President Trump Tries To Open Up Arctic For Oil Drilling, Judge Says No

Photo by:  Willian Justen de Vasconcellos on Unsplash

Breaking news -- not really.  Read all about it...President Trump tries to open up the Arctic Ocean for oil drilling and is met in court with a response of 'No':

 In a major legal blow to President Trump’s push to expand offshore oil and gas development, a federal judge ruled that an executive order by Mr. Trump that lifted an Obama-era ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawful.

The decision, by Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, concluded late Friday that President Barack Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawal of about 1120 million acres of Arctic Ocean from drilling “will remain in full force and effect unless and until revoked by Congress.” She wrote that an April 2017 executive order by Mr. Trump revoking the drilling ban “is unlawful, as it exceeded the president’s authority.”

The decision, which is expected to be appealed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, immediately reinstates the drilling ban on most of the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska, a pristine region home to endangered species including polar bears and bowhead whales where oil companies have long sought to drill. It also has broader implications for Mr. Trump’s effort to push drilling across the American coastline and on public lands.

Specifically, the Arctic Ocean drilling case could give legal ammunition to opponents of Mr. Trump’s efforts to roll back protections for two million acres of national monuments created by Mr. Obama and President Bill Clinton.

With each passing day, the news is filled with updates on the success of the transition toward a renewable energy future.  Some may detail certain obstacles while others break the news regarding either a private entity or government moving (or making a commitment) toward achieving a non-zero percentage of their energy economy on clean (renewable) energy.  This reality is not new.



Neither is President Trump's inability to realize that 'rolling back' environmental laws put in place by the Obama Administration takes skill (and reason/logic) to reverse.  Congress will have to act at the very least.  Within that act will have to be a good reason to repeal the law put into place.  I have previously stated on this blog site the fact that if a rule is to be changed, the replacement has to be better than the previous law.



Which is to say that the law needs to be even more environmentally friendly than the previous proposal to be passed.  Otherwise, the existing law stays in place and is continuously challenged in courts -- as has been the case for the Trump Administration over the last two years.   I try hard to explain that rule to everyone with whom I meet and discuss the 'rollbacks' that supposedly have been accomplished by the Trump Administration.



The reality is stated in the article above that the Trump Administration has failed miserably on at least 40 accounts to persuade courts to reverse or 'rollback' a given environmental rule put in place by the Trump Administration.  These decisions have been in line with the current standards set in place by Congress.  Which should surprise no one including the President of the United States.  We will next have to see what Congress says about the issue at hand.



So far Congress has been willing to hold bipartisan hearings this year on the critical issue of climate change.  Furthermore, Congress recently wrote a letter to the Director of the Department of the Interior, asking him to not drill for oil off the coast of Florida.  That should be a significant indicator to President Trump that his attempts to 'rollback' any Obama Administration's environmental regulations (at least the majority of them) is not an accessible route to go down.



Of course, we are dealing with a non-traditional President of the United States currently.  The newspapers should keep up the great work at reporting on such failures.  Otherwise, a person might be led to think that a 'rollback' is possible without Congress.  The reality is that even Congress is batting for a renewable energy future.  Although the timeline might be debatable.  Nonetheless, a clean, renewable energy future is coming.  Stay tuned.



Related Blog Posts:


Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!

Los Angeles Finally Joins the Transition Away From Fossil Fuel Investment

Source: Carbon Brief

Last October, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the realization that by 2045 California will be a net zero (carbon neutral) economy/state.  That rocked the news for a while, and news circulated about the transition.  Speculation as to whether that transition was even possible came from the conservative side of the state, whereas the more liberal side of the state claimed that the law was not enough to make the Paris Agreement targets.



Further criticism circulated in the news regarding Governor Brown's treatment of the fossil fuel industry.  Critics charged that he was not being tough enough on them.  These critics included those in favor of shutting down Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility located in Porter Ranch, California (the Valley).  The following news from Mayor Garcetti last week in an article from the 'Los Angeles Times' titled "Los Angeles ditches plan to invest billions in fossil fuels, Mayor Eric Garcetti says" outlined the plan to achieve transition away from fossil fuels:

Los Angeles has steadily moved away from coal for electricity, divesting from the Navajo plant in Arizona three years ago and announcing plans to stop buying power from Utah’s Intermountain plant by 2025. But with coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, now nearly removed from the city’s energy mix, it’s time to start planning for a future with zero planet-warming energy sources, Garcetti said Monday — and that means no natural gas.

“It’s the right thing to do for our health. It’s the right thing to do for our Earth. It’s the right thing to do for our economy,” Garcetti said. “And now is the time to start the beginning of the end of natural gas.”

“This is the Green New Deal,” he added, referring to the sweeping climate change policies championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) and endorsed by several contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Not in concept, not in the future, but now.”

The mayor’s decision comes several months after state lawmakers passed a bill requiring California to get 100% of its electricity from climate-friendly sources by 2045, up from a previous target of 50% renewable by 2030.

This comes at the news from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to the Mayor's office regarding the cost associated with repairing (rebuilding) the seven water cooled (ocean cooled) natural gas power plants along with three other plants at a cost of $3.8 billion.  Whereas the cost to rebuilding the three other plants with solar and energy efficiency would be $2.2 billion.  The time has come to transition toward total (carbon neutral) clean energy.



The Mayor has challenged LA DWP with the task and he is right to do so.  Not just to make incremental adjustments.  A new leader should be bold and insist on LA DWP moving at another speed, preferably WARP speed compared to their normal GOVERNMENT speed -- which is filled with obstacles and potential funding limitations.  I commend Mayor Garcetti for taking a bold action step which is in line with Germany and other nations around the world.  I have written on the obvious fact that the transition toward renewable clean energy is inevitable.  Plus, the capital available for investment was small a few years ago, but has been growing over time.



European nations are taking bold steps to change their dependence on dirty energy.  China has liberated us with the ever dropping price of solar.  Solar is dropping in price as we speak.  In a few years, photovoltaics will be a dominant source of energy generation.  Clean solar photovoltaic energy is on its way.  Current limitations in the renewable energy sector which are screamed by the opposition are 'STORAGE'.  How are we (as a nation) going to efficiently store the clean renewable energy to meet off hours demand?  Batteries?  More research needs to be done, but is not far off.



Both the government and the private sector are racing to meet the demands of the future transition toward renewable energy.  A sustainable environment is what is being asked of our nation's residents.  Now, both the private sector along with the government need to make this happen.  Typically, throughout history, when the pressure is applied to an industry, change happens.  In this case, a range of industries are responding to a global pressure and similar to the improvements which are made during war time, the current global investment is exciting and should yield some amazing results.



The future is exciting.



Related Blog Posts:



Parameters: Germany Plans To Cut Coal Dependence By 2038

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels

Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!

Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Parameters: GM Lays Off Thousands Of Workers -- Why? People Are Not Buying Cars?

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK


Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


French President Macron Calls On U.S. Congress To Save The Planet


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Parameters: South Korea Uses Renewable Energy For Olympic Games


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement

Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future

World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?

John Dingell: Longest Serving Senator, Environmentalist and Avid Climate Change Supporter Dies At 92

Source: KID 590 News Radio

Imagine that you just joined congress, the year is 1955.  The nation just experienced a landmark court case 'Brown v. Board of Education' -- 'separate but equal'.  Could you predict that over the next 59 years of your service on the nation's capital, you will experience the following events: the creation of the environmental movement, the civil rights movement, the very contested court case 'Roe v. Wade' (abortion rights), destruction of the Berlin Wall, the rise of digital technology, and finally, a bipartisan public acceptance that climate change is not just real but is man-made -- WOW.

Who is John Dingell -- Briefly?

Over the past few days, there have been historical accounts all over the internet describing Senator John Dingell.  One article of interest with a brief but concise historical account of John Dingell recently appeared in 'Politico' titled "You’re Living in the America John Dingell Made" -- which accurately reflects the contributions made to the nation on behalf of the 'Junkyard Dog of Congress' ( a moniker attributed to him by the 'Detroit Free Press').  His love of the nation was unparalleled and reflective in his 59 years of service in congress.   There are two paragraphs out of the article which is worth reading but highlight the enormity of his contributions to the nation:

Modern America is as much a creation of John Dingell’s life work as anyone’s. If you or a parent or grandparent have relied on Medicare or Medicaid; if you’ve seethed about the lack of gun control; if you’ve cheered that segregation of public places is illegal and employment discrimination is banned; if you’re thankful for the continued existence of the U.S. auto industry; if you’ve raged about gas-guzzling cars contributing to climate change; if your health insurance is purchased on the Obamacare exchanges; if you’ve swum in lakes or rivers or oceans free from toxic pollution; if you’ve drunk a glass of or bathed your children in tap water with confidence that it’s free from contamination; then John Dingell played a role in your life.

Then followed later in the article by the second shown below:

 Among the legislation he authored or led the charge in passing: the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Air Act of 1990. He worked to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which resulted in a bruising primary fight and the burning of a cross on Dingell’s lawn for the second time in his life (his father had been an anti-Klan activist, and even as an old man, John Jr. remembered being 5 or 6 years old and looking out the front window of his family’s home to see a flaming cross). “Of all the bills I’ve played a part in helping pass into law,” he wrote in his 2018 memoir, The Dean, “that remains the one I’m most proud of.”

The reason why I chose the two paragraphs above were to show the inevitable touch of John Dingell in all of our lives (to some degree) along with his remarkable care for the environment.  As stated, he authored or played a pivotal role in passing the following environmental acts: (1) Clean Water Act of 1972, (2) the Endangered Species Act of 1983, (3) the Water Quality Act of 1965, and the Clean Air Act of 1990.



I was struck to see the legislation (issues) for which he has been fighting for are still in contention to this day.  Modest improvements have been made, but there has been a large struggle for change over the past few decades with regard to saving the environment and the planet for that matter.  He has not always sided with environmentalists either.  Although, in sum total, he has fought vigorously for the environment.  Currently, we are at a cross section where change toward reducing our dependence on fossil fuels while increasing our usage of renewable energy sources is front and center stage.

Green New Deal?

Recently, a new resolution titled "Green New Deal" has been circulating in congress over the last week.  First, the "Green New Deal" is arriving in congress at an unprecedented time in history.  Although, the rise of environmental policy has been emerging over decades in congress with Senator John Dingell pushing forward the addition of new regulations to move the needle of progress a tiny bit further.  Currently, we are living in an unprecedented time in history.  I will come back to this fact shortly, but let's return to the initial reaction of the unveiling of the "Green New Deal."



So far -- Bipartisan (mostly Republican) comments on the "Green New Deal" would have the public think that the world is going to down hill toward destruction in a short amount of time due to the ambiguous wording in the resolution.  Although, the authors Senator Alexamdria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey state that there is bipartisan support for such a deal -- large bipartisan support for a climate deal.  Of course, President Trump is using the "Green New Deal" as a platform issue on which to scare people into thinking the following misconceptions:

"I really don't like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane rights, of 'let's hop a train to California,' of you're not allowed to own cows anymore!" Trump said at a large rally Monday night in El Paso, Texas.

"It would shut down American energy, which I don't think the people in Texas are going to be happy with," Trump said elsewhere in the speech, eliciting cheers from the audience of more than 5,000. "It would shut down a little thing called air travel. How do you take a train to Europe?"

Trump appears to have seized on a line from an informal page of FAQs about the Green New Deal, released last week by Ocasio-Cortez, one of the resolution's co-sponsors, which specifically referred to cows and airplanes.

The blowback and support for the 'Green New Deal' is reported by Politico Energy' as follows:

A GREEN NEW DAY: The Green New Deal resolution sets out aggressive goals to achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions in a decade, as well as a broad set of other transformative economic changes. Michael Grunwald makes the case that even though enacting would be impossible, the resolution still has two useful purposes for Democrats.

"It's primarily a political manifesto, a messaging device designed to commit the Democratic Party to treating the climate crisis like a real crisis, pressuring its presidential candidates to support radical transformation of the fossil-fueled economy," he writes. "At the same time, the Green New Deal is a policy proposal — or at least a sketch of one, a way to launch a substantive debate over how Democrats will attack the crisis if they do regain the White House." Read more.

THE NEXT STEPS are now in the hands of House Democrats, who only this week began to reckon with climate change at the committee level. Most House Democrats were quick to laud the goals of the resolution, but soon split on whether they'd formally back the measure, as Pro's Eric Wolff, Anthony Adragna and Zack Colman report.

Enter the select panel on climate change: Members of the new House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis say they're aiming to use the resolution as a template — even though the panel doesn't have the power to move legislation. Still, they plan to build public support for aggressive policies, as Anthony reports for Pros.

"What I hope this committee does is develop a very ambitious and very comprehensive road map to decarbonize our economy," said Rep. Jared Huffman, a panel member and Green New Deal co-sponsor.

I show the above excerpts not to lead the reader into a debate over the specific wording of the "Green New Deal" or the way out of 'climate crisis' over the next few decades.  What I am here to show that the fact that there is a "Green New Deal" being discussed in congress at the moment is a testament toward the current status of the nation with regard to climate change.  There is a bipartisan support -- finally -- for change toward a renewable future.  Further, there are public statements emerging from Republicans about the need to move toward combating climate change (along with an admission that climate change is caused by man).  WOW.



Last week, there were three different hearings in congress over the need to take action to combat climate change.  This is unprecedented for both parties to admit publicly that climate change is man made and needs to be dealt with immediately.  Of course, no one needs to show the obvious evidence on display around the world: increased frequency of storms, fires, population extinction, landmass destruction for agriculture, etc. -- to name a few.



The fact that there were three landmark hearings last week (and one this week), is a sign that many are stepping up and voicing their support toward a renewable (sustainable) energy future.   The actual plan may change, but the direction toward a more sustainable future is inevitable and has gained a large amount of support across congress - which is greatly encouraging.



The first occurred on Tuesday morning in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce titled "TIME FOR ACTION: ADDRESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE."  For those interested in watching the 3 and a half hour hearing, the video is below:

If you do not listen to any appreciable length of the above testimony, be sure to listen to the opening statements from both democrats and republicans -- which are extremely encouraging.  Climate change impacts everyone.  The time has come to take action.



The second hearing was held by the Natural Resources Committee titled "Climate Change: Impacts and the Need to Act" is shown below:

Again, the opening statements were encouraging regarding the need to act immediately along with the bipartisan support.



The third hearing has been rescheduled for this week (Feb 13th).  The House, Science, Space, and Technology Committee is holding a hearing titled "The State of Climate Science and Why it Matters."  Bipartisan effort shows that finally action is being taken.  Not only taken, but taken seriously and publicly announcing the need to take such action seriously -- which is a marked improvement over the last few decades.



Which brings us to the end and final note.  Senator John Dingell lived until the ripe age of 92.  As stated above, his life was full of great adventure and change.  Congressional change which will has helped and will shape our society for decades to come.  Environmentalists such as Senator Dingell have paved the way forward by laying the difficult initial ground.  Just because there is opposition, the following shows that we (as in the U.S.) is late to the game and implementing action:

JOHN DINGELL DIES AT 92: Former Democratic Rep. John D. Dingell Jr., the longest-serving member of Congress whose tenure stretched from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama, died on Thursday at 92. ME offers condolences to his family, and is reminded of the prescience of his take on how the fight over climate change would unfold.

He warned in 2008 that Congress needed to act on climate change because combating it under the Clean Air Act could be a "glorious mess." (Pros will recall ex-EPA chief Scott Pruitt frequently cited that phrase to help justify his deregulatory agenda.) "It seems to me to be insane that we would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment, which everybody tells us has to be addressed with great immediacy, to a long and complex process of regulatory action, litigation upon litigation, and a lack of any kind of speedy resolution to the concerns we have about the issue of global warming," he said at a hearing that year.

His prognostication proved correct. When cap-and-trade failed to pass Congress, the Obama administration turned to existing CAA authorities to target greenhouse gases. Now — 11 years after he said EPA would be "tarred and feathered" if it tried to tackle climate change on its own — Obama's landmark carbon rules for power plants and autos have been blocked in the courts and are being rolled back by the Trump administration. "Structuring a comprehensive climate change program is a responsibility for the Congress," Dingell said in 2008. He died just hours after congressional Democrats unveiled their Green New Deal.

As I have written before on these pages, change is inevitable considering the forward momentum of the international governments.  The investment capital is present and growing to match the need.  The workforce is present to match the need.  Elevating skilled labor to match the renewable energy sector demand will enable previously back breaking jobs to be changed out with new jobs -- jobs which match the changing technology landscape of the future.  As automation plays a greater role in our society, the skilled labor can continue to educate to do more complicated jobs.  Jobs such as monitoring and troubleshooting robotic teams - as Amazon does currently.



Regardless, the need for new jobs is present and will be matched by the growing demand of the renewable energy sector.  The total overhaul of infrasture in our nation (existing buildings, landscapes, etc.) will require large amounts of labor.  Senator John Dingell has laid down to rest in peace.  Ironically, he did so after learning that his job here on Earth had been accomplished with a bipartisan deal -- "Green New Deal" being unveiled.  He will not be forgotten as his work will play a more vital role as the world moves toward a more sustainable and healthy environment for all humans to live.  Thank you Senator John Dingell.



Related Blog Posts:


EPA Administrator Nominee Andrew Wheeler's Opening Statement - Confirmation Hearing!

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels

Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?

What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?

A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?

Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?

Parameters: Germany Plans To Cut Coal Dependence By 2038

Source: Climate Action

Whenever the transition toward renewable energy is brought up in discussions, people typically tighten up showing a large amount of uncertainty about the topic.  Regardless of their knowledge of the process or the timeline, one certainty exists in today's world:  A large number of countries, local governments, states along with industries are starting to make the transition toward a renewable energy-based system in the future.  Each might possess an individual pace.  But ultimately, each are headed in the correct direction: away from a fossil fuel dependent economy (and world).

Renewable Energy Not Fossil Fuels

The transition toward renewable energy has been under fire to different degrees in different nations.  In the European countries, renewable energy is becoming more favorable with the political will emerging.  Just recently, an article in 'The Ecologist' stated that Lithuania received the European Commission's support to transition toward renewable energy:

International renewable energy industry experts predict that within the next two decades, traditional energy sources such as gas, coal, and oil due will be replaced 100 percent by renewables as a result of their current slow-to-non existent growth rates.

In light of these findings, Lithuanian energy experts believe that by continually meeting EU energy directives, incentivising electricity production, and pursuing corporate responsibility targets where companies aim to be powered 100 percent by renewables, then Lithuania can set an example to policy makers and solar energy suppliers in neighbouring Latvia and Estonia on how to reduce the entire Baltic region’s need for Russian energy and pursue its own energy autonomy.

European investors have been increasingly committing more over time as banks are reassured by technologists and policy makers along with industry analysts that the transition is not only going to happen -- but that the transition will have ample funding with more on the way.  Not to mention that political will is increasing slowly but surely.



Now, Germany recently announced a major change (Big News!!!) to take place by 2038.  The organization 'Climate Action' presented the news as follows:

The Federal Government in Germany has announced plans to phase out coal by 2038.

The Commission on Growth, Employment and Structural Change released a 20-year report which has agreed to cancel out coal by 2038.

With only one vote against, the commission agreed on a total of 40 billion euros in aid for the states affected by the coalition exit. The federal Government will now turn the commission report into a reliable energy concept.

Olaf ScholzIf, Federal Finance Minister, said: “If we do not lose sight of the common goal, we can develop Germany into an exemplary state of energy policy."

In the years 2023, 2026 and 2029, the Commission will undertake a review by an independent panel of experts.

In response to this review, the power plant capacity will be reduced to 17 gigawatts of brown coal and hard coal in 2030, more than halving it. Depending on the report, the withdrawal of coal could take place, according to the recommendation of the commission, by 2035.

Greenpeace have called for this target to be brought forward to 2030 to ensure that carbon emissions are reduced sooner.

It was reported that, in 2018, the production of coal accounted for 38 per cent of Germany’s energy generation. This move away from fossil fuel generation will put Germany back on track to meet the targets set at the Paris Agreement.

This news follows a report that found that the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels is crucial to meet important climate targets.

The report found that if carbon intensive technologies were replaced by carbon-free alternatives, carbon emissions would steadily decline, dropping to near zero in 40 years. This would result in a 64 per cent chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Great.  Everything stated above is encouraging.  Germany is taking the lead in changing the entire system of nations.  The rest of Europe are on board too as reported in the article before the above statement.  The European Commission must continue to offer assurance (i.e. support).  From the news reports over the last couple of years, the support not only seems to be building, but nations are actually taking action in the European Union.



Although, the size of Germany has always been brought up in discussions here in the United States.  The argument is that a smaller nation is able to make sweeping changes more easily than larger ones can.  Alright.  I can see that.  But that is no excuse for not making changes here -- especially on a state by state basis -- which is comparable to the size of Germany.

Size -- California vs. Germany??

Right after the article above was published (and I read the article), I was talking with my colleague who holds German citizenship.  She was born in Germany.  In a prior discussion about Germany moving toward the use of natural gas, she warned that the move could be potentially dangerous considering the main source of gas presently -- Gazprom -- from Russia.  This would put Germany at the hands of Russian gas giants (effectively Russia) for a stable and steady gas supply.



Although, since that discussion, the natural gas industry has started to boom (in the sense of shipping).  Technology has improved the ability to ship liquified natural gas all around the world.  Now, back to the discussion at hand.  This massive shift in dependence on fossil fuels in a reasonable amount of time makes other countries uneasy.  Some here in the United States view this transition as 'short sighted' since the infrastructure and change is occuring on such a short time scale.



But is the timescale that short?  What kind of transition plan is reasonable? How long should the U.S. or Germany rely on coal/fossil fuels?



The change that Germany is embarking on reminds me of the recent (as in the past few months) commitment to renewable energy made by then Governor Jerry Brown regarding the state of California.  Governor Brown signed into law last year the commitment to have California on a carbon neutral (net zero) program for energy by 2045.  This was ambitious to say the least.



Remember that California's economy is the fifth largest in the world.  Which may cause someone to immediately draw parallels between Germany's transition and California's transition.  Let's look at the size (landmass) difference between the two for a closer comparison.  First, Germany's landmass is shown below:

Next, California's landmass is shown below:

As you can see, California has a larger landmass than Germany.  With Governor Jerry Brown signing into law the transition to a carbon neutral economy by 2045, the current announcement above for Germany by 2038 is not too far fetched.  Especially given the size of the two landmasses.  Additionally, Germany is probably better suited to the transition toward renewable energy -- which is why the date is set for a complete transition earlier.



Regardless, the news above is exciting to those who are big fans for the transition toward a greater dependence on renewable energy.  As this post is published (Wednesday morning), a subcommittee is gathering in the U.S. Congress --House Committee on Energy & Commerce -- is meeting to discuss action for the United States of America.  I will write a follow up post on the hearing in the near future.  We should watch and note these commitments of transitioning toward renewable energy.  Further, these commitments should serve as a motivation to build momentum toward change.  The future of transitioning toward renewable energy is turning into a reality and is really exciting.



Related Blog Posts:


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!

Parameters: GM Lays Off Thousands Of Workers -- Why? People Are Not Buying Cars?

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK


Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


French President Macron Calls On U.S. Congress To Save The Planet


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Parameters: South Korea Uses Renewable Energy For Olympic Games


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement

Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future

World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?

Was Enough Coal Ash Spilled Into A Local Lake To Fill Up 2/3 Of An Olympic Sized Swimming Pool?

Source: The Daily Beast

Hurricane Florence has no doubt had a devastating and long lasting impacts on the East Coast which will unveil themselves over time.  Already at the outset, a forecaster predicted that nearly 17 trillion gallons of rain would fall over four states - which has partially come true.  The damage has caused lawmakers to call or write elected politicians in Washington D.C. for around $1.2 billion - just for South Carolina alone.  Unknown to most, is that additionally, other potentially dangerous spills have occurred which have not made the popular news cycle.  As noted in an e-mail from Politico Energy, a coal ash pit broke and spilled a fair amount of toxic solution into a lake as stated below:

Coal ash collapse: Duke Energy said Saturday that heavy rains from Florence had caused the collapse of a slope in the coal ash landfill at a closed plant outside Wilmington. About 2,000 cubic yards of the toxic waste was displaced, the company said in a statement — roughly enough to fill two-thirds of an Olympic-sized swimming pool — although it could not say how much reached a lake that the plant used as a cooling pond or if any coal ash reached the Cape Fear River. Environmental groups that have been fighting in court to force the cleanup of coal ash pits pointed out that the lake is used for recreation and fishing. "After this storm, we hope that Duke Energy will commit itself to removing its ash from all its unlined waterfront pits and, if it refuses, that the state of North Carolina will require it to remove the ash from these unlined pits," Frank Holleman with the Southern Environmental Law Center said in a statement.

In the blog post below, we will verify the statement: "About 2,000 cubic yards of the toxic waste was displaced, the company said in a statement -- roughly enough to fill two-thirds of an Olympic-sized swimming pool..."  Additionally, another potential disaster -- a coal ash spill will be analyzed at the very end of the blog post from South Carolina.

What Is The Volume Of An Olympic-sized Swimming Pool?

In a recent blog post regarding the amount of oil flowing through a pipeline in Canada, the Olympic-sized swimming pool was used as a metric -- i.e. a volume which to compare other large volumes too.  A typical Olympic-sized swimming pool is shown in the picture below:

Source: Spring Pool Builder

The volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool is 660,430 gallons as noted in the previous blog cited above.  With the metric -- i.e. Olympic-sized swimming pool -- defined in terms of volume, we can proceed to verify the statement above -- to prove that the amount of coal ash spilled would fill nearly 2/3 of an Olympic-sized pool.  Let's get on with the analysis...



In order to compare the amount of coal ash which spilled to the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, both values (statistic and metric) need to be defined in uniform (the same) units of measurement.  The author states the volume of coal ash in units of 'cubic yards' whereas the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool was cited above in units of 'gallons'.  Therefore, to proceed forward, a unit conversion is necessary: change units from 'cubic yards' to 'gallons'.



To determine the unit conversion factor from units of 'cubic yards' to 'gallons', first we consult Google with the following question: How many gallons are in a cubic yard?   The answer is shown below:

The answer indicates that there are 201.974 gallons in a single cubic yard.  With this unit conversion factor in hand, the conversion from 'cubic yards' to 'gallons' is accomplished below:

Now that both statistics (coal ash spill and metric) are expressed in the same units of measurement, a simple division of the two values will yield the number of Olympic-sized swimming pools which could be filled with 2,000 cubic yards of coal ash as shown below:

How do we make sense of the answer shown above?  Comparing the amount of coal ash which spilled to the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool yields the number 0.61 -- but remember the author states that the amount which spilled is around 2/3 of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.  Therefore, compare 0.61 to 2/3 -- a fraction computed below:

The answer indicates that the two numbers -- calculated 0.61 and 0.67 (2/3) are within 10% of one another -- which is good.  The author was good in his assertion in the excerpt above.  Readers of this blog site might inspect the answer and think critically about the size of the spill relative to other spills discussed in previous blogs.  Why worry about a volume of coal ash equivalent to 2/3 the size of an Olympic-sized swimming pool?



The fact of the matter is that any sizable amount of coal ash which leaks into a natural waterway could harm the public and future damage down the line.  Which is unacceptable.  As you will learn below, the analysis goes further and identifies a much larger volume of coal ash which could potentially cause an unbelievable amount of damage to waterways.

South Carolina - Potential Spill?

Recently, in the news, the statistic was reported from South Carolina which caused me to wonder how the reported number compares to the reported one above.  The article was titled "SC coal ash pit with 200,000 tons of waste could start taking on water Tuesday":

A pit of coal ash holding some 200,000 tons of toxic sludge in Conway could start taking on water Tuesday as the Waccamaw River sloshes over its banks.

How does the reported number or value of 200,000 tons compare to 2,000 cubic yards?  To start the analysis, a unit conversion factor is needed.  We can consult Google with the following question: How many grams are in 200,000 tons?  The answer is shown below:

In previous blog posts, the methodology follows that above, which is to determine a 'unit conversion factor' then convert initial numbers to the desired units.  For the purposes of brevity, taking a slightly different route, we just asked Google to help us convert from units of 'ton' to 'gram'  directly.



With the mass determined in units of 'grams', the proper way to extract a volume of a given mass of a substance is to use the density of a substance.  Using the density, a volume can be determined as shown below:

The answer is expressed in units of 'milliliters'.  A couple remaining steps are needed to arrive at a final answer.  First, we need to consult Google with the following question: How many milliliters are in a gallon?  The answer is shown below:

Next, the desired units are 'gallons' which can be determined using the conversion factor above.  The number of gallons in 200,000 tons is where we would like to travel towards in the present analysis.  To get there, the conversion of mass to a volume needs to be accomplished.  This can be done by using the concept of a substances' density -- amount of mass per volume.  Below, the conversion of the mass of coal ash (mass) is converted to a volume (milliliters) is shown:

The approximation above is that the density of water was used in place of the density of 'coal ash' which is closer to 1.6 gram/mL.  Readers might be slightly disappointed, although, the final value will not change dramatically.  The conversion from 'milliliter' to 'gallon' is shown below:

Last but not least, the total amount of Olympic-sized swimming pools which could be filled with 47.9 million gallons of coal ash - potentially which might spill in South Carolina is shown below:

The answer indicates that the potential spill of 200,000 tons would have been equivalent to 73 Olympic-sized pools.  Compared to the amount which spilled in North Carolina, the above value is very large and could cause an unbelievable amount of damage to the environment.  The analysis above has shed light on two very different volumes of coal ash.  At the same time, the analysis gives the reader the ability to analyze the amount of coal ash which could damage the environment and is reported in two different news articles.

Conclusion...

Looking at this value might not seem large compared to the total quantity of rain which fell as a result of Hurricane Florence.  Although, the toxic nature of coal ash could have much greater damage than flooding.  Not to say that flood damage is not bad too to residents.  Contaminating the local water supply for decades could be a much greater risk.  For the present time being, the dams have held up.  That could be temporary given the tremendous amount of rain which has already fallen.



Never the less, the spill in Wilmington is dangerous enough to have potentially damaging effects which might not be realized for quite a while.  The potential amount under threat in other areas should be concerning.  Mining companies should be regulated to a greater extent regarding the large storage pools of coal ash which are commonly stored near mining sites.  The analysis above drives home the point which is that the potential spills along with those already occurring can be quite devastating to the surrounding ecosystems and natural resources on which residents rely.



Related Blog Posts:


South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

Why is the Trump Administration Suppressing Science -- AGAIN???

Source: CNN

If there is one major disappointment with regard to the present administration, the suppression of science is ranked at the top of the list.  Why?  What has science done to the President or the administration officials in the past?  Gone against the desires of the oil and gas industry?  Well, the truth is that the era of fossil fuels is over or coming to an end in the distant future -- like it or not.  Anyways, suppressing scientific results is not good for the survival of mankind and has been implemented more than once in this administration.  People need to speak up and say "stop".  Although, that is besides the point of suppression.  Here is the latest example shown below.

US Geological Survey?

Yes, the United States Geological Survey is the latest federal agency to get reprimanded.  Down at the bottom of the blog post, a list of other blog posts previously written serve as prior examples.  According to a news article in the journal "The Scientist" titled " Trump Admin Restricts Federal Scientists Talking with Reporters" the USGS has been restricted from speaking to the media as shown below.  Here is the entire article which I thought was worth showing:

Scientists with the United States Geological Survey will need approval from the Department of the Interior before they agree to interviews with reporters, according to a new directive from President Donald Trump’s administration, The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday (June 21).

“The clamp down on scientists at USGS comes in an environment of increasing control of scientific information by the federal government,” deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Michael Halpern, tells CNBC.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, USGS employees told The LA Times that the directive is a big shift from past media policy and will make it difficult for researchers to respond to reporters’ requests after earthquakes or other breaking news events. The Department of the Interior’s communications office can also refuse interview requests on scientific matters, according to the new directive.

“The characterization that there is any new policy or that it for some reason targets scientists is completely false,” Faith Vander Voort, a deputy press secretary for the Department of the Interior, tells The LA Times in an email. Instead, she says, the Department of the Interior’s communications office “simply asked” the USGS public affairs office to adhere to guidelines for media requests published in 2012. She did not say what forced the change in how USGS researchers interact with the media, The LA Times reports. 

The 2012 guidelines, according to The LA Times, ask that researchers notify the Department of the Interior’s communications office of media requests but don’t specify the need for approval to talk to reporters. Yet, an April 25 email from department’s press secretary, Heather Swift, says standard protocol is to get approval for interviews with major media outlets, to speak about controversial topics, or to talk with regional reporters on topics that might make national news.

“This is really quite troubling. . . . In the 44 years I was with the agency, I was never required to go through anyone for authorization to speak with a reporter,” William Ellsworth, former chief scientist of the USGS’s earthquake hazards team and now a professor of geophysics at Stanford University, tells The LA Times. “The USGS is a nonpolitical science agency. . . . These new roadblocks will not help them fulfill their mission.”

The change in protocol comes just days after media outlets reported that USGS scientists need approval from a political appointee to attend two major conferences to present their work.

In the CNBC article, Halpern notes that the Department of the Interior is not the only agency reining in scientists’ interactions with the media. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told its scientists they needed permission for interviews and even to share basic data. And, he says, at the US Environmental Protection Agency, public officials are not facilitating information flow, either.

Any attempt to suppress science which might shed a negative light on the government is an extremely disappointing action and should not be tolerated by the American people.  The cover photo (at the top of blog post) shows that there is an emerging momentum from the American people against such measures.  Which is great since as a nation, science should be incorporated more into policy making at the government level down to the local level.  This is terrible.

Conclusion...

The track record of this administration on environmental health and environmental justice is greatly lacking.  More now than ever does the public need to exert a vigilant eye toward the actions of the politicians in congress and the highest office of the land (i.e. the Presidency).  Unfortunately, each of cannot be trusting of the heads of states to have our backs in terms of safety.  Recent events which have started to have questionable consequences are emerging in the popular news.  Below are blog posts over the past year and a half which should cause each of us concern for the safety of our drinking water and other natural (and essential) resources. 



Don't be afraid to reach out to pick up your smartphone and call your elected politician and request that their future votes be in your best (and safe) interest with respect to the land on which you live.  Each of us should have access to safe resources provided by the government.  Especially, as each of us are 'tax-paying' citizens of the United States of America.  Taxes which pay the salaries of elected officials.  Just a thought to be aware of.




Related Blog Posts:



EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches

How Dangerous Are Cigarettes?

Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?

Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS

Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards

Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!

Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon

Source: The Fiscal Times

Taxes, taxes, and more taxes.  The capitalist complain about 'taxes'.  Taxes are what hinder growth complain CEO along with regulatory procedures (i.e. regulations, safety and economic regulations, etc.).  Chief Executive Officers offer explanation of lower taxes to spur an economy: lowering taxes along with easing regulations allows CEOs to hire more workers and increase wages while spending more money to kick-start the economy.



The only problem with the argument is the result that occurs time and time again with lowering taxes and easing regulations: CEOs line their own pockets with bonus's along with reporting increase profits to their shareholders (i.e. business is booming).  No one gets hired! Furthermore, we find that the public is in greater danger of a disaster (i.e. chemical spill, health hazard, outbreak, etc.) due to easing regulations.  Recently, Ralph Nader has chimed in on the subject of taxes in the form of an 'open letter' to Jeff Bezos of the giant corporation -- Amazon.  The letter is shown below:

  

June 21, 2018

Jeff Bezos, CEO

Amazon.com, Inc.

410 Terry Ave N

Seattle, WA 98109

Dear Mr. Bezos:

You’ve come a long way from being a restless electrical engineering and computer science dual major at our alma mater, Princeton University. By heeding your own advice, your own hunches and visions, you’ve become the world’s richest person – at $141 billion and counting.  You must feel you are on top of the world.

You are crushing your competition—those little stores on Main Street, USA, and other large companies that are still in business.

Your early clever minimizing of sales taxes gave you a big unfair advantage over brick and mortar stores that have had to pay 6, 7, 8 percent in sales taxes. Your tax-lawyers  and accountants are using the anarchic global tax avoidance jurisdictions to drive your company’s tax burden to zero on a $5.6 billion profit in 2017, plus receiving about $789 million from Trump’s tax giveaway law, according to The American Conservative magazine (see Daniel Kishi’s article, “Crony Capitalism Writ Large,” in the May/June 2018 edition).

Amazon has been a leading corporate welfare King and is about to reap more of this extorted harvest once you decide where to locate your second headquarters. By the way, if you are considering the Washington, D.C. area, where you are building an extended mansion worthy of an emperor, consider the fact that there is a higher concentration of public interest lawyers per square mile there than any other metropolitan area. These lawyers stand opposed to further housing price spirals, gentrification, congestion, and huge crony capitalistic subsidy demands.

Your expansion into retail stores and warehouses will further highlight the low wages and sometimes hazardous working conditions and assembly line pressures of your corporate model.  Other companies are exploiting their workers—as in Walmart (which by the way pays far more income taxes than you do on a percentage basis even under its tax avoidance schemes)— but few companies are as blatant in their planning to replace with robotics the warehouse workers and truck drivers delivering goods.

Your small Board of Directors is clueless about both their responsibility for Amazon shareholders and their overall social responsibility.  Your board will rubberstamp all of your proposals as they tally how rich you’ve made them with stock options, at the expense of your workers. I wrote you (see enclosed letter) as a shareholder to start paying a dividend—your horde of cash belongs to the shareholders, doesn’t it? You have not had the courtesy to reply to this letter.

Amazon and Starbucks have just succeeded in a grotesque power play reversing the Seattle City Council’s vote to impose a mere $48 million a year tax on large, local corporations to combat the crisis of homelessness and unaffordable housing in your hometown. Given your successful tax avoidance mania, you should be ashamed of yourself. Because of your company’s insatiable greed, you have decided to ignore the plight of the homeless.

You should spend some personal time with Seattle’s homeless. Then you can announce what you have seen is inconsistent with our society‘s values and capabilities. You should then announce that you will personally pay that annual $48 million to the city. This charitable gesture will ground, ever so slightly, your cash investments in extraterrestrial space travel. Jeff, reduce your focus on the future, installing all robotic plants and your outer space ventures. You would do well to increase your focus on what is happening presently on Earth.  Here, hard-pressed people have to live and raise their children with increasingly bleak prospects.

So you are on top of the world, hyper-rich, arrogant, with your raucous laugh and your sudden temper, believing that neither antitrust laws, nor labor laws, nor tax laws, nor consumer, nor environmental, nor securities laws will ever catch up with the excesses of your business model.

Don’t bet on it. Relentless greed with overly concentrated power (about the only thing you seem not to be willing or able to control is Alexa whose ambitions may come back to haunt you) sooner or later, faces a statute of limitations.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

 I do not pretend to understand or know the solution which will solve the issues which plague our society today.  I try to read widely and provide the reader with views which are not very popular.  By unpopular, the iconic activist Ralph Nader has dedicated his life to protecting/speaking out against wrong actions taken by either government or large corporations.



The views of activist like Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky are worth entertaining.  The evidence they cite has been accumulated over decades of their activism.  As an amateur activist myself, I am learning from a wide variety of sources.  Education is an ongoing process.  Activism is an ongoing process too.  We can learn a tremendous amount from the earlier activists.  Letters like the one above, call out CEO's on their wrongful behavior.



Furthermore, the letters are rich with references to build a platform of activism from.  I encourage each person to learn something from each of these letters I post -- even if just a faint consideration of the problem at hand occurs momentarily.  That is learning too.  Further, that sets the seed in a person's mind toward finding a solution in the future.  The solution is a collection of each of our solutions - i.e. democracy.



Related Blog Posts:


Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?

Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy


Ralph Nader Asks "Will the Federal Civil Service Defend Us?"


Activist Ralph Nader Gives Politicians Advice Post Hurricane Harvey


Activist Ralph Nader Calls To Each Pillar Of Society - A Call To Action.


Can One Community Organization Change Regional Transportation Habits?