tagged w/ GHG emissions
-
PlaNYC will create roughly 17,800 construction-related jobs over ten years making New York greener.PlaNYC will create roughly 17,800 construction-related jobs over ten years making New... more
-
-
The 2008 global financial crisis may have killed off some banks, but others have emerged even stronger. Whatever you may think about the banking industry, one fact is clear: the sector is a huge consumer of energy, from data centers to the lighting of a firm’s offices across the globe and of course, employee travel. From Tokyo to Frankfurt, banks are huge energy hogs and leave a long trail of emissions.
To that end, the global finance giant Bank of America announced yesterday that it has set a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15 percent by 2015 based on the company’s 2010 baseline. BofA’s push is another example of the bank’s strong record on energy issues. In the United States, Bank of America reduced GHG emissions 18% between 2004 and 2009. Then there is the real estate–Bank of America occupies over 13.2 million square feet of LEED-certified space, including the platinum-rated One Bryant Park (pictured) high-rise in New York City. So how will Bank of America continue its record of reducing energy consumption and in turn, GHG emissions? The answer lies in green building, supply chain efficiency, and internal employee engagement.
Some of Bank of America’s initiatives include the following:
An increase in energy efficiency within both data centers and employees’ individual computers.
Improved lighting and HVAC systems throughout its offices.
Entering educational partnerships with organizations like the Pew Center on Global Climate Change that train employees how to find potential energy savings within the organization.
Post Continues: http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/bank-america-vows-reduce-ghg-emissions-15-percent/The 2008 global financial crisis may have killed off some banks, but others have... more
-
-
Bolivia was not an obstacle to progress at Cancun’s climate talks. It was rather the only nation daring enough to tell the truth.
In the famous Hans Christian Anderson fable, The Emperor’s New Clothes, a weaver famously plays on an emperor’s arrogance and persuades him to wear a non-existent suit with the argument that it is only invisible to the ‘hopelessly stupid.’ The moment of truth comes, as we can all remember, when a child in an otherwise silent crowd yells out, “But he is not wearing any clothes!” What we don’t always recall is that the naked Emperor suspects the child may be telling the truth, but carries on marching proudly and unclothed regardless.
The story is a rather apt parallel for the Cancun climate agreements that were signed last week. Only one dissenting nation, Bolivia, dared to voice its dissent with the agreement. Yet their voice was silenced by the gavel of the Chair and by the standing ovations of 191 countries. They, like the naked Emperor, must know that the deal is naked and without substance, yet they march on proudly regardless.
Cancun sets us on dangerous path to runaway climate change
Bolivia’s indefatigable negotiator, Pablo Solon, put it most cogently in the concluding plenary, when he said that the only way to assess whether the agreement had any ‘clothes’ was to see if it included firm commitments to reduce emissions and whether it was enough to prevent catastrophic climate change. The troubling reality, as he pointed out, is that the agreement merely confirms the completely inadequate voluntary pledges of reductions of 13-16% by 2020 made since Copenhagen’s talks. Analysts at Climate Action Tracker have revealed that these paltry offers are nowhere near enough to keep temperature increases even within the contested goal of 2 degrees. Instead they would lead to increases in temperature of between 3 and 4 degrees, a level considered by scientists as highly dangerous for the vast majority of the planet. Solon said, “I can not in all in consciousness sign such as a document as millions of people will die as a result.”
To a stony silence from fellow country negotiators, Solon also pointed out a whole range of critical flaws in the agreement from its complete lack of specifics on key issues of finance to its systematic exclusion of voices from developing countries. As a press statement from Bolivia put it: “Proposals by powerful countries like the US were sacrosanct, while ours were disposable. Compromise was always at the expense of the victims, rather than the culprits of climate change.” Solon concluded that in substance the Cancun text was little more than a rehashed version of the Copenhagen Accord, that had been widely condemned the year before. Patricia Espinosa, chair of the talks, refused to open up any points of her draft text for negotiation and cheered on by other delegates made the legally dubious ruling that Bolivia’s opposition did not block consensus. The Cancun agreements were ‘approved’ to great celebration from the international community.
Cancun mood-music sways opinion
It became clear soon after the plenary ended, that what seemed like roars of support for the Cancun text, were more cries of relief or desperation. After the debacle in Copenhagen and following a probably deliberate policy by major powers who spoke constantly of ‘low expectations’, the mere existence of an agreement seemed enough. As Chris Huhne, UK climate secretary put it, “This is way better than what we were expecting only a few weeks ago.” The mood seemed to infect the larger non-governmental organisations who were gathered in Cancun. Greenpeace that had labelled the almost identical Copenhagen Accord last year a “crime scene” said that Cancun had put “hope over fear and put the building blocks back in place for a global deal to combat climate change.” Oxfam echoed, saying that “negotiators have resuscitated the UN talks and put them on a road to recovery.”
In the aftermath of Cancun, the main defence of the text has been based on appeals to realism. As Tom Athanasiou of Eco Equity puts it in his analysis on the Accord: “The reason that so many people are celebrating the Agreements is because they believe that, setting aside the details, they capture the only agreement that was possible.” Many environmentalists argue that at least with this accord and a reinvigorated belief in the UN, we live to fight another day. Meanwhile they warn that a collapse of negotiations in Cancun would perhaps have for ever destroyed the UN process and even the possibility of any future binding agreement on climate change. Nearly all use one of the favourite mantras of the negotiations, saying that critics should “not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
Realism of science, or realism of the powerful?
However this argument supposes two things: firstly that progress, even if small, was made at Cancun and secondly that it is better to have some kind of agreement than none at all. This reasoning along with both the financial offers, cajoling and bullying of the major powers – which was revealed most dramatically in wikileaks cables – is no doubt what drove most government negotiators to sign the Cancun texts. Yet both suppositions are highly questionable.
snip
The truth is that Cancun revealed a shocking failure by the world’s nations - and particularly those most responsible for causing climate change – to find a collective and effective response to a crisis that will affect the most vulnerable. A report by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, in December 2010 noted that already 350,000 people die from natural disasters related to climate change and that this figure is likely to rise to one million people every year if we don’t radically change course. Bolivia was not an obstacle to progress, it was rather the only nation daring enough to tell the truth. Rather than less Bolivias, we need more willing to stand up and say that the agreement was ‘naked’ and unacceptable. Perhaps if more nations – especially major emerging economies like India and Brazil – had said they would not accept an illusory deal, it could have shocked the world into moving beyond cautious approaches and acting radically for humanity and the planet.
cont.
by Nick BuxtonBolivia was not an obstacle to progress at Cancun’s climate talks. It was rather... more
-
-
One of the classic signs of anti-science syndrome (ASS) is repeated asserting that because CO2 is needed for life, vast increases of CO2 must perforce be vastly good for life (see Rep. Shimkus: Cutting CO2 emissions is “Taking away plant food from the atmosphere”).
In fact, lots of things are needed for life that are fatal in high doses or amounts. Iron and water come to mind.
Another classic sign of ASS is denying that too much CO2 is harmful to life. This sometimes gets taken to its ASSinine extremes (see House GOP leader Boehner on ABC: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical”).
Let’s look at the many anti-science symptoms manifested by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), courtesy of Think Progress.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, under the stipulations in the Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA announced that it would phase-in the regulation over several years, starting with the largest sources of emissions. Many — mostly Republican — state legislators have recently introduced measures to block or limit the EPA’s authority to regulate the gases.
Reporting on the state action today on Fox News, host Megyn Kelly went a bit overboard…. Taking the discussion a bit further into right field, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) actually argued that greenhouse gases are helpful:
KELLY: Back in 2007 the United States Supreme Court basically issued a decision saying it was ok for the EPA to start putting its nose into other peoples’ business in this way if it so desired. [...]
BENNETT: Greenhouse gas emissions have absolutely nothing whatever to do with clean air. CO2 does not add to pollutants or cause asthma or any of the other things you think of with dirty air. CO2 is actually a nutrient for plants and helps some parts of the continents grow more and have greater vegetation.
None of this is a terribly big shock, given where Bennett is from (see “Utah: Still the right wing place“). But it remains important to rebut these conservative talking points.
Of course, right now, GHGs have a lot to do with dirty air, since we generate most of our dirty air with the same fossil fuels that cause GHGs. And the hotter it gets, he worst urban air pollution and ashthma incidents are going to get.
Of course the Court didn’t rule that the EPA could “start putting its nose into other peoples’ business” whenever it wants. The decisions specifically stated that the agency is legally required to regulate CO2. And in fact, the auto industry has actually applauded the EPA’s move to regulate car emissions. Apparently they don’t feel the mandate means “the cost of nearly everything in America” will increase, as Kelly claimed.
And Bennett’s claim — one that climate change deniers regularly make to prevent action on climate change — is simply wrong. In fact, new scientific research out this month “found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations…cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone as well as particles in urban air.”
Since conservatives are working hard to blow smoke in our eyes on this issue, I’ll examine some of the recent science of how CO2 and higher temperatures are directly harmful to human life in future posts.One of the classic signs of anti-science syndrome (ASS) is repeated asserting that... more
-
-
You may have come across a story recently that would lead you to believe that Denver is the worst polluter in the world. It hit a few sites recently.
And why not? What a great headline! DENVER BIGGEST POLLUTER IN THE WORLD!
Got your attention, right? You’re thinking, "but surely there must be another city that pollutes more." Well, not according to science, say these blogs. Yes, they even link to a scientific study!
Well, the thing is, that's misleading. Which you'd know if you read even part of the scientific study instead of just linking to it.You may have come across a story recently that would lead you to believe that Denver... more
-
-
Governor David Paterson signed an executive order today that establishes a goal to reduce 80 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 2050. The executive order also creates a climate change council.Governor David Paterson signed an executive order today that establishes a goal to... more
-
-
It wasn't a hard call to make that this bill would be watered down to suit everyone's interests over the needs of our planet. Politics simply cannot rise to the level of consciousness necessary to deal with this crisis efficiently and adequately. But yes, I will be told again that it is better than nothing. But is it? With 17% reductions by 2020 (taking the place of the original goal of 20% by 2020 that was already pathetic) put that up against the emissions percentages of deforestation alone that will occur by 2020. Now does it stack up? I don't think so. Giving more leeway to utilities and oil companies with lessened targets and free pollution permits won't get us there either. So as has been stated many times before by many people, it comes down to us. I have washed my hands of expecting anything resembling a REAL climate bill based on the science and not their own aspirations coming from this Congress.It wasn't a hard call to make that this bill would be watered down to suit... more
-
-
And they didn't even have to show you the slaughter houses...
by the way, "100% USDA Inspected Beef" does not mean anything, other than that it contains no kangaroo;
they FAIL to mention what GRADE beef it is. (you can rest assured it's not GRADE A)
also, at a time when vegetarianism should be encouraged, it's disappointing to know that Al Gore's very own Current TV is pandering to one of the biggest players in the beef industry (which accounts for 18% of all greenhouse gases)
"I'm lovin' it" all the way to the grave.And they didn't even have to show you the slaughter houses...
by the way,... more
-
-
California will sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for "wantonly" ignoring its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ships, aircraft, and construction and agricultural equipment, state Attorney General Jerry Brown said on Wednesday.
Brown said the lawsuit, to be announced at a news conference at the Port of Long Beach on Thursday and filed in Washington after a 180-day waiting period mandated by the Clean Air Act, was meant to force the EPA into action.
The lawsuit follows two similar ones this year by California in conjunction with other states on car and truck emissions and ozone pollution.
"Ships, aircraft and industrial equipment burn huge quantities of fossil fuel, causing greenhouse gas pollution, yet President (George W.) Bush stalls with one bureaucratic dodge after another," said Brown, a strong advocate for the environment since his two terms as a liberal California governor in the 1970s and 1980s.
"Because Bush's Environmental Protection Agency continues to wantonly ignore its duty to regulate pollution, California is forced to seek judicial action," he said.
Brown said he was filing the lawsuit because he had petitioned the EPA three times to implement such regulations and was met only with a "pathetically weak" proposal that did not conclude greenhouse gases endangered public health.California will sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for "wantonly"... more
-
