- aluminum cans instead of plastic bottles.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12042
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #329 on: February 03, 2020, 09:26:23 AM »
KISS-- aluminum cans instead of plastic bottles.

Yes, looks like recycling alum uses the least energy:
https://homeguides.sfgate.com/much-energy-recycling-save-79720.html

Fill the oceans with aluminum?  Big problem is cultures using rivers for garbage disposal.  The mess is tied to poverty.

I like re-using glass.  Single use, it seems to me, is not optimal.  Clean it and refill it.  Problem is I keep dropping and breaking them.  Also, freeze-ups are tough on glass.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49702
    • View Profile
WSJ: The case for plastic bags
« Reply #333 on: February 18, 2020, 02:42:27 PM »
Plastic Bags Help the Environment
Banning them provides no benefit other than to let activists lord their preferences over others.
By John Tierney
Feb. 18, 2020 12:54 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
415

ILLUSTRATION: MARTIN KOZLOWSKI
Why do politicians want to take away our plastic bags and straws? This moral panic is intensifying even as evidence mounts that banning plastic is both a waste of money and harmful to the environment. If you want to protect dolphins and sea turtles, you should take special care to place your plastic in the trash, not the recycling bin. And if you’re worried about climate change, you’ll cherish those gossamer grocery bags once you learn the facts about plastic.

During the 1970s, environmentalists wanted to restrict the use of plastic because it was made from petroleum. When the “energy crisis” abated, they denounced plastic for not being biodegradable in landfills. They blamed it for littering the landscape, clogging sewer drains and global warming. Plastic from our “throwaway society” was killing vast numbers of sea creatures, according to a 2017 BBC documentary series. The series prompted Queen Elizabeth II to ban plastic straws and bottles from the royal estates, and it galvanized so many other leaders that greens celebrate what they call the “Blue Planet Effect,” named for the series.

More than 100 countries now restrict single-use plastic bags, and Pope Francis has called for global regulation of plastic. The European Parliament has voted to ban single-use plastic straws, plates and cutlery across the Continent next year. In the U.S., hundreds of municipalities and eight states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Oregon and Vermont—have outlawed or restricted single-use plastic bags. Greens in California are pushing a referendum to require all plastic packaging and single-use foodware in the state to be recyclable, and the European Union has unveiled a similar plan.

Popular misconceptions have sustained the plastic panic. Environmentalists frequently claim that 80% of plastic in the oceans comes from land-based sources, but a team of scientists from four continents reported in 2018 that more than half the plastic in the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” came from fishing boats—mostly discarded nets and other gear. Another study, published last year by Canadian and South African researchers, found that more than 80% of the plastic bottles that had washed up on the shore of Inaccessible Island, an uninhabited extinct volcano in the South Atlantic, originated in China. They must have been tossed off boats from Asia, the greatest source of what researchers call “mismanaged waste.”

Of the plastic carried into oceans by rivers, a 2017 study in Nature Communications estimated, 86% comes from Asia and virtually all the rest from Africa and South America. Some plastic in America is littered on beaches and streets, and winds up in sewer drains. But researchers have found that laws restricting plastic bags and food containers don’t reduce litter. The resources wasted on these anti-plastic campaigns would be better spent on more programs to discourage all kinds of littering.

Another myth—that recycling plastic prevents it from polluting the oceans—stems from the enduring delusion that plastic waste can be profitably turned into other products. But sorting plastic is so labor-intensive, and the resulting materials of so little value, that most municipalities pay extra to get rid of their plastic waste, mostly by shipping it to Asian countries with low labor costs. The chief destination for many years was China, which two years ago banned most imports. It now goes to countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Some of the plastic from your recycling bin probably ends up in the ocean because it goes to a country with a high rate of “mismanaged waste.”

Yet single-use plastic bags aren’t the worst environmental choice at the supermarket—they’re the best. High-density polyethylene bags are a marvel of economic, engineering and environmental efficiency. They’re cheap, convenient, waterproof, strong enough to hold groceries but thin and light enough to make and transport using scant energy, water or other resources. Though they’re called single-use, most people reuse them, typically as trash-can liners. When governments ban them, consumers buy thicker substitutes with a bigger carbon footprint.

Once discarded, they take up little room in landfills. That they aren’t biodegradable is a plus, because they don’t release greenhouse gases like decomposing paper and cotton bags. The plastic bags’ tiny quantity of carbon, extracted from natural gas, goes back underground, where it can be safely sequestered from the atmosphere and ocean in a modern landfill with a sturdy lining.

If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions and plastic pollution, we can take some obvious steps: Repeal misguided plastic-bag bans. Stop exporting plastic waste to countries that allow it to leak into the ocean. Help those countries establish modern systems for collecting and processing their own plastic waste. Send plastic waste straight to landfills and incinerators. Step up enforcement of laws and treaties that restrict nations from polluting the ocean and prohibit mariners from littering the seas.

Plastic bans are a modern version of medieval sumptuary laws, which forbade merchants and other commoners to wear clothes or use products that offended the sensibilities of aristocrats and clergymen. Green activists have the power to impose their preferences now that environmentalism is essentially the state religion in progressive strongholds. They can lord it over the modern merchant class and corporations desperately trying to curry social favor. The plastic panic gives politicians and greens the leverage to shake down companies afraid that they’ll be regulated out of business.

Most important, the plastic panic gives today’s elites a renewed sense of moral superiority. No matter how much fuel politicians and environmentalists burn on their flights to international climate conferences, they can still feel virtuous as they issue their edicts to grocery shoppers.

Mr. Tierney is a contributing editor of City Journal, from whose winter issue this was adapted.