Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (75766)	3/29/2017 11:39:42 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Pruitt takes fire from conservatives in climate showdown By ANDREW RESTUCCIA and ALEX GUILLÉN 03/28/17 05:08 AM EDT Updated 03/28/17 09:24 AM EDT EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is coming under fire from conservatives amid a simmering behind-the-scenes fight over how far to take President Donald Trump's push to undo his predecessor's climate change agenda. In discussions with the White House over the executive order Trump is scheduled to sign on Tuesday, Pruitt successfully argued against including language revoking the agency's 2009 “endangerment finding," according to two sources close to the issue. The endangerment finding declared that greenhouse gas emissions threaten human health and welfare and made EPA legally responsible for regulating carbon dioxide. It later set in motion much of former President Barack Obama's climate agenda. To many conservative skeptics of mainstream climate science, overturning the finding is an essential first step toward successfully undoing Obama administration climate regulations on everything from power plants to vehicles. But Pruitt, with the backing of several White House aides, argued in closed-door meetings that the legal hurdles to overturning the finding were massive, and the administration would be setting itself up for a lengthy court battle. [ Congress could legislatively kill the endangerment finding. Why won't they? ] A cadre of conservative climate skeptics are fuming about the decision — expressing their concern to Trump administration officials and arguing Pruitt is setting himself up to run for governor or the Senate. They hope the White House, perhaps senior adviser Stephen Bannon, will intervene and encourage the president to overturn the endangerment finding. Trump administration officials have not totally ruled out eventually targeting the endangerment finding. Conservative groups have petitioned the EPA to look at reopening it, one source said, and the agency may eventually be compelled to respond to the petition. Axios first reported the news of the petition. "Getting rid of the Clean Power Plan is just not enough," said Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the former leader of Trump’s EPA transition team. Ebell warned that leaving the endangerment finding in place would compel the Trump administration to come up with a replacement approach to regulating emissions from power plants and other sources that might not be too dissimilar from Obama's Clean Power Plan. "Before you know it you end up having to do a Trump Clean Power Plan," he said. James Delingpole, a Breitbart News columnist, blasted Pruitt on Monday, arguing he is "more interested in building his political career than he is taking on the Green Blob, insiders report." Bannon ran Breitbart before joining the Trump campaign last summer. Delingpole, who first reported that Pruitt advocated against reopening the endangerment finding, even suggested that the EPA administrator should resign. "But what President Trump needs now more than ever are administrators with the political will to do the right thing — which is, after all, the reason so many Americans voted for him," he wrote. "If Scott Pruitt is not up to that task, then maybe it’s about time he did the decent thing and handed over the reins to someone who is." EPA spokesman John Konkus did not directly address Pruitt's role in discussions over the endangerment finding, and said Tuesday’s order would focus on the carbon regulations for power plants. “This executive order is a victory for American jobs, and we think that speaks for itself," he said in a statement. A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. The conservative criticism of Pruitt a marks a major shift. Pruitt, a skeptic of mainstream climate science himself, was hailed by Republicans as a top-notch choice to lead the agency. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact,” Pruitt said in a recent interview. Reopening the endangerment finding is much easier said than done. Any decision to revoke it would require a lengthy notice-and-comment rulemaking, which would lead to certain litigation brought by environmentalists and states like California and New York. To survive a court challenge, Trump officials would have to prove to a court that greenhouse gases no longer pose a danger — something most observers say would not fly before any judge given the depth of scientific evidence on climate change. The fracas over the endangerment finding comes amid internal unrest at the EPA. Pruitt has expressed frustration at the White House's slow pace in nominating deputies to help him carry out the president's agenda, according to a person close to him. The executive order Trump will sign on Tuesday will instruct EPA to begin rewriting Obama's climate regulations for power plants, a process that could be complicated by the agency's barebones staff of political appointees. The EPA administrator is also facing a massive 31 percent cut to his agency's budget. Pruitt publicly raised concerns about the White House's initial proposed cuts, which amounted to about a 25 percent reduction, arguing for preserving funding for water grants and the brownfield program. Some White House officials were annoyed by Pruitt's comments, according to a person close to the matter. And the White House then slashed the EPA's budget even further. Pruitt's first weeks on the job have been marred by personality clashes. David Schnare, a member of the Trump administration's beachhead team at EPA, resigned from the agency earlier this month in frustration. Schnare has publicly remained cryptic about his reasons for leaving, saying that the matter is "complex." But he said he was bothered by disloyalty to Trump among both political appointees and career employees at EPA. But Pruitt's allies say Schnare is a disgruntled ex-employee who is unfairly targeting them. Meanwhile, EPA officials have expressed frustration at the presence of former Washington State Sen. Don Benton, the agency's White House-assigned senior adviser. Benton has repeatedly butted heads with Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff. Multiple sources speculated that Benton might soon leave the agency. And EPA is expected to bring in two new communications staffers, the sources said. The agency is eyeing J.P. Freire, a spokesman for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), as its new communications director and Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman at the American Chemistry Council, as its deputy communications director. Neither Freire nor Bowman responded to requests for comment. politico.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (75766)	3/29/2017 5:58:53 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Recommended By 3bar Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

They left off snow and vegetation cover. Snow reflects light, vegetation absorbs it. Increasing snow cover causes a runaway cooling back into reglaciation. Increasing plant cover with more CO2 to protect the plants against lack of water causes feedback warming. <<But what can be said for sure, is that the sun, the sea and the clouds are all very important >> Clouds also do feedback and form at the dew point, so as earth cools, the dew point moves closer to the equator and forms a bigger area due to increased area at latitudes nearer the equator than the poles. Earth cooled so much that for millions of years we have been in ice age with risk of Snowball Earth. Now interglacial and long may it last. But maybe only until 2020!! As predicted by Mq in October 2007. Mqurice

To: Brumar89 who wrote (75766)	3/30/2017 10:42:03 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Global Renewable Energy Capacity Increased 161 GW In Record 2016, Says IRENA March 30th, 2017 by Joshua S Hill New data published today by the International Renewable Energy Agency shows that global renewable energy generation capacity increased by 161 gigawatts in 2016, a record year for new capacity additions and proof positive of the unstoppable nature of the low-carbon energy transition. According to the Renewable Capacity Statistics 2017 (PDF) published today by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the global cumulative renewable generation capacity reached 2,006 gigawatts (GW). 2016 capacity grew by 8.7%, according to IRENA’s latest data, with a record 71 GW of new solar energy leading the global capacity additions — the first time since 2013 that solar energy outpaced wind energy capacity additions. It was still a strong year for wind, with 51 GW of new capacity, followed by hydropower with 30 GW, and bioenergy with 9 GW. “We are witnessing an energy transformation taking hold around the world, and this is reflected in another year of record-breaking additions in new renewable energy capacity,” said IRENA Director-General Adnan Z. Amin. “This growth in deployment emphasizes the increasingly strong business case for renewables which also have multiple socio-economic benefits in terms of fueling economic growth, creating jobs and improving human welfare and the environment. But accelerating this momentum will require additional investment in order to move decisively towards decarbonising the energy sector and meet climate objectives. This new data is an encouraging sign that though there is much yet to do, we are on the right path.” World renewable energy capacity has increased impressively since 2007, when it was only 989,213 megawatts (MW), growing to 2,006,202 MW in 2016. The report details the overall figures for each renewable energy technology, as well as from each continent and country. Asia accounted for 58% of all new renewable energy capacity additions in 2016, increasing it’s cumulative capacity to 812 GW, or around 41% of the world’s total capacity. Asia also came out as the fastest growing region, with a 13.1% increase in renewable energy capacity. Meanwhile, Africa doubled its 2015 installation figures, installing 4.1 GW, bringing it up to a total of 38 GW. cleantechnica.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (75766)	3/30/2017 4:25:20 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

This is false: <<But perhaps the most important fact – seldom admitted but very real – is that in total power system terms, few if any CO2 savings result. Energy is needed to make, transport and install windmills and solar systems and connect them to the existing grid, adding CO2 to the overall total. Intermittent running of fossil fuel back-up plants adds more CO2, and total savings over efficient, full-time, modern coal or gas plants are few if any – despite the much greater cost. These facts are almost never mentioned when ‘clean energy’ claims are made. >> In the 1980s, when oil prices were way up after the huge increases in 1974 and 1979 to $40 a barrel, the oil industry was doing all sorts to find alternatives such as methanol, ethanol, tallow esters, methane, propane to make cars move. One of the annoying things then was the idea of "energy balances" which were used to justify things that didn't make sense or dollar and cents. My argument was to just add up the money and if it made money it was good and if it didn't it wasn't. Adding up every little bit of energy in a manufacturing and distribution chain is hopelessly impossible. Adding up money is done to the cent and is the measuring stick used to establish value. If there are externalities such as the air being used as a dumping ground for lead, sulphur oxides, nitrous oxides, soot, etc then a value can be put on those pollutants. In the same way that energy balances did not make . There are some things such as the tax evasion part of it which will be removed when governments lose enough revenue, so investors had better plan for that. But forget about "energy balances". If somebody is making 'energy balance' arguments, it leads me to think their other points are too weak. Mqurice