CO2 // Current

Do you know right from wrong?

Do you use wood right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni4Cy9gLsPs

Pellykrane
added this
7 days ago
|
0 comments

What happen if world temperature change 7°F or 4°C?

From failing crops, forest fire, water availability, sea level rise...... more

mashdata
added this
7 days ago
|
1 comment

Progressive Democrats: price carbon directly and recycle revenue to households

http://pdamerica.org/press/pressrelease.php?id=127

And I agree. Any other carbon scheme mechanism is clearly only being undertaken to benefit industry and not the planet or the consumer.
________________

On October 21, Progressive Democrats of America finalized a months-long process with their endorsement of direct carbon pricing, with revenue recycling as the preferred method for reducing carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. Read the statement here.

The Stop Global Warming/Environmental Issues Organizing Team, led by Dave Massen, has been sifting through different legislative proposals in the House and Senate since late last year.

“When we began the process, individual team members supported several different mechanisms for reducing CO2,” said Massen, who originally leaned toward cap and trade. “But in view of the recent economic meltdown, we became concerned that even with some proposed new regulations, a large market for trading carbon derivatives would also be vulnerable to a collapse with global repercussions, especially since hard-to-verify offsets are likely to be part of any trading scheme. Additionally, it seemed that paying Wall Street traders would add unnecessarily to the costs of reducing carbon.”

Cap and trade has been implemented in Europe and has so far failed to meet the necessary targets because of offsets, free allowances and trading. Sweden and British Columbia have implemented direct carbon pricing (upstream carbon fees) and are making good headway toward meeting targets while showing strong economic growth.

The endorsement comes just days before the October 24 International Day of Climate Action, sponsored by 350.org. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), pointed to 450 parts per million as the safe upper limit of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere just two years ago. More recent science noting the rapid spread of global warming effects, indicates that 350 ppm is now the threshold of stability to avert catastrophic climate change. On October 24, people around the world will join together in events and actions to raise the public’s awareness.

PDA calls on its members to contact President Obama to lead the world in a discussion on quickly achieving 350 ppm through the implementation of direct carbon pricing with revenue recycling, when he attends the Copenhagen meeting this December. Based on the performance of already implemented cap-and-trade and carbon-pricing models it is clear that the latter is easier to implement and more effective than the former.http://pdamerica.org/press/pressrelease.php?id=127 And I agree. Any other carbon... more

JanforGore
added this
8 days ago
|
1 comment

Toyota Develops New Flower Species To Reduce Pollution

Toyota has created two flower species that absorb nitrogen oxides and take heat out of... more

Tyrannous
added this
9 days ago
|
18 comments

My contribution for 350 day: but we need more

It will take more than this day to wake up politicians worldwide to the urgency of... more

JanforGore
added this
18 days ago
|
3 comments

OH SHIT! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

Mans new exit strategy. Don't let this get out!

GreenhouseNeutralFoundation
added this
19 days ago
|
0 comments

Is New Biodegradable Plastic the Answer?

Excerpt: "How Does the New Biodegradable or Compostable Plastic Work? The... more

lookatmypix
added this
1 month ago
|
7 comments

Obama administration releases funds for elusive "clean coal"

The Obama administration announced the winners of the first phase of "clean coal" dollars from the economic stimulus package, with the largest sums going to oil firms.

Only $21.6 million of the $1.4 billion for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies was made available in phase one. The money was awarded to 12 companies that will test ways to catch and compress CO2 from polluting plants, transport it by pipeline and pump it underground.

The biggest winners were C6 Resources, a Shell Oil affiliate; ConocoPhillips; and Shell Chemicals, another division of Shell Oil. Each nabbed $3 million to demonstrate their technologies for seven months.

In the announcement, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recycled the 'clean coal' boilerplate of past releases: "These new technologies will not only help fight climate change, they will create jobs now," although there was no estimate of how many jobs will be generated.

He also repeated this claim:

"The investments will help position the United States to lead the world in carbon dioxide capture technologies."

America still has a long way to go, though. A few subsidy-funded R&D tests are now being carried out, but none is considered economically feasible on a large scale, or even that clean.

A massive, 1,300-MW West Virginia coal plant just became the nation's first facility to pipe a small portion of its global-warming emissions back in the Earth. For an investment of more than $100 million, about 1.5 percent of the plant's CO2 will be sequestered.

Despite his critics, Chu has stood firm on CCS, becoming one of its staunchest proponents. In a September op-ed in Science Magazine he explained why:

"... the United States, Russia, China, and India account for two-thirds of the [world's coal] reserves. Coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions. It is highly unlikely that any of these countries will turn their back on coal any time soon, and for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued."

Some form of CO2 reduction technology is necessary. And while CCS has become the solution of choice for politicians, its actual implementation worldwide is all close to absent – and it's certain to be devilishly complex if and when it begins.

Research shows that returning a fraction of global emissions back into the Earth would require pumping as much compressed gas underground as all the oil being taken out. The infrastructure needed for that exceeds what is possible to build in a generation – or maybe ever.The Obama administration announced the winners of the first phase of "clean coal"... more

JanforGore
added this
1 month ago
|
1 comment

‘CO2 is Green’ Campaign Misses the Point Entirely

In light of the EPA’s decision (at the behest of the U.S. Supreme Court) to... more

tbhurst
added this
1 month ago
|
1 comment

Is Garbage The Solution To Tackling Climate Change?

Converting the rubbish that fills the world’s landfills into biofuel may be the... more

julesrs007
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

Global Warming Could Reverse a Walrus Comeback

"Half a century after Pacific walruses began recovering from industrial-scale hunting,... more

DeliaTheArtist
added this
1 month ago
|
1 comment

The Oceans Will Rise

A meter rise in sea level will affect 145 million people.

BrighterPlanet
added this
1 month ago
|
3 comments

US oil company sued for Amazon exploration

Survival International Indigenous people from south-east Peru are suing Repsol-YPF... more

julesrs007
added this
1 month ago
|
10 comments

CO2 is green: Leo Hickman on the TV advert making viewers choke

"A TV advert paid for by an oil industry lobbyist telling Americans "more CO2 results... more

lookatmypix
added this
1 month ago
|
3 comments

Four degrees warming "likely" without CO2 cuts: study

Global temperatures may be 4 degrees Celsius hotter by the mid-2050s if current... more

JanforGore
added this
1 month ago
|
1 comment

Climate Summit Raises Good Question -- Isn't It High Time We Stop TALKING and Start DOING?

Our world leaders possess such monumental power and yet when push comes to shove, they... more

sfinfgeld2
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

Current Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pledges Leave Climate Targets In The Red

The 2 Degree target looks less likely of success says new study. Total greenhouse... more

GreenhouseNeutralFoundation
added this
1 month ago
|
2 comments

Volvo C30 BEV

Per ora è solo uno studio di fattibilità, ma Volvo sembra fare sul serio con... more

redazione
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

Dr. Vandana Shiva on cap and trade: 'The poor are burdened twice'

The science of climate change is now clear, but the politics is very muddy. Historically, the major polluters were the rich, industrialised countries, so it made sense that they should pay the highest price. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997, set binding targets for these countries to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 per cent on average against 1990 levels by 2012. But by 2007, America's greenhouse-gas levels were 16 per cent higher than 1990 levels. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed in June, commits the US to reduce emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, yet this is just 4 per cent below 1990 levels.

The Kyoto Protocol also allows industrialised countries to trade their allocation of carbon emissions, and to invest in carbon mitigation projects
in developing countries in exchange for Certified Emission Reduction Units, which they can use to meet reduction targets. But emissions trading, or offsetting, is not in fact a mechanism to reduce emissions. As the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank, has pointed out, the emissions offset in the American act would allow "business as usual" growth in US emissions until 2030, "leading one to wonder: where's the 'cap' in 'cap and trade'?".

Such schemes are more about privatising the atmosphere than about preventing climate change; the emissions rights established by the Kyoto Protocol are several times higher than the levels needed to prevent a 2°C rise in global temperatures. Allocations for the UK, for example, added up to 736 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over three years, meaning no reduction commitments. And emissions rights generate super profits for polluters.

The Emissions Trading Scheme granted allowances of 10 per cent more than 2005 emission levels. This translated to 150 million tonnes of surplus carbon credits, which at 2005 prices translates into profits of more than $1bn.

Carbon trading uses the resources of poorer people and poorer regions as "offsets" for richer countries: it is between 50 and 200 times cheaper to plant trees in poor countries to absorb CO2 than it is to reduce emissions at source. In other words, the burden of "clean-up" falls on the poor. From a market perspective, this might appear efficient, but in terms of energy justice, it is perverse to burden the poor twice - first with the impact of CO2 pollution in the form of climate disasters and then with offsetting the pollution of the rich.

In a globalised economy, addressing pollution by setting emissions levels for each country is inappropriate for two reasons. First, not all the citizens of a country contribute to pollution. As a result of China becoming the world's factory, its CO2 emissions outstrip those of the US, putting it in first place worldwide. In 2006, China produced 6.1 billion tonnes of CO2; the US produced 5.75 billion tonnes. But in the US, emissions were 19 tonnes of CO2 per capita, compared with 4.6 tonnes in China. And much of China's CO2 could be counted as US emissions, because China is producing goods for US companies that America will consume. Wal-Mart, for example, procures most of what it sells from China.

snip.

Regulating by carbon trading is like fiddling as Rome burns. Governments and the UN should impose a carbon tax on corporations, both for production - wherever their facilities are located - and for transport, which the Kyoto Protocol does not account for directly. Incentives for renewable energy are also essential. We face a stark choice: we can destroy the conditions for human life on the planet by clinging to "free-market" fundamentalism, or we can secure our future by bringing commerce within the laws of ecological sustainability and social justice.The science of climate change is now clear, but the politics is very muddy.... more

JanforGore
added this
1 month ago
|
1 comment

Scientists find CO2 link to Antarctic ice cap origin

PHOTO: An iceberg, which scientists say broke off from the Antarctic ice cap, floats... more

julesrs007
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

tagged w/ CO2

Do you know right from wrong?

What happen if world temperature change 7°F or 4°C?

Progressive Democrats: price carbon directly and recycle revenue to households

Toyota Develops New Flower Species To Reduce Pollution

My contribution for 350 day: but we need more

OH SHIT! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

Is New Biodegradable Plastic the Answer?

Obama administration releases funds for elusive "clean coal"

‘CO2 is Green’ Campaign Misses the Point Entirely

Is Garbage The Solution To Tackling Climate Change?

Global Warming Could Reverse a Walrus Comeback

The Oceans Will Rise

US oil company sued for Amazon exploration

CO2 is green: Leo Hickman on the TV advert making viewers choke

Four degrees warming "likely" without CO2 cuts: study

Climate Summit Raises Good Question -- Isn't It High Time We Stop TALKING and Start DOING?

Current Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pledges Leave Climate Targets In The Red

Volvo C30 BEV

Dr. Vandana Shiva on cap and trade: 'The poor are burdened twice'

Scientists find CO2 link to Antarctic ice cap origin

current videos

YouTube's Most Hardcore Screamers

20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

This Week On Vanguard: Porn 2.0

Emoticons Have Cybersex

Michael Jackson's This Is It reviewed by The Rotten Tomatoes Show

Fort Hood Shootings

about current

watch current

the people are talking

the basics

take us with you

tools

stay in touch

© 2009 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved