Archive for lethal – Page 2

Finally! A sweet way to convince climate change deniers to change their minds: Chocolate.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

chocolate easter egg

For years we here at The Political Carnival have been all over climate change deniers, the Drill-Baby-Drillers, and their focus on what goes into their wallets and from whom. We've pounded the disaster-in-waiting tar sands pipeline, and we've blasted BP.

None of that matters, though, because the oil-addicted remain unconvinced. However, there may finally be a way to change their minds: Via their collective sweet tooth.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Chocolate is a huge business, pulling in $90 billion in global sales annually, $19 billion of it in the U.S., according to market research company Mintel Group Ltd. Price increases and product innovation helped the industry grow 16% from 2007 through 2012, the firm found.

But scientists predict a looming cocoa bean shortage, intensified by climate change and botanical disease.

The International Cocoa Organization said that global production in the last growing year fell 6.1%, and it forecasts a 1.8% slide this year. That would probably cause a cocoa shortfall of 45,000 metric tons in the current marketing year ending Sept. 30, the group said.

Tighter supplies as well as rising sugar and manufacturing costs are adding to the price of truffles and bonbons.

Will the fossil fuel supporters finally see that they must alter their polluting ways once they realize that our yummy, scrumptious, to-die-for, decadent chocolate treats are in danger because of climate change?

Let's hope these stubborn doubters are not just coo-coo, but also coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs.

bonbon appetit

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Huge jump in atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuels. So how's that Keystone Tar Sands Pipeline coming along?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

gore climate change hot in here

Recently I posted about the new State Dep’t. draft report that looks promising for backers of the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. It was disheartening, to say the least, and worrisome to anyone who is concerned about bringing the dirtiest oil on earth through America. Or climate change.

This potentially catastrophic project will only add to our environmental problems, and Bill McKibben and NASA’s Jim Hansen both warn that it would be “essentially game over for the climate” if it gets the go ahead.

Why we would continue to push our luck after this Associated Press/HuffPo report is beyond me:

The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped, new federal figures show.

Scientists say the rise in CO2 reflects the world's economy revving up and burning more fossil fuels, especially in China.

Carbon dioxide levels jumped...  says Pieter Tans, who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That's the second highest rise in carbon emissions since record-keeping began in 1959. [...]

More coal-burning power plants, especially in the developing world, are the main reason emissions keep going up – even as they have declined in the U.S. and other places, in part through conservation and cleaner energy.

Did I mention there is no such thing as "clean coal"?

Think Progress:

[W]e face destructively high sea level rise, water supplies for hundreds of millions of people threatened by climate shifts, global crop declines, bleached coral reefs around the world, a rise in ocean acidification threatening marine ecosystems, and a host of other crises.

Crisis schmisis. All the Drill-Baby-Drillers care about is what goes into their wallets. And President Obama, you and your State Department might want to think long and hard about okaying the tar sands pipeline.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO-- Van Jones: Keystone XL tar sands pipeline "takes oil THROUGH America, not TO America, then sends it to China."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

tar sands dirtiest oil on earth

Yesterday I posted about the new State Dep’t. draft report that looks promising for backers of the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. It was disheartening, to say the least, and worrisome to anyone who is concerned about bringing the dirtiest oil on earth through America.

Again, one argument for this potentially catastrophic project is profit. However, all the money in the world is meaningless if 1) nobody is around to enjoy it, and 2) it’s spent on health care that will become increasingly necessary to treat symptoms and diseases resulting from a toxic environment.

The “Earth may be near tipping point.” However, we know why the GOP insists that there’s no climate change. Nevertheless, the GOP insists on pushing a dangerous project like Keystone despite the fact that it would create very few long term jobs, gas prices would increase, dependence on foreign oil would not lessen, and Bill McKibben and NASA’s Jim Hansen both warn that it would be “essentially game over for the climate” if this crackpot project gets the go ahead.

CNN:

A required State Department report on Friday said the "construction and normal operation" of the latest proposed route would have no significant environmental effect. [...]

Environmental advocates, however, see it differently, as does Jones, who was a special adviser to Obama on the topics of green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality. [...]

The reason is that tar sands, a particularly raw form of oil, would be traveling through the pipeline, and Jones described it as "the most corrosive nasty fuel on the Earth."

L.A. Times:

The study also says that a barrel of oil sands crude would release about 17% more greenhouse gases than one of conventional crude oil refined in the United States in 2005.

Still, the study states that approving or denying the permit for Keystone XL would not have any effect on the development of the oil sands because companies would use rail, trucks and other pipelines to bring the Alberta crude to the U.S.

Opponents of the pipeline strongly disputed the conclusion, asserting that Canada and the oil industry have said that Keystone XL would be critical to the expansion of oil sands development. The opponents have also said that with the pipeline would come greater greenhouse gas emissions.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer did his level best to defend the pipeline, but thankfully, Van Jones would have none of it:

"This report now says 3,900 temporary jobs." [Not hundreds of thousands, as has been claimed.]

"The pipeline takes it THROUGH America, not TO America, and then sends it to China."

"This is a foreign corporation... Canadian foreign company that's gonna actually take land from American farmers and then send the dirtiest form of energy through America overseas."

"It's going through the United States to China. We won't get a drop of it. So we risk our water, risk our farmland and get no oil - bad deal for America."

"What happens if you've got the 'Obama Pipeline'? Now it's the 'Obama Pipeline,' and it leaks. His legacy could be the worst oil disaster in American farmland history. He's got to make a tough choice."

As the L.A. Times reported, the State Department will officially determine whether to issue a permit, but "Obama indicated in 2011 that he would make the final decision."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

New State Dep't. draft report promising for backers of Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

tar sands dirtiest oil on earth

UPDATE: Here is the draft report.

Here is Josh Rogin's piece, including a reminder that it is only a draft, not a policy document, and here's an excerpt:

The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a statement late Friday afternoon insisting that the new plan does not address its concerns.

"The facts remain absolutely clear: the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in our national interest. Mining the tar sands would be a disaster for our climate," said NRDC Canada Project Director Danielle Droitsch. "Piping it through the heartland would put our ranchers and farmers at risk. And sending it to the Gulf only makes our country a dirty oil gateway to overseas markets. It's not in our national interest. It's a bad idea. It needs to be denied."

Original post:

Well this is disheartening, to say the least.

Via an email alert from Politico:

A new State Department draft report makes no clear recommendation on whether the U.S. should approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but it also downplays some of the warnings from green activists who say it would pose a major threat to the Earth's climate.

Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones told reporters it's "premature" to say whether the findings of the draft report suggest an endorsement of the pipeline project. Stressing that the report is a draft, Jones said the State Department is "really looking for the public debate at this point."

Still, parts of the report seem to be a blow to environmental groups that have made defeat of the pipeline one of their top demands of President Barack Obama. But it's promising for backers of the project, who said the Canadian crude oil could fuel dreams of energy independence.

For more information... http://www.politico.com

Again, Tar Sands Pipelines won’t bring the dirtiest oil on earth TO America, they bring it THROUGH America.

To repeat: One argument for the pipeline project is profit. However, all the money in the world is meaningless if 1) nobody is around to enjoy it, and 2) it’s spent on health care that will become increasingly necessary to treat symptoms and diseases resulting from a toxic environment.

The “Earth may be near tipping point.” However, we know why the GOP insists that there’s no climate change. Nevertheless, the GOP insists on pushing a dangerous project like Keystone despite the fact that it would create very few long term jobs, gas prices would increase, dependence on foreign oil would not lessen, and Bill McKibben and NASA’s Jim Hansen both warn that it would be “essentially game over for the climate” if this crackpot project gets the go ahead.

This is a potentially catastrophic project.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare