http://www.reformer.com/opinion/ci_23848016/time-bomb-willful-ignorance

Global warming is a total fraud and it's how liberals are going to hand off the United States to a global government that will control every aspect of our lives. No, we don't really believe that, but we are paraphrasing Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.), a senior member of the House Science Committee, who said that during a Newport Mesa Tea Party meeting last week.

"It's step by step by step, more and bigger control over our lives by higher levels of government. And global warming is that strategy in spades," said Rohrbacher. "Our freedom to make our choices on transportation and everything else? No, that's gotta be done by a government fficial who, by the way, probably comes from Nigeria because he's a UN government official, not a U.S.government official."

As Lee Fang, writing for The Nation noted, such hyperbole is not new to Rohrbacher.

"In the past, he's suggested that global warming has been caused by everything from dinosaur flatulence to rainforests -- pretty much everything except the fossil fuel industries that provide Rohrbacher with campaign donations," wrote Fang. "Rohrbacher is one of many lawmakers who, despite living in a state reeling from climate disasters, denies the basic science of anthropogenic global warming."

At his town hall meeting, Rohrbacher went on to point the finger of blame at government-funded scientists who have received "so much money" for research that

Advertisement

"they have used it to intimidate people who disagree with their attempt to frighten all of us into changing our lives and giving up our freedoms to make choices."

Those scientists include members of the American Meteorological Society, which last week released its annual "State of the Climate" report.

"Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate -- carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place," said Kathryn Sullivan, the acting administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

We bet Rohrbacher doesn't put any faith in that report or a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and Princeton University, which found even minor departures from normal temperatures or rainfall can increase the risk of conflict by 50 percent.

But if Rohrbacher doesn't trust those bastions of liberal elitism, he might ask the Pentagon what it thinks. Daniel Chiu, the deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Defense, recently revealed DoD is adjusting some of its planning based on climate change's potential impact on food, water and migration patterns.

"Although the effects of climate change alone do not cause conflict, they act as accelerants of instability, which influences our operating environment roles and mission."

Climate change deniers span the spectrum from Rohrbacher to small-state think tanks, such as the Caesar Rodney Institute, which recently criticized the science behind Delaware's Climate Change Vulnerability and Risk Assessment

In 2009, CRI sponsored an online petition opposing cap and trade and other programs to cut carbon emissions "based on unproven fears of man-made global warming."

Delaware's Deputy State Environmental Chief David Small is not buying CRI's rhetoric.

"The science on this matter is settled and it is our responsibility to get on with the business of preparing Delaware for the future," he said. "We have felt the impacts of rising sea levels and need to be considering how our state, citizens, natural resources and infrastructure could be affected by extreme weather events over the long term."

CRI, as are many other critics of legitimate climate-change science, is a member of the State Policy Network, which Rebecca Wilce, writing for PR Watch, characterized as a right-wing think tank sponsored by billionaires and corporations to push the American Legislative Exchange Council's agenda in legislatures around the country.

According to SourceWatch, ALEC drafts legislation meant to "undermine environmental regulations and deny climate change, support school privatization, undercut health care reform, defund unions and limit their political influence, restrain legislatures' abilities to raise revenue through taxes, mandate strict election laws that disenfranchise voters, increase incarceration to benefit the private prison industry, among many other issues."

Right-wing luminaries who fund ALEC include the inimitable Koch Brothers, Peter Coors, the John Olin Foundation, Richard Scaife, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Corporate donors include ExxonMobil, Altria (formerly Phillip Morris), AT&T, Bayer, Coca-Cola, GlaxoSmithKline, Kraft Food, State Farm and Wal-Mart, a veritable rogue's gallery bent on maintaining the status quo to protect their bottom line.

But the corporations, money-bag elitists and legislators who insist on staying the course to human extinction may have met their match in the World Bank, which is shifting its focus on to climate change.

Rachel Kyte, the bank's vice president of sustainable development, told the National Journal that to achieve its mission to end poverty, it must find a way to slow or reverse the rate of climate change. If nothing is done to avert the coming catastrophe, said Kyte, "It's going to be extraordinarily difficult for the poor, who are the least resilient, to be part of the growth and opportunity story over the next few decades if climate change is unabated."

The World Bank is promoting strategies to help developing countries invest in their own resilience and in low-carbon developments, said Kyte. She also told the National Journal that climate change is having an impact on the developed world.

"The succession of storm events, droughts, the cycle of fires have enormous economic dislocation," she said. "Beyond just the extreme weather events, in which insurance costs can be calculated, there are costs in not planning to accommodate the increased intensity and frequency of some of these events. One superstorm is one thing, but if you now expect the superstorm to hit on a more intensive or more regular basis, not planning for that is an economic folly."

While there might be some short-term pain, said Kyte, the long-term benefits are immeasurable, and that includes increased economic stability, better jobs and well-being of our families.

"If you're concerned about your children's health, your own health, your grandchildren's health, if you're concerned about the job your child's going to get, if you're concerned about where your grandchildren are going to live -- this is front of mind," said Kyte.

Which side of history will you find yourself on, Rep. Rohrbacher? We're betting you and your ilk will be remembered 100 years from now with dumbfounded awe, and not in a good sort of way. But approbation for Rohrbacher and his merry gang of climate-change denials will only happen if we've taken the steps necessary to confront the slow-ticking time bomb that will define the fate of the human race. If we don't, there might not be many people around to hold them up for contempt.

Read more:

http://crowncapitalmng.livejournal.com/

http://crownecomngment.tumblr.com/

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/08/city-releases-draft-environmental-impact-statement-on-proposed-sodo-arena/

The city of Seattle today released the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed sports and entertainments arena in the Sodo stadium district.

The review began by looking at 21 sites meeting minimum property size and zoning to accommodate a potential arena, the city said.

The city’s Department of Planning and Development narrowed the list to three sites – KeyArena in Seattle Center, Memorial Stadium adjacent to Seattle Center and three alternative sites in Sodo — after an examination of transportation, economic and other review criteria.

Further review on impacts and mitigation measures will continue. San Francisco hedge fund manager Chris Hansen and other investors have proposed building a $490 million arena in Sodo with the goal of attracting NBA and NHL teams.

Public hearings have been set for Sept. 10 in the Bertha Landes Room at Seattle City Hall and Sept. 19 in the Fidalgo Room at Seattle Center, both starting at 6 p.m.

The city expects to publish a final environmental impact statement in the first quarter of 2014.

Electric cars are clean today and will only get cleaner tomorrow

By Max Baumhefner and Cecilia Springer

Source : http://grist.org/business-technology/electric-cars-are-clean-today-and-will-only-get-cleaner-tomorrow/

Uncovering a fraud is uniquely satisfying, which is perhaps why news outlets continue to provide electric car deniers with a platform to proclaim they aren’t as green as they appear. But close examination reveals the latest round of skeptics to be lacking in substance.

Numerous peer-reviewed articles have reached the same conclusion: From cradle to grave, electric cars are the cleanest vehicles on the road today. And unlike cars that rely on oil, the production of which is only getting dirtier over time, the environmental benefits of electric cars will continue to improve as old coal plants are replaced with cleaner sources and manufacturing becomes more efficient as it scales up to meet growing consumer demand.

“Did your account for the pollution from the electricity it takes to power the vehicles?”

This question has been asked and answered. Using today’s average American electricity mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar, an electric car emits half the amount of harmful carbon pollution per mile as the average new vehicle. In states with cleaner mixes, such as California, it’s only a quarter as much. To find out how clean your electric car would be today, plug your zip code into the EPA’s “Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator.” Those benefits will only improve as the electric grid becomes cleaner over time.

Before the Natural Resources Defense Council began advocating for vehicle electrification, we did our own homework, publishing a two-volume report in partnership with the Electric Power Research Institute. The work took almost two years and concluded that a long-term shift to the use of electricity as a transportation fuel provides substantial reductions in carbon

 pollution and air quality benefits.

It’s essential to take a long view when examining vehicle electrification, because the electric grid doesn’t stand still. Since the time we published that report, the EPA has adopted power plant standards for mercury and other air toxics, ozone-forming emissions, fine particulate pollution, soot, and coal ash; proposed standards for greenhouse gases from new power plants; and has been directed by the president to adopt greenhouse gas standards for existing plants. Meanwhile, 29 states have adopted renewable energy targets to reduce emissions. Driving on renewable electricity is virtually emissions-free.

“Did your account for the resources it takes to build the cars?”

Producing an electric car today requires more resources than producing a conventional vehicle, generally due to the large batteries. However, comparing the efficiency of relatively nascent and small-scale electric vehicle manufacturing to the efficiency of conventional automobile production, which has benefited from more than a century of learning-by-doing, is misleading. Automakers are racing to save money and materials through recycling and more efficient production. Those who win the race will win the market.

Even with today’s technology, on a lifecycle basis, the electric car is still the cleanest option available. Higher emissions from manufacturing are more than offset by the substantial benefits of driving on electricity. We examined six peer-reviewed academic studies and found that in every case, electric vehicles win by a substantial margin, with estimates ranging from 28 to 53 percent lower cradle-to-grave emissions than conventional vehicles today.

Opponents often rely upon the original version of a Norwegian study, which has much higher estimates of emissions associated with the production of electric cars. Those skeptics generally cherry-pick from the original version of that article, and ignore the fact it was correctedpost-publication, resulting in its estimate of the comparative emissions benefit rising from 22 percent to 28 percent. In other words, even the source relied upon by skeptics shows a substantial lifecycle advantage for electric cars. The Norwegian study finds the lowest benefit relative to the other articles examined partially because it includes an estimate of emissions associated with the disposal of advanced battery materials that is higher than other studies, which brings us to the next question:

 “What about mining and disposing of the materials needed to make the batteries?”

First off, there is no shortage of the materials needed to make advanced vehicle batteries. A recent article in the Journal of Industrial Ecology concludes, “even with a rapid and widespread adoption of electric vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries, lithium resources are sufficient to support demand until at least the end of this century.” Another analysis of the trade constraints associated with the global lithium market came to a similar conclusion, and noted that even a “five-fold increase of lithium price would not impact the price of battery packs.” Furthermore, companies like Simbol Materials are already finding innovative ways to acquire lithium by harvesting materials from the brine of geothermal power plants — no mining required.

Secondly, advanced vehicle batteries are unlikely to be simply thrown away; they’re too valuable. Even once they’re no longer suitable for automotive use, they retain about 80 percent of their capacity and can be re-purposed to provide grid energy storage to facilitate the integration of variable renewable resources, such as wind and solar. Automotive batteries can also be repurposed to support the electrical grid at the neighborhood level, preventing the need to invest in costly distribution system equipment. Pacific Gas & Electric plans to use money saved through the strategic deployment of used battery packs in neighborhoods throughout Northern and Central California to provide electric car drivers with rebates to reduce the purchase price of new electric cars.

Finally, those batteries that aren’t repurposed will likely be recycled. Conventional vehicle manufacturing is one of the most efficient industries in the world — around 95 percent of vehicle parts are recycled, reducing the energy needed to make more parts. It is worth noting that conventional lead-acid car batteries are consistently the most recycled product for which the EPA provides data [PDF], with a recycling rate of 96 percent. Advanced battery recycling could cut associated emissions in half, according to a 2012 study from researchers at Argonne National Laboratory. Companies are already investing in such technologies.

In summary, a sustained and serious examination of the cradle-to-grave impacts of electric cars reveals they are the cleanest option available today, and that the environmental benefits of vehicle electrification will only increase over time. That’s not only good news for the eco-conscious, but for any consumer interested in driving on a cleaner fuel at a price equivalent to buck-a-gallon gasoline.

Cecilia Springer is an associate at Climate Advisers, where she manages projects on transportation and sustainable supply chains.

Max Baumhefner is an NRDC attorney with a focus on the juncture of the electricity and transportation sectors.

Related Reviews :

https://plus.google.com/113890670352423121938/

http://www.yelp.com/biz/crown-capital-eco-management-singapore