Author: Rachel Barron (Page 2 of 2)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/us/keystone-xl-pipeline-nebraska-opponents.html

We talked about the pipeline in class today so I thought I’d do a little research on it!

The Keystone Pipeline was proposed six years ago by the energy company TransCanada. It is supposed to transport crude oil 1,179 miles from Alberta, Canada to southern Nebraska. The pipeline, although partially built has been received with mixed feelings and a ton of protest. Unlike other environmental issues, it is not just the environmental extremists who are against the pipeline. Native Americans, farmers, city dwellers, elderly and even some conservatives are opposed to the continuation of the pipeline.

Arguments against the pipeline include concerns that any type of spill would irreparably harm the Ogallala Aquifer, the source of water used to irrigate cropland and supply taps across a wide portion of the heartland. In response, one might say that they are taking extra care to prevent spillage. Regardless of the ignorance of that statement because spills are always possible, the pipeline should not be built solely on the fact that is supports the extraction of tar sands and increases our dependence on fossil fuel. The oil extracted from tar sands is not clean oil. It is dirty, grainy oil and it requires a lot more energy and water to make it usable than we get from it’s use. The process of extraction is not good for the environment and it creates very ugly eye sores in the surrounding area.

The article linked talks about a protest that happened saturday in Neligh, Nebraska. A patch of farmland became a concert with Willie Nelson and Neil Young to protest the Keystone Pipeline. 8,000 people attended the protest and many spoke emotionally and at length about their opposition to the pipeline and the problems they fear it portends.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/un-climate-change-summit-partial-results-speeches-obama

Previously I posted an article regarding the events leading up to the climate summit which happened on September 23rd. It was the first meeting about climate in five years but aside from a lot of talk and agreement that climate change is a problem, the summit did not accomplish a lot. In Obama’s speech, he mentioned the 300,000 people who participated in the climate march saying  “our citizens keep marching, we cannot pretend we do not hear them.” But most leaders, including Obama, held back on making any sort of commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions or give significant climate finance to developing countries.

The president of France said it best, “we can’t just limit ourselves to words, expressions of regret, and exercises in stock taking.”

Overall the climate summit had an energy behind it as all other discussions and meetings revolving around climate do. Climate change is a problem, and we know what we need to do to fix it but the solution is so drastic that no one will actually fully commit to it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140916-climate-economy-report-sustainability/

A report title “Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report” recently came out on behalf of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. It calls for an adjustment of policies so that the trillions of dollars that is to be spent on infrastructure in the coming years will be shifted from high-carbon systems to low-carbon systems. The report came out a week before world leaders will meet in New York to discuss global warming issues at the United Nations Climate Summit. It calls for a carbon tax on emissions and a phaseout of subsidies on fossil fuels. The report claims that #3 trillion dollars could be saved in capital infrastructure expenses. While many people applauded the report, some skeptics think that the goals laid out are unfeasible.

There have been may attempts to regulate global warming, and mitigate climate change- most of which have not been successful. What is different about this report that will change people’s opinions? I will be interested to see how the UN Climate Summit reacts and what conclusions they draw.

What do the new climate rules have to do with my kid’s asthma?

This article raises a great question: will the EPA’s cap and trade program work? Although the regulations state that we should have a 30% drop in carbon emissions by 2030, a hard target is not stated. There is no “punishment” stated for states that do not comply and nothing is said about what will happen if we do not reach that target. The reduction depends not only on how well states comply but also how well power plants comply.  Furthermore, due to the nature of the ‘cap and trade’, the reduction of emissions may not lead to cleaner air across the board. If companies who want to pollute more can “trade” air space with cleaner companies who don’t need it, those areas will stay just as polluted as they were before. This is a big problem for Environmental Justice as the communities in polluted areas have a much greater risk of health problems and the majority of those communities are compromised of minority groups.

Although the Climate Change initiative is a great idea there are a few flaws. First of all changing habits is hard. It will take awhile for people and companies to actually get on board with the changes. Secondly, the regulations were put in place by an Executive Order. I doubt they will be finalized before Obama leaves administration and then it is up to the next president to decide if he wants to continue the push for change or not.

However, I think what Obama did was the right thing. Many people will make the argument that it wasn’t “constitutional” but something had to be done and it had to be done quick. The way Obama’s relationship with Congress is right now, nothing was going to get accomplished if he tried to put it through Congress.