|
Global Warming 
Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:13 AM CST
|
|
What do Alejandro Escovedo and the Pope have in common? ... They both believe climate leadership is underserved. Alejandro recently added the 433rd signature to a local citizen petition urging renewed leadership at City Hall. The Pope focused his 2010 start-the-new-year address on denouncing the failure of world diplomats to come to a significant agreement on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions:
Jan. 11, 2010 - Pope Benedict XVI denounced the failure of world leaders to agree to a new climate change treaty in Copenhagen last month, saying that world peace depends on safeguarding God's creation. "I trust that in the course of this year ... it will be possible to reach an agreement for effectively dealing with this question," Benedict said.1
#####
Disconnections
All over the US we're managing extreme bipartisanism, an upside down economy, the war, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. You know this. Here in Austin we've got a unique situation, though -- in 2007 City Council committed to making Austin "the leading city in the nation in the fight against climate change." That's pretty great, leading the world's leading economy, but progress has been slow. So slow in fact, Jake Stewart, bright star and manager of Austin Energy's Climate Protection Program, resigned due to frustrations this Fall.
More significantly, according to climatological models presented in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report 2007 (yes, I'm aware of the controversy), Austin and Central Texas will see average annual temperatures rise about 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, above 1960-1999 mean temperatures, and 5 to 7 degrees F by 2099... Regarding this temperature increase, the IPCC's 2007 report states,
"A 5 °F rise, relative to 1980-1999 temperatures, suggests a 40%-70% extinction of all species."
That point relates to the future viability of our food chain. Make no mistake, the risks of rapid climate change are not about tree-hugging, they're about human survival.
Note that while the warming trend I've cited is the IPCC worst case scenario, Jake Stewart tells me current global greenhouse gas emission rates are exceeding the assumed threshold in the IPCC's worst case scenario. And, note that the IPCC's chairman said three years ago, "This is our defining moment."2 It's not coming soon, my friends, it's now.
Shouldn't Austinites take the lead? We have the leadership, we have enormous talent and goodwill, what's missing? (Feel free to offer your suggestions.)
Then again, taking a look at animated climate models, years 2000-2099 (link below) it's no wonder people are confused and disconnected. According to the video -- it'll be about 2044 before poop hits the fan, in terms of our local land surface temperatures... after that, things start moving really fast.
#####
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 105 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 04:12 PM CST
|
|
Mayor Wynn: Austin's only climate champion?
The UN's Dec.7-18 summit on climate change, aka Copenhagen, opened with organizers warning diplomats from 193 nations that this could be the last, best chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming. (1) Why?
In 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a globally appointed body of 2,000+ scientists, released its 4th assessment report on the science and likely outcomes of global warming. Their report made several key points: (2)
1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
2. World temperatures could rise by btwn 2.0-11.5°F during the 21st century.
3. A rise of 5°F, relative to 1980-1999 temperatures, suggests a 40%-70% extinction of all species assessed by the IPCC.
Later that year, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, stated -- "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two or three years determines our future. This is our defining moment." (3)
That was 2007. Mr. Pachauri was responding to worldwide criticism -- that his team of 2,000+ scientists were too soft in their analysis. Austin responded positively to a challenge that seemed threaten not just humanity (in this century) but all biology everywhere. City Council unanimously approved Mayor Wynn's resolution for a world-leading "Austin Climate Protection Program" -- the centerpiece of which is, "to make Austin the leading city in the nation in the fight against climate change." (4)
But two years later Austin still gets 1/3rd of its electricity from a coal plant that happens to be the 8th worst polluter in the state (5), local leadership is reluctant to take full ownership of the urgency of this moment, and the community seems to have forgotten this is "our defining moment."
What can be done? Is the crisis real? How much time do we have to act?
Who should lead?
Please leave your comments below. Thank you.
##############################################################
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 305 words in story)
|
|
Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:56 AM CST
|
Most of you have probably heard about Austin's "Climate Protection Program"
-- which was a proactive response to 2007's global warming scare.
I've co-created a citizen petition with Jake Stewart that lets Austin City
Council know we support reclaiming the program's goal: "to make Austin
the leading city in the nation in the fight against climate change."
Please check out the petition (link:) http://www.tinyurl.com/austinc...
consider signing if you haven't already, and SHARE IT with colleagues and
friends. Just reached "350" signatures...
Wishing you the best in 2010! thanks for your care and concern -
Chris Searles
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:14 PM CST
|
|
The dramatic irony of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) decision this morning to grant the NRG Limestone Coal Plant an air permit (and therefore permission to begin construction on a third smokestack) is painful. At the very moment that leaders from around the world are meeting to come to an international agreement to save the world from catastrophic global warming, at the very moment that residents of developing nations are begging for the continued existence of their land and way of life, Texas gives the green light to build another mercury-spewing, asthma-inducing, planet choking coal plant.
Not exactly what I was hoping to wake up to this morning.
This decision also comes just days after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came out with its engangerment finding, which says that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases represent a significant threat to public health and welfare. Earlier this year, the EPA also ruled that TCEQ has not been adhering to the Clean Air Act in its issuance of new air permits. This is the first coal plant permit that TCEQ has issued since that warning (which TCEQ doesn't seem to have taken to heart). AND, according to Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED Coalition,
The TCEQ is not following federal law (Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT) in issuing this permit and a result, mercury emissions will be higher.
So many hearts to break, so little time. But of course there's always a silver lining. Next legislative session, the TCEQ (and a whole host of other commissions) will undergo the Sunset Review process -- and as Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas Office mentions, that gives Texas a chance to reform the TCEQ permitting process:
This is just another example of why the Sunset Commission should take a good hard look at how TCEQ rubber stamps permits for coal plants in Texas.
In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed for progress in Copenhagen, and drop by Texas Vox for more information on how you can help fight global warming and a 2nd Texas coal rush.
You can also find the good (NRG has agreed to offset 50% of their emissions, though there's nothing in their permit to hold them to that), the bad, and the ugly in the full press release here.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 01:03 PM CST
|
( - promoted by Phillip Martin)
Today’s the last day to formally ask the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act in Texas. 
Sierra Club our environmental partners, bicyclists, medical communities, and interfaith partners delivered comments last week from more than 2,000 Texans to officials at the Region 6 headquarters of the EPA in Dallas and we want them to hear from even more of us today! Here’s the story on KERA public radio in Dallas. What’s all the fuss about? More and more Texans are realizing that Texas is in the problematic position of having more proposed coal plants than any other state in the nation. With 12 in various stages of construction or permitting challenges, Michigan, second worst with 4 planned coal plants, leaves Texas in the really big dust.  Texans are learning that coal plants make people sick. Medical practitioners have become increasingly involved in opposing Texas coal plants – particularly in Corpus Christi, the site of the proposed Las Brisas pet coke plant; in Austin, which could become the first municipal utility in the state to reject coal; and in Dallas, which is downwind of the majority of Texas existing coal plants and has been in non-attainment of federal air quality standards. At the EPA last week, Dallas-based pediatrician, Dr. Karen Lewis with Physicians for Social Responsibility said, “Coal plants in Texas emit huge volumes of heavy duty respiratory toxins and we're seeing skyrocketing rates of asthma and respiratory illness in children.” Dr. Lewis addressed mercury pollution which leads to developmental and neurological disorders in children, “Doctors recommend that pregnant women not eat large fish and limit their intake of smaller fish, but can we talk about where the mercury in such otherwise healthy food as fish comes from? The bottom line is that we shouldn’t be building more coal plants in Texas.”
 There are other reasons to fight coal plants. Coal plants cost too much. And, costs are rising as new, more protective clean air standards become law. The new standards will place many additional regions of Texas in ‘non-attainment’ status jeopardizing federal funds and they will require coal plants to install costly new scrubbers. Texans don’t need to foot this bill when we live in a state with so much clean energy know-how and wind and solar resource.
Coal plants also cause global warming and use enormous amounts of water. This is a serious problem in Texas where we experience extreme drought. Fortunately, more people are becoming actively involved. People are hearing about the second wave of the Texas coal rush in part thanks to Forrest Wilder’s Texas Observer article ‘Coal Star State’ and also thanks to hundreds of Sierrans, our environmental partners and bicycling community friends who came out to Roll Beyond Coal at rallies, bike rides, and hikes in five Texas cities on October 31. Sierra Club’s long time chemist, former state regulator, and clean air warrior, Neil Carman believes that the recently appointed new EPA Administrator at Region VI in Dallas can make a difference in the coal plant fight. We got a hopeful sign last week when a company decided that it won’t import PCBs and burn them in Port Arthur. He thinks the new EPA can also intervene on TCEQ’s habit of permitting big coal polluters. Sierra Club will continue challenging coal plants in Texas and we need your help! Let the EPA know today that you want them to block Texas coal plants and take a serious look at the 17 existing coal plants.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:02 PM CST
|
( - promoted by Phillip Martin)
Hundreds of Texans from all walks of life rallied to Roll Beyond Coal on Halloween, Saturday, October 31.
There were 200 people in Dallas including speakers -- Representatives Carol Kent, Lon Burnam, Robert Mikloss, and Dallas Council Member Linda Koop.
There were 200 also in Austin including MC Ian Davis and speakers Representative Eddie Rodriguez, Austin Council Member and bike advocate Chris Riley (He stood up for the City's Climate Protection Agreement) and Dr. Kimberly Carter of Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility (She really nailed the seriously SCARY part of the Halloween message about Texas coal pollution).
100 oeople came out in the sparking city by the sea, Corpus Christi where their Clean Economy Coalition is in a contested case hearing this week along with Sierra Club over the proposed and quaintly named Las Brisas, 'the Breezes' coke plant. Corpus speakers included two physicians -- a family practioner from Aransas Pass, Dr. Lorraine Stehn, pediatrician Dr. Kevin Hopkings, Stacy Barrera, President of the TAMU-CC Young Democrats, former REpresentative Arnold Gonzales and Hal Suter of the Sierra Club.
There was also 50 people rolling beyond coal in Beaumont and 35 in Alpine, Texas.
Calmly scared half to death about rising coal costs, health and environmental impacts of 12 new Texas coal plants http://www.texas.sierraclub.or... , they are taking action to stop the second wave of the Texas coal rush and promoting instead clean air, clean power, green jobs, and the availability of water in the future.
Coal Plant Pollution means Attainment of Federal Air Quality Standards Shot to Hell
"These 12 new coal plants are a significant jump to the 17 operating coal plants we already have in Texas," said Rita Beving with Dallas Sierra Club. "Whether it's the nearby plants being built east of Waco or the one proposed as far away as Abilene, the wind carries coal plant pollution north to the Dallas-Fort Worth area and will only exacerbate our ability to reach attainment."
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is currently in non-attainment of required federal clean air standards, as is Houston and the Beaumont-Port Arthur area. Austin, San Antonio and the north east Texas area have early action compacts and are near non-attainment. New federal air quality standards coming this Fall (70 ppb)will mean that several additional regions of Texas will go into non-attainment.
Many states around the nation have dropped plans for coal plants, letting Texas run far ahead in a horrible lonely lead in the opposition direction. With Michigan trailing at only 4 proposed new coal plants, Texas has the largest number still moving in various stages of permitting - contested case hearings, appeal, and construction. With the grotesque rate of acceptance of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), a whole army of new coal plants could go online next year emitting their enormous tonnage of pollution as they rev up to a full-throttled, smog-spewing, global warming, lung-clogging, nerve-shattering, mind-numbing, and heart-stopping blast of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, and carbon dioxide. See the fact sheet list of the proposed coal plants in Texas and the gory truth on their cumulative emissions numbers.
Human Health Impacts http://www.texas.sierraclub.org/press/newsreleases/HealthImpactsfromTexasCoalPlantPollution.pdf
Corpus Christi cardiologist, Dr. Greg Silverstein said, "In Corpus Christi, we already experience twice as much asthma as the state average. If the Las Brisas petcoke plant is allowed to go forward with the huge annual emissions of smog and smoke in their permit application, we
will see a significant increase of even more asthma in Corpus Christi and the surrounding towns. I am concerned about my patients and all the people of Corpus Christi."
Coke is regulated similarly to coal and it emits the same nasty pollutants. See just what effects coal and coke plants have on human physiology in the attached Fact Sheet.
Coastal Bend doctors of the Nueces County Medical Society and the Tri-County San Patricio-Aransas-Refugio Medical Society passed resolutions opposing the permitting of the hilariously-named Las Brisas (the Breezes) coke plant. Corpus Christi citizens from all walks of life united across class, Hispanic and Anglos, men, women, children, and the elderly crowded into a room that couldn't contain their opposition at last February's preliminary hearing in which a large number of individuals and organizations including the Clean Economy Coalition and the Sierra Club received 'standing' for a contested case hearing which began today, Monday, November 2.
Clean Energy Solutions and Green Jobs on the brighter side of the Dark Ages
"There are many reasons to oppose coal plants - they cost too much, make people sick, contribute to global warming, and use enormous amounts of water," said Eva Hernandez, Regional Organizer for Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. "Another reason is that they are a huge dangerous diversion from the clean power and green jobs economy that Texas is so perfectly suited for and already leading."
Roll Beyond Coal is a project of Sierra Club's Climate Recovery Partnership and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. In Texas, Sierra Club is fighting to stop new coal plants and clean up and phase out old coal plants. Sierra Club's environmental partners include our 14 Regional Sierra Club groups, lawyers on the Texas contested case hearings the Environmental Integrity Project, running buddies Sierra Student Coalition, Public Citizen, and a cast of dozens of awesome Texas organizations.
Slide show with photos from all rallies coming soon! Stay tuned to Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club on Burnt Orange Report!
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 00:55 PM CDT
|
|
Senator Hutchison (who you might have heard is running for governor), published an op-ed last week in a couple of Texas papers about how the ACES Bill would cripple Texas. We've pushed back, and actually got something printed in one of those old-timey-newspaper thingies in one of the papers that ran her op-ed, the Round Rock Leader. (I know, quaint-- right? newspapers? Who reads those anymore? < end sarcasm>) Have a read here for the whole thing, or if you're in North Austin or WillCo, go pick up a Round Rock Leader. I've posted an except below: United States Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison takes a head-in-the-hot-sand approach to climate change that will get Texas burned and drive tens of thousands of new jobs elsewhere ("Cap and Trade is No Good For Texas," Aug. 27 Leader). She misses the mark on energy policy, using discredited industry statistics to drum up fear about a Cap and Trade policy that represents just a small portion of the initiatives proposed in the energy bill that passed the House of Representatives in July.
She fails to acknowledge that the bill includes provisions for renewable energy and energy efficiency - the real solutions to climate change. Hutchison's solution is no solution at all: more oil, more coal and more nuclear, with absolutely no coherent policy on how to lower energy costs and find alternatives to dwindling resources.
America is faced with the worst economic crisis in generations, Sen. Hutchison is turning away opportunities to create new jobs while slavishly clinging to the talking points of the oil industry.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 00:15 PM CDT
|
|
Where: 211 West 6th Street (corner of 6th and Lavaca Streets in downtown Austin)
When: 5:30 to about 7:00 PM
Who: MoveOn members and any like-minded individuals who are tired of the same tripe from conservative talking heads and their supportive media. Kids are welcome! This is a great opportunity to show them what activism really means.
Agenda: we will be gathering near Senator Cornyn's office, using the intersection of two one-way streets and a busy sidewalk at getting-out-of-work time to educate the public on the myths being propagated by those opposed to a green energy economy. We will have several visuals to include large signs depicting 100 new coal-fired energy generation plants allowed by the recently-passed American Clean Air and Security (ACES) Act. It passed the House by a vote of 219 to 212, but was so watered down by both Democratic and Republican Congressmen, that it barely defends our environment and hardly makes a dent into the joblessness in Texas and the country.
One particularly onerous provision is that this bill allows the construction of up to 100 new coal-fired energy plants in the future. There is no such thing as "clean coal," and these plants will only contribute to the environmental mess we are presently in.
You can also help by handing out our recently-developed informational flyers to passersby and motorists. These flyers take the more in-your-face, false statements that attempt to convince people that a green energy economy is too costly and counter-productive for our country and present the truth from past studies and scientists and economists about what the real effect will be if we don't do anything.
Please join us. We are inviting the press to a release of this document and want Austin to understand the stakes in not doing anything. We can't allow Texas' and our country's economy and environmental future to be determined by Big oil, Dirty coal and the Senators and Representatives they buy with their political contributions.
Please sign up using the following link:
http://pol.moveon.org/event/ev...
Thanks so much for your support, and we'll see you out on Thursday.
Bill Hamm
Austin MoveOn Council Coordinator
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 09:14 PM CDT
|
(An interesting take on Cap and Trade. - promoted by Matt Glazer)
The Cap and Trade Bill (HR 2454) is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and create 'green' jobs, by putting a limit on the amount of pollution large industrial industries can output, and then if they go above that, they have to buy pollution permits. If some companies do not need all that they are allocated, they can sell their permits to companies that do.
Texas U.S. Representatives Joe Barton and Pete Sessions continue their lying campaign about the "Cap and Trade" legislation by claiming that President Obama's proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions would cost households as much as $3,100 per year. Their 'Party of No' says it is a "massive national energy tax." However Texans and Americans need to know the $3,100 figure they keep lying about is a complete misrepresentation of both President Obama's proposal and the studies from which the number is derived.
An EPA analysis (Environmental Protection Agency) of the draft version found that the 'cap & trade' policy has a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers assuming the bulk of revenues from the plan are returned to American households. "The EPA estimates the average cost per household to only be between $98 and $140 per year.
|
|
There's More...
:: (11
Comments, 558 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll |
| Who do you support in the 299th District Court Runoff? |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
