News Feeds

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

The U.S. Department of Energy granted permission for power plants to release more pollution than is normally allowed — if grid conditions worsen

The multi-year, $5 million software project should help operators better manage, treat and beneficially reuse produced water

Grab some popcorn and join us to celebrate climate leaders and inspiring projects around the region at the Resilient North Richmond FilmFest, presented by Greenbelt Alliance, as part of the North Richmond Earth Day celebration!

On Saturday, April 20, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., stop by the Greenbelt Pop-up Tent to experience a curated selection of thought-provoking short films that highlight the importance of green infrastructure and urban greening in combating flooding, sequestering carbon, and all things climate resilience.

Our inspiring Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt film highlights nature-based solutions and watershed resilience in North Richmond and throughout the Bay Area, featuring acclaimed watershed planner John Steere’s mini-documentary and short clips from partner organizations such as The Watershed Project and Urban Tilth. From living levees to watershed restoration and innovative urban design solutions, these films showcase real-world examples of resilience in action.

At 11:20 a.m., join our celebration with remarks by the acclaimed Watershed Planner, John Steere, Senior Manager of Climate Ready Watersheds at the Watershed Project, Naama Raz-Yaseef, and Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia.

You can also stop by the Greenbelt Pop-up Tent to rest in our shaded lounge, get some snacks, and interact with the informational exhibit about regional sustainability projects such as the Bay Area Resilience Hotspots initiative.

This event is supported by the Wells Fargo Foundation.

 

Header photo: Volunteers work on a cleanup project in North Richmon. Shira Bezalel/Greenbelt Alliance

The post Celebrate Earth Day At The Resilient North Richmond FilmFest appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

European Commission signs off on major plan to bolster the bloc's solar sector through measures including government procurement of locally made panels.

The post EU signs charter to build solar supply chain, address manufacturing “crisis” appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Victoria energy minister says government making good progress towards first offshore wind auction, despite port infrastructure setback.

The post Australia’s first offshore wind auction could open within months, contracts awarded by end of 2026 appeared first on RenewEconomy.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a new roadmap outlining solutions towards speeding up the interconnection of clean energy onto the nation’s transmission grid and clear the existing backlog of solar, wind and battery projects seeking to be built. 

The Transmission Interconnection Roadmap, developed by DOE’s Interconnection Innovation e-Xchange (i2X), is meant to be a guide for setting what the agency calls aggressive success targets for improvement by 2030 by providing stakeholders with a set of 35 solutions organized around increasing data access, transparency and security for interconnection; improving interconnection process and timeline; promoting economic efficiency in interconnection; and maintaining a reliable grid. 

“Clearing the backlog of nearly 12,000 solar, wind, and storage projects waiting to connect to the grid is essential to deploying clean electricity to more Americans,” says U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “Through the i2X program, the Biden-Harris Administration is accelerating the interconnection process by ensuring all stakeholders have better access to data and improved standards and procedures as we seek to develop and maintain a more efficient, reliable and clean grid.”

The roadmap also includes target metrics for interconnection reform such as shorter interconnection times, lower interconnection cost variance, increased completion rates and zero disturbance events attributed to modeling.

The post DOE Releases Roadmap to Speed Up Connecting Clean Projects to Grid appeared first on North American Windpower.

This is a re-post from Andrew Dessler at the Climate Brink blog

In 2023, the Earth reached temperature levels unprecedented in modern times. Given that, it’s reasonable to ask: What’s going on? There’s been lots of discussions by scientists about whether this is just the normal progression of global warming or if something we don’t understand is happening — in other words, we’ve broken the climate.

from the Washington Post

In this post, I compare the observational temperature record to an ensemble of state-of-the-art CMIP6 models to see exactly how unusual 2023 was. It turns out that 2023 is just not that unusual when compared to the model ensemble.

Let’s start with observations. I’m going to be using the Berkeley Earth global average temperature data. In that data set, 2023 was a record-breaking 1.54C above the 1850-1900 average temperature. This temperature exceeded the previous record (set in 2016) by 0.17C.

Beating the previous record by 0.17C is huge: if we look at the temperature observations since 1970, the margin by which records were broken averaged 0.07C, with a median of 0.05C. And no record in the last 50 years had a margin larger than 0.17C.

What does the climate model ensemble show? I have analyzed 38 CMIP6 models over the period 1970-2030 driven by historical and SSP4.5 forcing. Here is a plot of the biggest margin for a record year vs. the year that record occurred:

based on CMIP6 models; each dot is one model; the orange cross is from the Berkeley Earth observations

As you can see, the record-breaking margin of 2023, 0.17C, was actually quite modest compared to the climate model ensemble. One model had a year that broke the previous record by nearly 0.45C — all I can say is holy crap, let’s hope that doesn’t happen in the real world.

A lot was also made of the fact that 2023 was the first year with a global average temperature anomaly to exceed 1.5C (in some data sets, at least). How unusual is that? Again, we can look at the models to see when they had their first year above 1.5C (as before, relative to the 1850-1900 baseline)1.

the black arrows indicate where a CMIP6 model passes 1.5C threshold relative to the 1850-1900 baseline, the red arrow is the Berkeley Earth observations

The median date for the model ensemble to have its first year above 1.5C is 2024, very close to when we actually did (2023). Thus, the model ensemble seems to be simulating the warming pretty accurately. And the ensemble does equally well for a more modern baseline, like 1970-1990.

no

Many others have looked at different aspects of the problem and reached similar conclusions. Here’s a plot that Zeke posted on Twitter that shows that the observed temperature time series still falls within the range of models.

This doesn’t mean we know everything about the climate of 2023. The extreme warmth was definitely surprising given the state of the climate in 2022, so important work remains to be done on understanding the physical mechanisms that were driving this record-breaking year.

But the real test of our climate understanding will come in the next few years. If global temperatures drop after the current El Niño fades, as expected, 2023’s high temperatures will be seen as an unusual blip in the long-term evolution of the climate (like “the pause” that occurred in the 2000s). However, if temperatures stay high or, heaven forbid, keep rapidly warming, it would suggest that we’ve broken the climate system. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

The North American peace movement is contesting ongoing US wars in Ukraine and Palestine and preparations for war with China. Out of the fog of these wars, a clear anti-imperialist focus is emerging. Giving peace a chance has never been more plainly understood as opposition to what Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world: my own government.”

Palestinian, Muslim and Arab, and anti-Zionist Jewish groups have been in the forefront of the anti-imperialist peace movement.

The post The North American Peace Movement At An Inflection Point appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

We don't need high-tech innovation to create a sustainable future for humanity. In fact, all the tech we need to regenerate our ecosystem and provide a good life for all already exists.

This year, perhaps now more than ever, we need a taste of what policymaking underpinned by the radical imagination looks like.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has today ruled that insufficient action to tackle climate change is a violation of human rights.

Two new native plant policies were recently passed in Greensboro and Winston-Salem, thanks to advocacy by local Audubon chapters and other partners. Combined, the policies will result in more native...

Arevon Energy has signed a long-term tolling agreement with MCE for 188 MW of the Cormorant Energy Storage Project, a 250 MW stand-alone BESS set to be constructed in two phases in Daly City, Calif. 

The first 188 MW phase is scheduled to begin construction at the start of next year and is anticipated to become operational in 2026.

“This agreement showcases the strength of collaboration with MCE and also supports Arevon and MCE’s joint commitment to bring clean, reliable energy to local communities,” says Kevin Smith, CEO at Arevon. “Arevon will continue to expand its energy storage portfolio in order to improve grid stability and resiliency in California, enabling the state to further its decarbonization goals.”

This agreement is the first commercial contract between Arevon and MCE. 

The post Arevon Inks Offtake Agreement with MCE for 250 MW BESS Project appeared first on North American Windpower.

Posted by John Donovan: 17 April 2024

Well, well, well, looks like the Netherlands is finally saying “buh-bye” to the Groningen gas field, leaving Shell scratching its head and counting its losses.

Yep, you heard it right. The Dutch Senate has slammed the door shut on Groningen, putting an end to decades of gas extraction in the region. No more tapping into Mother Earth for those sweet, sweet fossil fuels.

Why, you ask? Oh, just a little thing called seismic risks. Apparently, all that drilling was causing a bit of a ruckus underground, leading to earthquakes that made buildings shake like a leaf in a hurricane.

But fear not, dear citizens! The Dutch government has swooped in like a knight in shining armour to save the day. They’ve passed a law to seal off Groningen for good, ensuring that no more earthquakes ruin your morning coffee.

Of course, not everyone is cheering in the streets. Some folks are throwing a fit, claiming that shutting down Groningen will leave the Netherlands high and dry when it comes to gas supply. But hey, who needs a stable foundation when you’ve got fossil fuels, right?

And let’s not forget our friends at Shell. Oh, they must be fuming! After years of sucking the life out of Groningen, they’re suddenly left with empty pockets and a whole lot of regret. But hey, that’s the price you pay for playing fast and loose with the planet.

So, here’s to Groningen, the little gas field that could… until it couldn’t anymore. May its closure serve as a wake-up call to all the greedy giants out there, reminding them that Mother Nature always has the final say.

Disclaimer: Welcome to our platform! Before you delve into the content, please take a moment to review this disclaimer. This platform operates as a non-commercial, advert-free, and subscription-free space. We do not accept donations and aim to provide information to our readers free of charge. Our content may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means.  Additionally, we may draw from sources such as Wikipedia and other published materials. It’s important to note that the articles presented on this platform may include satirical adaptations derived from previously published sources. While we strive to maintain factual accuracy, we infuse elements of satire to engage and entertain our audience. Should any individual or entity find inaccuracies in our content, we encourage them to notify us promptly for rectification. We value accuracy and aim to address any discrepancies swiftly. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on the content provided on our platform are at your own risk. Shell Left Sputtering as Netherlands Closes Groningen Gas Field for Good was first posted on April 17, 2024 at 8:01 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The National Park Service has a toxic problem that no one wants to talk about, and that’s the problem.

Across the agency there may be hundreds, possibly many hundreds, of employees claiming they’ve endured some form of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.

The overriding problem in the Park Service, according to Jeff Ruch, who for more than two decades has closely followed the National Park Service from his roles at the nonprofit watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, is a lack of repercussions for those who abuse employees.

Read the PEER Story…

The post Traveler’s View: No One’s Talking appeared first on PEER.org.

What does the EPA’s new hazardous substances designation for two ‘forever chemicals’ mean? rcoleman April 17, 2024

More than 5,000 sites across the U.S. are polluted with the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, creating an urgent national health and environmental crisis. The Biden administration took a crucial step toward tackling the problem and making polluters pay, by designating PFOA and PFOS, two of the most notorious PFAS, as hazardous substances.

PFOA was used by DuPont for Teflon and PFOS was used in 3M’s Scotchgard, but both were phased out of use in the U.S. following pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency years ago. But the contamination these chemicals and other PFAS caused at sites throughout the country remains, and polluters have been trying to avoid paying to clean them up.

How will the new EPA rule help? EWG has answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about how the PFAS hazardous substances designation should help to jump-start the cleanup of contaminated sites, benefiting millions of Americans.

Explaining the EPA designation

What are PFAS and why are they harmful?

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they build up in our bodies and never break down in the environment. They are used in thousands of consumer and industrial applications to make products nonstick, stain-repellent and waterproof. 

Hundreds of studies link PFAS exposure to health harms, including testicular, kidney, liver and pancreatic cancer; reproductive problems; weakened childhood immunity; low birth weight; endocrine disruption; increased cholesterol; and weight gain in children and dieting adults.

Why is the Biden administration designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances?

In 2020, then-presidential candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris promised in their Plan to Secure Environmental Justice to make tackling PFAS a priority. That plan included a specific commitment for “designating PFAS as a hazardous substance” – and as president, Biden has made good on that promise with PFOA and PFOS.

How does the EPA decide to designate a chemical as a hazardous substance? 

Most known hazardous substances are already regulated as hazardous under environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act or toxic waste disposal laws. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, better known as Superfund, also gives the EPA power to designate other substances that might be found at contaminated sites as hazardous.

The agency can issue such a designation  if a substance “may present a substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment.” In its new rule, the EPA says PFOA and PFOS meet this definition. 

The complete list of roughly 800 hazardous substances is here.  

How will the hazardous substances designation kick-start cleanup?

This designation means the EPA is more likely to add sites contaminated with these chemicals to its National Priorities List of the most polluted U.S. locations, those most urgently in need of cleanup.

The EPA’s action also means that for the first time, it no longer needs to show an “imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare” to clean up PFOA or PFOS at a contaminated site. This lower bar should clear the way for kick-starting cleanup at U.S. sites, such as military installations, among others.

How will the hazardous substances designation hold polluters accountable? 

A hazardous substance designation allows the EPA to use money from its Superfund – the EPA’s account for addressing this kind of contamination – to quickly jump-start cleanup at a PFOA- or PFOS-polluted site and to recover the costs from the polluters. If a company that contributed to the PFAS contamination problem refuses to cooperate, the EPA can order a cleanup anyway and fine the company if they fail to take action. 

Which polluters will be responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites?

The “polluter pays” principle is the foundation of the Superfund law. Any company that owns a site, generates waste at the site, or transports the hazardous substance to the site – or did in the past – can be held responsible for contamination. But the EPA has broad discretion to ensure the polluters pay the lion’s share of the cleanup costs. 

How long have the polluters known PFAS are toxic? 

Polluters have known for more than 60 years that PFAS are toxic, which is why they should be on the hook to pay for cleanup.

Why has it taken so long to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances? 

Even though PFAS manufacturers have long known their chemicals were toxic, they hid the risks from regulators and the public for decades. When most other hazardous substances received that designation, Congress and the EPA didn’t know about the risks of PFAS.

Will water utilities and landfills be held responsible for PFAS contamination? 

The EPA says it will hold polluters responsible for PFAS contamination, not utilities and landfills. The agency can also settle with these entities. They’re then protected from lawsuits from other polluters trying to recover their cleanup costs. Utilities and landfills can also assert affirmative defenses to clean up cost liability and when releases are subject to a permit they are shielded from cleanup cost liability. 

Impact of the designation

What does this news mean for farmers? 

Farmers will not face liability for PFAS-contaminated sites. Some farm fields have become polluted as a result of the application of contaminated sewage sludge. But the application of fertilizers like sewage sludge does not create any liability and is exempt under the federal Superfund law. If a farmer cleans up their farm, the designation lets them recoup the cost from the polluters. 

What does the designation mean for military communities? 

Without a PFAS hazardous substances designation, the Department of Defense has been able to slow-walk its cleanup of contaminated military bases. Now it no longer has an excuse to delay action.

The designation will also help highly polluted DOD sites more easily get added to the EPA list of priority cleanup sites, which would in turn kick-start the cleanup process.

If the DOD closes a base and sells it to civilian developers, it will have to report information to those developers about PFAS found at the base and any steps it takes to clean them up.

How will the hazardous substances designation increase reporting of PFAS releases?

When a chemical is added to the list of hazardous substances, the EPA sets a reportable quantity. Any time a substance is released above that quantity it must be reported. By imposing reportable quantities, the EPA will get immediate information about new PFAS releases and the chance to investigate immediately and, if necessary, take actions to reduce additional exposures. This information is also shared with state or tribal and local emergency authorities, so it can reach communities more quickly. 

How do hazardous substances – the focus of this designation – differ from “hazardous wastes,” a separate EPA designation?

Hazardous substances are regulated under the federal Superfund law, which focuses on cleanup of legacy contamination. A hazardous substance designation creates reporting requirements for releases and gives the EPA new enforcement tools to kick-start cleanup. 

By contrast, hazardous wastes are regulated under waste management and disposal laws. While hazardous waste laws can also be used to oversee cleanup of contaminated sites, they mostly target the management and disposal of wastes from ongoing production and use. 

In other words, hazardous substance designation is largely retrospective, and hazardous waste designation is largely prospective.

How will the EPA’s designation affect sites that have already been cleaned up?

Sites that have already been cleaned up must be assessed every five years to ensure they stay clean and that nearby communities continue to be safe. In some cases, further action may be needed to address PFOA and PFOS at sites that have already been cleaned up. But that kind of situation will likely be rare, since many closed sites have already taken measures that would address PFAS.

Reducing personal exposure to PFAS

How can I protect myself from PFAS in my tap water?

To help you lower your family’s exposure at home, EWG has a step-by-step guide for consumers interested in buying a home tap water filter. Reverse osmosis and carbon-based home water filters can reduce PFAS in tap water. 

What other steps can I take to reduce my exposure? 

Lowering the amount of PFAS in drinking water is among the most effective ways to reduce PFAS in your blood. Other steps include changing your diet, cooking more at home and avoiding products made with forever chemicals.

Health risks linked to PFAS exposure

How does PFAS exposure affect reproductive health?

Exposure to PFAS is linked to developmental and reproductive toxicity, including low birth weight, thyroid disruption, harm to the male reproductive system, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, and some evidence of infertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding.

Can PFAS exposure raise the risk of cardiovascular disease?

Exposure to PFAS through drinking water contributes to higher levels of PFAS in blood serum. This can lead to increases in total cholesterol, changes in high-density lipoproteins and elevated levels of systolic blood pressure. Changes in these factors are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular health problems, such as heart attack and stroke.

Does PFAS exposure increase the number of infant deaths? 

PFAS exposure has been linked to developmental problems, such as low infant birth weight, birth length, and head circumference at birth. Low birth weight is an important factor in survival rates and medical care costs among infants, creating a link between exposure to PFAS and a greater number of infant deaths.

Are children more susceptible to the harms caused by PFAS? 

Because children are still developing, they may be more sensitive to the harmful effects of chemicals like PFAS. Children drink more water, eat more food and breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults, which can increase their exposure to these chemicals. 

Young children crawl on floors and put things in their mouths, which leads to higher exposure to PFAS in carpets, household dust, toys and cleaning products.

Breast milk with PFAS and formula made with water containing PFAS can expose infants to the chemicals, and it’s also possible for the developing fetus to be exposed.  

Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Disqus Comments Guest Authors EWG Staff April 17, 2024

Posted by John Donovan: 17 April 2024

Well, folks, Shell just can’t resist the urge to poke the Arctic bear, and environmentalists are not having it. Cue the lawsuits, the drama, and the eye-rolling.

So, here’s the scoop: Shell wants to dive headfirst into drilling in the Arctic Ocean, and the U.S. government is giving them a thumbs-up. But guess who’s not clapping? Yep, you guessed it – environmentalists.

These green warriors are not about to let Shell turn the Arctic into their personal oil playground. Oh no, they’re taking the fight straight to the courts. The Sierra Club and their buddies have filed a lawsuit faster than you can say “polar ice caps.”

And what’s Shell’s response to all this legal hoopla? Well, they’re not exactly shaking in their boots. Shell’s spokesperson, Curtis Smith, nonchalantly brushes off the lawsuit, basically saying, “Oh, we expected this.”

Meanwhile, Alaska lawmakers are cheering Shell on like it’s the Super Bowl. They’re all about the jobs and money this drilling could bring to the state. But hey, who needs a pristine Arctic when there are dollars to be made, right?

But here’s the kicker – environmentalists aren’t just worried about cute polar bears and fluffy seals (although they do care about them too). They’re concerned about the climate, baby. Yeah, that’s right. The Arctic plays a crucial role in regulating the global climate, and drilling there could send us all into a tailspin.

Sure, Shell has to jump through a few hoops to get their drilling party started – permits, opinions, the whole shebang. But activists aren’t making it easy. They’ve been staging protests left and right, even causing a ruckus in Seattle over Shell’s rig.

And speaking of Seattle, the city is caught in the middle of this Arctic showdown. The port’s commission is scratching their heads over permits and violations, while activists keep chanting outside their windows.

But hey, who cares about the chaos, right? As long as there’s oil to be drilled and profits to be made, Shell will keep pushing forward. After all, what’s a little environmental catastrophe compared to a hefty paycheck?

Disclaimer: Welcome to our platform! Before you delve into the content, please take a moment to review this disclaimer. This platform operates as a non-commercial, advert-free, and subscription-free space. We do not accept donations and aim to provide information to our readers free of charge. Our content may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means.  Additionally, we may draw from sources such as Wikipedia and other published materials. It’s important to note that the articles presented on this platform may include satirical adaptations derived from previously published sources. While we strive to maintain factual accuracy, we infuse elements of satire to engage and entertain our audience. Should any individual or entity find inaccuracies in our content, we encourage them to notify us promptly for rectification. We value accuracy and aim to address any discrepancies swiftly. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on the content provided on our platform are at your own risk. Shell’s Arctic Drilling Plan Faces Legal Iceberg Amidst Environmental Uproar was first posted on April 17, 2024 at 7:46 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

More than a hundred volunteers planted native plants along the Rio Salado to allow for pollinators – like bees, butterflies, and birds – to flourish at the Nina Mason Pulliam Rio Salado Audubon...