Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 2089

Does the U.S. Need a Comprehensive Plan for Combating Climate Change?

Argument in favor

The U.S. needs to take bold steps to address climate change and be more efficient in the ways it uses energy. This bill would help accomplish both of those goals.

bart's Opinion
···
10/01/2015
Even if this isn't the right solution, it's the right dialogue to be having.
Like (439)
Follow
Share
Alis's Opinion
···
10/01/2015
The entire world knows this is the crisis of our time. If the United States does not acknowledge this problem & use our tremendous intelligence & creativity to start coping with it systematically, the world food supply will begin to dwindle, coastal cities will be under water & our economy will be disastrously disrupted. The crisis in Syria started with a catastrophic drought that Assad refused to deal with. How can we not cope with climate change as a matter of national security? I know you religious folks think God will take care of you & it's okay if the rest of us die. You need to get off your sanctimonious butts & figure out how the next generation is going to survive. These are your children, too. In case you don't know, your kids can't eat, drink & breathe all the money you pocket from dispensing political favors to carbon polluters!
Like (257)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
10/02/2015
We need to be responsible stewards of our planet. America should lead the world to clean energy.
Like (103)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill would prove to be a very costly handout to the clean energy sector at the expense of taxpayers, who would also be hit by rising gasoline and electricity prices.

Keene44's Opinion
···
10/01/2015
This is based on political ideology and not science. Government needs to stay out.
Like (90)
Follow
Share
Mike's Opinion
···
10/02/2015
They have no idea what actually causes climate change nor how they can possibly help to control the climate from changing. It's been changing for millions of years.
Like (85)
Follow
Share
Charles's Opinion
···
10/01/2015
Climate change is a hoax created by the people propagating a New World Order . The goal is to create fear in the populace with the objective to establish controls with the approval and acceptance of the populace in the name of safety.
Like (44)
Follow
Share

What is Senate Bill S. 2089?

This bill would increase spending on clean energy initiatives, plans to modernize energy infrastructure and reduce pollution — all while promoting energy efficiency and research into developing technologies. The bill seeks to mitigate the threats of climate change and promote energy efficiency.

The bill directs the U.S. to work with other countries to secure promises for cutting emissions. Electric utilities would have until 2030 to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent. Tax credits for wind and solar powered electric utilities would be extended, along with other policies that aim to make it cheaper for the average person to invest in their own solar power. Researched would also be increased on how to make trucks and factories more energy-efficient. Here are some more in depth highlights in this "compendium of state-of-the-art energy policy":


Fossil Fuel Taxes

  • Oil sands would be taxed at the same rate as crude oil, the definition of which would be broadened to include oil sands;

  • Tax incentives for the extraction and refining of oil and natural gas would be eliminated, including domestic manufacturing deductions, expensing for drilling costs, among other provisions.


Modernizing Energy Infrastructure

  • A total of $3.5 billion in appropriations for fiscal years 2016 through 2019 would be authorized to develop grants for states to improve the performance of their natural gas distribution systems;

  • The DOE would be authorized to pursue a research and development program focused on grid-scale electrical storage;

  • Also, the DOE would conduct a research and development program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks to improve the efficiency of transporting freight by 50 percent.


Clean Energy Investments

Tax incentives for clean energy would be expanded on a number of fronts, including:

  • An increase in the new commercial building efficiency deduction from $1 per square foot up to $4.75 per square foot;

  • An increase in the energy efficient home tax credit from a maximum of $1,750 to $6,500 as efficiency gains increase;

  • The creation of a new clean energy bond with a tax credit worth 28 percent of the bond’s interest;

  • Clean fuel production could receive a maximum tax incentive of $1 per energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.


Pollution Reduction and Energy Efficiency

  • The U.S. would be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least two percent each year through 2025;

  • Retail electric and gas utilities would be required to reduce their energy use by one percent in 2017. That standard would increase each year, and require a total reduction of 20 percent by 2030;

  • After 2030, the Dept. of Energy (DOE) would be required to issue new guidelines every 10 years;

  • Energy efficiency grants would be available to states that would be renewable after one and a half years for use in ongoing efforts to implement state plans.

Impact

Anyone who uses energy utilities, businesses, utility companies, state governments, the Dept. of Energy, and relevant federal agencies.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 2089

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) believes that her legislation presents an opportunity to boost the economy and cut back on carbon emissions:

“By tackling energy efficiency in sectors ranging from trucks and buildings to the electric grid, we are targeting our best opportunities for job growth, consumer savings and carbon dioxide reductions.”

This bill has 29 cosponsors, and aside from Sen. Angus King (I-ME) — who caucuses with Democrats — all of the cosponsors are Democrats.

However, this legislation isn't without detractors. Two Senate Democrats from states reliant on energy production, namely Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), have said that they will not join their colleagues in signed on to this bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) cautioned potential international partners on the issue against “entering into a binding, unattainable deal.”

Of Note: A New York Times article speculated that the driving purpose behind this bill isn’t so much immediate success — which is unlikely to happen — but to help Democrats regain control of the Senate in the 2016 elections:

“The bill has no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress, but Democrats say they believe that forcefully pushing for climate change policies could help them win control of the Senate in 2016. And if they regain the majority, they will move to enact climate legislation along the lines of the Cantwell bill.”

It has been noted that this proposal calls for even more drastic cuts than President Obama’s goal climate pollution reduction plan.

China recently announced that it would pursue a cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing carbon pollution, though there is skepticism about its ability to follow through.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user United Nations Photo)

AKA

American Energy Innovation Act

Official Title

A bill to provide for investment in clean energy, to empower and protect consumers, to modernize energy infrastructure, to cut pollution and waste, to invest in research and development, and for other purposes.

    Even if this isn't the right solution, it's the right dialogue to be having.
    Like (439)
    Follow
    Share
    This is based on political ideology and not science. Government needs to stay out.
    Like (90)
    Follow
    Share
    The entire world knows this is the crisis of our time. If the United States does not acknowledge this problem & use our tremendous intelligence & creativity to start coping with it systematically, the world food supply will begin to dwindle, coastal cities will be under water & our economy will be disastrously disrupted. The crisis in Syria started with a catastrophic drought that Assad refused to deal with. How can we not cope with climate change as a matter of national security? I know you religious folks think God will take care of you & it's okay if the rest of us die. You need to get off your sanctimonious butts & figure out how the next generation is going to survive. These are your children, too. In case you don't know, your kids can't eat, drink & breathe all the money you pocket from dispensing political favors to carbon polluters!
    Like (257)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to be responsible stewards of our planet. America should lead the world to clean energy.
    Like (103)
    Follow
    Share
    They have no idea what actually causes climate change nor how they can possibly help to control the climate from changing. It's been changing for millions of years.
    Like (85)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely, if you stand on the ideology that climate change is not real or affected by human actions then you can find yourself a seat next to the others when it all comes crumbling upon us. It's already too late we need to boldly push for global cooperation and lead the way as Americans to a brighter, Greener, future for our children and their children to enjoy. America will not survive if we don't plant the seeds for our children to enjoy the shade.
    Like (73)
    Follow
    Share
    There is an overwhelming consensus on climate change in the scientific community. This should be a common-sense non-partisan issue. This is a long-term issue and we need to take serious and definitive measures in order to make sure our world continues to be habitable, regardless of short-term costs.
    Like (57)
    Follow
    Share
    Climate change is a hoax created by the people propagating a New World Order . The goal is to create fear in the populace with the objective to establish controls with the approval and acceptance of the populace in the name of safety.
    Like (44)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill creates great incentives to face our planetary crisis
    Like (36)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course. We need to lead by example and take control of emerging technologies and industries that will arise.
    Like (25)
    Follow
    Share
    Why is the most powerful nation on earth so blinded by pseudoscientific nonsense. It's ridiculous that we can't accept a role in combating climate change.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    smfh do people really think that global warming isn't a thing???
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    The sun is growing.. That means our earth will continue to get hot as time goes on. And we have extremist groups, gangs fighting each other while ruining communities, violent protesters depriving others of the chance to rally with the candidate they support, we are trillions of dollars in debt, people are abusing the government's systems that are somehow "helping", and much more.. Now with all these important problems and many more, do you think it is necessary to put funding into climate change?? I think not.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    The laissez-faire approach to environmental policy thus far simply allows people to continue to cause damage to shared public resources without shouldering the appropriate burden themselves.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    I see the change in the weather. I live in Virginia and it has been cloudy and or raining this summer. Never seen so many clouds. Then I hear about the rest of the world. We have to do this. This bill is the first step.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    UPDATED 06/06/2017 - This is a significantly longer post, but we all need to educate ourselves, if we're to make an informed decision! S.2089 - American Energy Innovation Act As Countable member "NextGenClimate" said: "This energy bill, sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, sets even more ambitious targets than President Obama’s climate initiatives - sending a clear signal to the world that America is serious about addressing climate change. Reaching more than 50 percent clean energy by 2030 is an ambitious goal, but achievable. And if recent events are any indication, we can absolutely get it done." https://nextgenclimate.org/blog/climatechange/hillary-clinton-opposes-keystone-xl-pipeline-pope-francis-comes-to-america-and-leo-divests/ The bill directs the U.S. to work with other countries to secure promises for cutting emissions. Electric utilities would have until 2030 to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent. Tax credits for wind and solar powered electric utilities would be extended, along with other policies that aim to make it cheaper for the average person to invest in their own solar power. Researched would also be increased on how to make trucks and factories more energy-efficient. Here are some more in depth highlights in this "compendium of state-of-the-art energy policy": http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9384799/senate-democrats-energy-bill http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/senate-democrats-to-unveil-aggressive-climate-change-bill.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=0 FOSSIL FUEL TAXES: OIL SANDS WOULD BE TAXED AT THE SAME RATE AS CRUDE OIL, THE DEFINITION OF WHICH WOULD BE BROADENED TO INCLUDE OIL SANDS; TAX INCENTIVES FOR THE EXTRACTION AND REFINING OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS WOULD BE ELIMINATED, INCLUDING DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING DEDUCTIONS, EXPENSING FOR DRILLING COSTS, AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS. Modernizing Energy Infrastructure: A total of $3.5 billion in appropriations for fiscal years 2016 through 2019 would be authorized to develop grants for states to improve the performance of their natural gas distribution systems; The DOE would be authorized to pursue a research and development program focused on grid-scale electrical storage; Also, the DOE would conduct a research and development program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks to improve the efficiency of transporting freight by 50 percent. Clean Energy Investments: TAX INCENTIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY WOULD BE EXPANDED on a number of fronts, including: An increase in the new commercial building efficiency deduction from $1 per square foot up to $4.75 per square foot; An increase in the energy efficient home tax credit from a maximum of $1,750 to $6,500 as efficiency gains increase; The creation of a new clean energy bond with a tax credit worth 28 percent of the bond’s interest; Clean fuel production could receive a maximum tax incentive of $1 per energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. Pollution Reduction and Energy Efficiency: The U.S. would be REQUIRED TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY AT LEAST TWO PERCENT EACH YEAR THROUGH 2025; RETAIL ELECTRIC ANDGAS UTILITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE THEIR ENERGY USE BY ONE PERCENT IN 2017. THAT STANDARD WOULD INCREASE EACH YEAR, AND REQUIRE A TOTAL REDUCTION OF 20 PERCENT BY 2030; After 2030, THE DEPT. OF ENERGY (DOE) WOULDBE REQUIRED TO ISSUE NEW GUIDELINES EVERY 10 YEARS; Energy efficiency grants would be available to states that would be renewable after one and a half years for use in ongoing efforts to implement state plans. [Remember, grants are government's way of maintaining CONTROL! What the government gives, the government can also TAKE AWAY!] "The vast majority of the world economy relies on energy sources or manufacturing techniques that release greenhouse gases at almost every stage of production, transportation, storage, delivery & disposal while a consensus of the world's scientists attribute global warming to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring colorless, odorless trace gas that is ESSENTIAL to the BIOSPHERE. This intimate linkage between global warming and economic vitality implicates almost every aspect of a nation-state's economy." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming SO, JUST LET THAT SINK IN AND THINK HOW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS BILL WOULD AFFECT OUR ECONOMY! This is a path to economic ruination for our country! NO TYPE OF SO-CALLED "GREEN" ENERGY IS RISK-FREE! Wind power kills birds and bats, and probably some beneficial insects, as well. Ocean-generated power can potentially disrupt currents and cause disastrous effects to the food chain, as well as world climate patterns! Solar power cell production is very polluting! As for nuclear power, who wants to risk another Chernobyl or Fukushima disaster?! Not me!!! "Because carbon dioxide emitting fossil fuels are intrinsically connected to a developed nation-state's economy, the taxation of fossil fuels or policies that decrease the availability of cost-effective fossil fuels is a significant political matter for fear that those taxes might precipitate a decrease in economic vitality. The replacement of cost-effective fossil fuels with more expensive renewable energy sources are seen by many as a hidden tax that would achieve the same result of depressing economic vitality and lead to impoverishment. Beyond the economic vitality of a single nation, some are concerned that taxation would depress economic activity in a manner that could affect the geopolitical order by providing incentives to one set of countries over another." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming EDUCATE YOURSELVES, PEOPLE, ABOUT SO-CALLED "GREEN" ENERGY!! How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really? • Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics. • The silicon used to make the vast majority of today's photovoltaic cells is abundant, but a "silicon-based solar cell requires a lot of energy input in its manufacturing process," said Northwestern's You. The source of that energy, which is often coal, he added, determines how large the cell's carbon footprint is. November 11, 2014 PHOTO: Workers install solar panels in California. Although solar energy is a clean alternative to fossil fuels, making the panels themselves can have a negative environmental impact. Photograph by Michael Melford, National Geographic Creative As the world seeks cleaner power, solar energy capacity has increased sixfold in the past five years. Yet manufacturing all those solar panels, a Tuesday report shows, can have environmental downsides. Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics. A new ranking of 37 solar manufacturers, the Solar Scorecard, shows that some companies are doing better than others. Chinese manufacturer Trina scored best, followed by California-based SunPower. http://www.solarscorecard.com/2014/ http://www.trinasolar.com/us/index.html http://us.sunpower.com/ The annual scorecard was created by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), a San Francisco-based nonprofit that has tracked the environmental impact of the high-tech industry since 1982. It's the group's fifth scorecard, and it shows that the industry is becoming more—not less—opaque when it comes to the sustainability of its manufacturing practices. http://svtc.org/ The coalition hopes the scorecard will increase transparency in a burgeoning industry that tends to be more focused on survival and growth than on tackling the dirtier side of an otherwise clean energy source. Patchy Data on Chemicals, Emissions The SVTC relies on companies' self-reported data for its scorecard, which looks at such things as emissions, chemical toxicity, water use, and recycling. The coalition says the market share of companies willing or able to share details about their operations is declining. It praises the third- and fourth-ranked companies, Yingli and SolarWorld respectively, for responding to the survey every year and for showing a continued commitment to sustainability. http://www.yinglisolar.com/us/ http://www.solarworld-usa.com/ Name-brand companies on the scorecard represent about 75 percent of the solar panel industry, but more generic players that care less about their environmental impact have been entering the market, said Sheila Davis, the coalition's executive director. Her group is concerned that as these discount competitors gain market share, fewer companies will make sustainability a priority. Varying regulations and manufacturing practices make it difficult to get standardized data about the environmental footprint of photovoltaic panels. A study released in May by Northwestern University and Argonne National Laboratory found that the carbon footprint of a panel from China is twice that of one from Europe, because China has fewer environmental standards and more coal-fired power plants. http://www.anl.gov/articles/solar-panel-manufacturing-greener-europe-china-study-says [See also: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650 ] China has already seen a backlash. Panel manufacturer Jinko Solar, for example, has faced protests and legal action since one of its plants, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, was accused of dumping toxic waste into a nearby river. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/31/us-jinkosolar-lawsuit-idUKKBN0G020H20140731 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-china-solar-plant-protest-idUSTRE78H0FL20110918 Solar manufacturers in the United States are subject to both federal and state rules that dictate, for example, how and where they can dispose of toxic wastewater. In Europe recent regulations mandate the reduction and proper disposal of hazardous electronic waste. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm Still, researchers say it's difficult to get quality data across solar panel markets. The numbers available on the environmental impact of solar panel manufacturing in China are "quite different from those in the U.S. or in Europe," said Fengqi You, assistant professor of engineering at Northwestern University and a co-author of the May study. "It is a very complicated problem." The SVTC hopes that pushing for more transparency now will lead to better practices later. "It's a new industry," said Davis. If companies adopt sustainable practices early on, she said, "then maybe over the next 10 or 15 years-as these panels begin to come down, the first wave of them, and we're beginning to recycle them-the new panels that are on the market are zero waste." Not Enough to Recycle Yet Right now, solar panel recycling suffers from a chicken-or-egg problem: There aren't enough places to recycle old solar panels, and there aren't enough defunct solar panels to make recycling them economically attractive. Ben Santarris, strategic affairs director for SolarWorld, said his company has made efforts to recycle panels, but the volume isn't there yet. "We have product that's still performing to standard from 1978, so we don't have a big stream," he said. "It is a problem, because on one hand there is an interest in getting ahead of a swelling stream of returning panels. On the other hand, there's not a big market for it right now." Recycling is particularly important because of the materials used to make panels, said Dustin Mulvaney, an assistant professor of environmental studies at San José State University who serves as a scientific adviser to SVTC. "It would be difficult to find a PV module that does not use at least one rare or precious metal," he said, "because they all have at least silver, tellurium, or indium." http://www.dustinmulvaney.com/ Because recycling is limited, Mulvaney said, those recoverable metals could go to waste: "Companies that are reporting on a quarterly basis, surviving on razor-thin margins—they're not thinking 20, 30 years down the road, where the scarcity issue might actually enter the conversation." The silicon used to make the vast majority of today's photovoltaic cells is abundant, but a "silicon-based solar cell requires a lot of energy input in its manufacturing process," said Northwestern's You. The source of that energy, which is often coal, he added, determines how large the cell's carbon footprint is. The SVTC said it's leading an effort to develop a first ever sustainability standard for solar panels, similar to the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED, within the next two years. That effort will get under way as new solar panel factories come online in the U.S. and elsewhere: Mission Solar just opened a plant in San Antonio, Texas, and SolarCity plans to open a five-billion-dollar factory in western New York. http://www.usgbc.org/leed http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/2014/kw39/mission-solar-energy-opens-solar-pv-panel-manufacturing-facility-in-san-antonio-texas.html http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/09232014-solarcity-gigafactory-riverbend It remains to be seen whether solar companies will face enough external pressure to drive significant change in a business that, from a power-generation standpoint, already has plenty of environmental credibility. "Despite the efforts of the SVTC," said Santarris, "there still is not nearly the awareness there should be that solar panels are not all created equal from an environmental standpoint." But there is optimism that as the industry matures, solar companies will adopt stronger sustainability measures. In just the five years since the SVTC began its scorecard survey, Mulvaney said, it has seen a change. "When we started this, there was no information on environmental performance, aside from the fact that it saves us from the dirtier fuels," he said. "Now these companies are producing sustainability reports." On Twitter: Follow Christina Nunez and get more environment and energy coverage at NatGeoGreen. The story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy http://www.greatenergychallenge.com/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/ Environmental Impacts of Wind Power • While there are no global warming emissions associated with operating wind turbines, there are emissions associated with other stages of a wind turbine’s life-cycle, including materials production, materials transportation, on-site construction and assembly, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning and dismantlement. • Large wind facilities in the United States use between 30 and 141 acres per megawatt of power output capacity (a typical new utility-scale wind turbine is about 2 megawatts). .... .... Despite its vast potential, there are a variety of environmental impacts associated with wind power generation that should be recognized and mitigated. .... .... Land Use The land use impact of wind power facilities varies substantially depending on the site: wind turbines placed in flat areas typically use more land than those located in hilly areas. However, wind turbines do not occupy all of this land; they must be spaced approximately 5 to 10 rotor diameters apart (a rotor diameter is the diameter of the wind turbine blades). Thus, the turbines themselves and the surrounding infrastructure (including roads and transmission lines) occupy a small portion of the total area of a wind facility. A survey by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of large wind facilities in the United States found that they use between 30 and 141 acres per megawatt of power output capacity (a typical new utility-scale wind turbine is about 2 megawatts). However, less than 1 acre per megawatt is disturbed permanently and less than 3.5 acres per megawatt are disturbed temporarily during construction.[1] The remainder of the land can be used for a variety of other productive purposes, including livestock grazing, agriculture, highways, and hiking trails.[2] Alternatively, wind facilities can be sited on brownfields (abandoned or underused industrial land) or other commercial and industrial locations, which significantly reduces concerns about land use. [3] Offshore wind facilities, which are currently not in operation in the United States but may become more common, require larger amounts of space because the turbines and blades are bigger than their land-based counterparts. Depending on their location, such offshore installations may compete with a variety of other ocean activities, such as fishing, recreational activities, sand and gravel extraction, oil and gas extraction, navigation, and aquaculture. Employing best practices in planning and siting can help minimize potential land use impacts of offshore and land-based wind projects [4]. Wildlife and Habitat THE IMPACT OF WIND TURBINES ON WILDLIFE, MOST NOTABLY ON BIRDS AND BATS, HAS BEEN WIDELY DOCUMENTED AND STUDIED. A recent National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) review of peer-reviewed research found EVIDENCE OF BIRD AND BAT DEATHS FROM COLLISIONS WITH WIND TURBINES AND DUE TO CHANGES IN AIR PRESSURE CAUSED BY THE SPINNING TURBINES, AS WELL AS FROM HABITAT DISRUPTION. The NWCC concluded that these impacts are relatively low and do not pose a threat to species populations [5]. [Over the short term maybe, but what about over the LONG TERM???! And what about pollinators, such as BEES AND BUTTERFLIES???!] Additionally, research into wildlife behavior and advances in wind turbine technology have helped to reduce bird and bat deaths. For example, wildlife biologists have found that bats are most active when wind speeds are low. Using this information, the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative concluded that keeping wind turbines motionless during times of low wind speeds could reduce bat deaths by more than half without significantly affecting power production [6]. [Reducing bat deaths by "more than half" still means A DEATH RATE OF ALMOST 50%! I find that totally UNACCEPTABLE, because bats are so important to our environment!] Other wildlife impacts can be mitigated through better siting of wind turbines. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services has played a leadership role in this effort by convening an advisory group including representatives from industry, state and tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations that made comprehensive recommendations on appropriate wind farm siting and best management practices [7]. Offshore wind turbines can have similar impacts on marine birds, but as with onshore wind turbines, the BIRD DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES ARE MINIMAL. [Note that they don't say HOW "MINIMAL"!] WIND FARMS LOCATED OFFSHORE WILL ALSO IMPACT FISH AND OTHER MARINE WILDLIFE. Some studies "suggest" that turbines MAY actually increase fish populations by acting as artificial reefs. [Sounds like PURE SPECULATION!] The impact will vary from site to site, and therefore proper research and monitoring systems are needed for each offshore wind facility [8]. Public Health and Community SOUND AND VISUAL IMPACT ARE THE TWO MAIN PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS associated with operating wind turbines. Most of the sound generated by wind turbines is aerodynamic, caused by the movement of turbine blades through the air. There is also mechanical sound generated by the turbine itself. OVERALL SOUND LEVELS DEPEND ON TURNING DESIGN AND WIND SPEED. Some people living close to wind facilities have COMPLAINED about SOUND AND VIBRATION ISSUES, but industry and government-sponsored studies in Canada and Australia have found that these issues do not adversely impact public health [9]. However, it is important for wind turbine developers to take these community concerns seriously by following “good neighbor” best practices for siting turbines and initiating open dialogue with affected community members. Additionally, technological advances, such as minimizing blade surface imperfections and using sound-absorbent materials can reduce wind turbine noise [10]. Under certain lighting conditions, wind turbines can create an effect known as SHADOW FLICKER. This ANNOYANCE can be minimized with careful siting, planting trees or installing window awnings, or curtailing wind turbine operations when certain lighting conditions exist [11]. [And just WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS TO MITIGATE THIS ANNOYANCE???!] The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that large wind turbines, like all structures over 200 feet high, have white or red lights for AVIATION SAFETY. However, the FAA recently determined that as long as there are no gaps in lighting greater than a half-mile, it is not necessary to light each tower in a multi-turbine wind project. Daytime lighting is unnecessary as long as the turbines are painted white. When it comes to aesthetics, wind turbines can elicit strong reactions. To some people, they are graceful sculptures; to others, they are EYESORES THAT COMPROMISE THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE. Whether a community is willing to accept an altered skyline in return for cleaner power should be decided in an open public dialogue [12]. Water Use There is no water impact associated with the operation of wind turbines. As in all manufacturing processes, some water is used to manufacture steel and cement for wind turbines. [How much is "SOME" WATER???!] Life-Cycle Global Warming Emissions While there are no global warming emissions associated with operating wind turbines, THERE ARE EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER STAGES OF AWIND TURBINE'S LIFE-CYCLE, INCLUDING MATERIALS PRODUCTION, MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION, ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION AND ASSEMBLY, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AND DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLEMENT. Estimates of total global warming emissions depend on a number of factors, including wind speed, percent of time the wind is blowing, and the material composition of the wind turbine [13]. Most estimates of wind turbine life-cycle global warming emissions are between 0.02 and 0.04 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour. [Note that these are "ESTIMATES"! THEY DON'T SAY WHAT THE MARGIN OF ERROR IS OR HOW THEY REACH THAT CONCLUSION.] To put this into context, estimates of life-cycle global warming emissions for natural gas generated electricity are between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour and estimates for coal-generated electricity are 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour [14]. [AGAIN, "ESTIMATES"! Conclusions reached by scientists whose data could be skewed to fit a political agenda!] .... References: [1] Denholm, P., M. Hand, M. Jackson, and S. Ong. 2009. Land-use requirements of modern wind power plants in the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf [2] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study. Hand, M.M.; Baldwin, S.; DeMeo, E.; Reilly, J.M.; Mai, T.; Arent, D.; Porro, G.; Meshek, M.; Sandor, D. eds. 4 vols. NREL/TP-6A20-52409. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ [3] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). June 14, 2010. Brownfields' Bright Spot: Solar and Wind Energy. http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/feature_detail.cfm/feature_id=1530 [4] Michel, J.; Dunagan, H.; Boring, C.; Healy, E.; Evans, W.; Dean, J.; McGillis, A.; Hain, J. 2007. Worldwide Synthesis and Analysis of Existing Information Regarding Environmental Effects of Alternative Energy Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf. MMS 2007-038. Prepared by Research Planning and ICF International. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/waveenergy/MMSAEFINALSYNTHESISREPORT.pdf [5] National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC). 2010. Wind turbine interactions with birds, bats, and their habitats: A summary of research results and priority questions. https://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/Birds_and_Bats_Fact_Sheet_.pdf [6] Arnett, E.B., M.M.P. Huso, J.P. Hayes, and M. Schirmacher. 2010. Effectiveness of changing wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Austin, TX: Bat Conservation International. http://www.iberdrolarenewables.us/pdf/curtailment-final-report-05-15-10-v2.pdf [7] Fish and Wildlife Service (FSW). 2010. Recommendations of the wind turbine guidelines advisory committee. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/windpower/Wind_Turbine_Guidelines_Advisory_Committee_Recommendations_Secretary.pdf [8] Michel, et al. 2007. [9] Chief Medical Officer of Heath of Ontario. 2010. The potential health impact of wind turbines. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). 2009. Wind turbine sound and health effects: An expert panel review. http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/awea_and_canwea_sound_white_paper.pdf National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 2010. Wind turbines and health: A rapid review of the evidence. Canberra, Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/evidence_review__wind_turbines_and_health.pdf [10] Bastasch, M.; van Dam, J.; Søndergaard, B.; Rogers, A. 2006. Wind Turbine Noise – An Overview. Canadian Acoustics (34:2), 7–15. http://www.acousticecology.org/wind/winddocs/noise/Bastasch%20et%20al%20%282006%29%20Wind%20Turbine%20Noise%20-%20An%20Overview.pdf [11] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ [12] Union of Concerned Scientists. Tapping into Wind. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/renewables-tapping-into-wind.html [13] National Academy of Sciences. 2010. Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619 [14] IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. (Chapter 7 & 9). http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-wind-power#.WTcvMoVlCEd Environmental Impacts of Hydrokinetic Energy Hydrokinetic energy, which includes wave and tidal power, encompasses an array of energy technologies, many of which are still in the experimental stages or in the early stages of deployment. While actual impacts of large-scale operations have not been observed, a range of potential impacts can be projected. For example, wave energy installations can require large expanses of ocean space, which could compete with other uses—such as fishing and shipping—and cause damage to marine life and habitats. Some tidal energy technologies are located at the mouths of ecologically-sensitive estuary systems, which could cause changes in hydrology and salinity that negatively impact animal and plant life. .... .... http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydrokinetic-energy.html#.WTcwdIVlCEc Environmental Impacts of Geothermal Energy Geothermal power plants can have impacts on both water quality and consumption. Hot water pumped from underground reservoirs often contains high levels of sulfur, salt, and other minerals. Most geothermal facilities have closed-loop water systems, in which extracted water is pumped directly back into the geothermal reservoir after it has been used for heat or electricity production. In such systems, the water is contained within steel well casings cemented to the surrounding rock [1]. There have been no reported cases of water contamination from geothermal sites in the United States [2]. Water is also used by geothermal plants for cooling and re-injection. All U.S. geothermal power facilities use wet-recirculating technology with cooling towers. Depending on the cooling technology used, geothermal plants can require between 1,700 and 4,000 gallons of water per megawatt-hour. However, most geothermal plants can use either geothermal fluid or freshwater for cooling; the use of geothermal fluids rather than freshwater clearly reduces the plants overall water impact [3]. (For more information, see How it Works: Water for Power Plant Cooling.) http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/energy-and-water-use/water-energy-electricity-cooling-power-plant.html Most geothermal plants re-inject water into the reservoir after it has been used to prevent contamination and land subsidence (see Land Use below). In most cases, however, not all water removed from the reservoir is re-injected because some is lost as steam. In order to maintain a constant volume of water in the reservoir, outside water must be used. The amount of water needed depends on the size of the plant and the technology used; however, because reservoir water is “dirty," it is often not necessary to use clean water for this purpose. For example, the Geysers geothermal site in California injects non-potable treated wastewater into its geothermal reservoir [4]. Air Emissions: The distinction between open- and closed-loop systems is important with respect to air emissions. In closed-loop systems, gases removed from the well are not exposed to the atmosphere and are injected back into the ground after giving up their heat, so air emissions are minimal. In contrast, open-loop systems emit hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, ammonia, methane, and boron. Hydrogen sulfide, which has a distinctive “rotten egg” smell, is the most common emission [5]. Once in the atmosphere, hydrogen sulfide changes into sulfur dioxide (SO2). This contributes to the formation of small acidic particulates that can be absorbed by the bloodstream and cause heart and lung disease [6]. Sulfur dioxide also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. However, SO2 emissions from geothermal plants are approximately 30 times lower per megawatt-hour than from coal plants, which is the nation’s largest SO2 source. Some geothermal plants also produce small amounts of mercury emissions, which must be mitigated using mercury filter technology. Scrubbers can reduce air emissions, but they produce a watery sludge composed of the captured materials, including sulfur, vanadium, silica compounds, chlorides, arsenic, mercury, nickel, and other heavy metals. This toxic sludge often must be disposed of at hazardous waste sites [7]. Land Use: The amount of land required by a geothermal plant varies depending on the properties of the resource reservoir, the amount of power capacity, the type of energy conversion system, the type of cooling system, the arrangement of wells and piping systems, and the substation and auxiliary building needs [8]. The Geysers, the largest geothermal plant in the world, has a capacity of approximately 1,517 megawatts and the area of the plant is approximately 78 square kilometers, which translates to approximately 13 acres per megawatt. Like the Geysers, many geothermal sites are located in remote and SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL AREAS, so project developers must take this into account in their planning processes. LAND SUBSIDENCE, a phenomenon in which the land surface sinks, is sometimes caused by the removal of water from geothermal reservoirs. Most geothermal facilities address this risk by re-injecting wastewater back into geothermal reservoirs after the water’s heat has been captured. Hydrothermal plants are sited on geological “hot spots," which tend to have HIGHER LEVELS OF EARTHQUAKE RISK. There is evidence that hydrothermal plants can lead to an even greater earthquake frequency [9]. Enhanced geothermal systems (hot dry rock) can also increase the risk of small earthquakes. In this process, water is pumped at high pressures to fracture underground hot rock reservoirs similar to technology used in natural gas hydraulic fracturing. (See How Natural Gas Works for more information.) http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/how-natural-gas-works.html EARTHQUAKE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS can be minimized by siting plants an appropriate distance away from major fault lines. When a geothermal system is sited near a heavily populated area, constant monitoring and transparent communication with local communities is also necessary. [10] Life-Cycle Global Warming Emissions In open-loop geothermal systems, approximately 10 percent of the air emissions are carbon dioxide, and a smaller amount of emissions are methane, a more potent global warming gas. Estimates of global warming emissions for open-loop systems are approximately 0.1 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour. In closed-loop systems, these gases are not released into the atmosphere, but there are a still some emissions associated with plant construction and surrounding infrastructure. Enhanced geothermal systems, which require energy to drill and pump water into hot rock reservoirs, have life-cycle global warming emission of approximately 0.2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour [11]. To put this into context, estimates of life-cycle global warming emissions for natural gas generated electricity are between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour and estimates for coal-generated electricity are 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour [12]. References: [1] Kagel, A. 2008. The State of Geothermal Technology. Part II: Surface Technology. Washington, DC: Geothermal Energy Association. http://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Geothermal%20Technology%20-%20Part%20II%20%28Surface%29.pdf [2] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study. Hand, M.M.; Baldwin, S.; DeMeo, E.; Reilly, J.M.; Mai, T.; Arent, D.; Porro, G.; Meshek, M.; Sandor, D. eds. 4 vols. NREL/TP-6A20-52409. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ [3] Macknick, et al. 2011. A Review of Operational Water Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50900.pdf [4] Kagel, A. 2008. The State of Geothermal Technology. Part II: Surface Technology http://www.geo-energy.org/reports/Geothermal%20Technology%20-%20Part%20II%20%28Surface%29.pdf [5] Kagel, A. 2007. A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment. Washington, DC: Geothermal Energy Association. http://www.geo-energy.org/pdf/reports/AGuidetoGeothermalEnergyandtheEnvironment10.6.10.pdf [6] National Research Council (NRC). 2010. Hidden costs of energy: Unpriced consequences of energy production and use. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794 [7] Kagel, A. 2007. A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment. http://www.geo-energy.org/pdf/reports/AGuidetoGeothermalEnergyandtheEnvironment10.6.10.pdf [8, 9, 10] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/ [11, 12] IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. (Chapter 4 & 9). http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-geothermal-energy.html#.WTc_yIVlCEc Environmental Impacts of Hydroelectric Power Hydroelectric power includes both massive hydroelectric dams and small run-of-the-river plants. Large-scale hydroelectric dams continue to be built in many parts of the world (including China and Brazil), but it is unlikely that new facilities will be added to the existing U.S. fleet in the future. Instead, the future of hydroelectric power in the United States will likely involve increased capacity at current dams and new run-of-the-river projects. There are environmental impacts at both types of plants. The size of the reservoir created by a hydroelectric project can vary widely, depending largely on the size of the hydroelectric generators and the topography of the land. Hydroelectric plants in flat areas tend to require much more land than those in hilly areas or canyons where deeper reservoirs can hold more volume of water in a smaller space. At one extreme, the large Balbina hydroelectric plant, which was built in a flat area of Brazil, flooded 2,360 square kilometers—an area the size of Delaware—and it only provides 250 MW of power generating capacity (equal to more than 2,000 acres per MW) [1]. In contrast, a small 10 MW run-of-the-rive plant in a hilly location can use as little 2.5 acres (equal to a quarter of an acre per MW) [2]. Flooding land for a hydroelectric reservoir has an extreme environmental impact: it destroys forest, wildlife habitat, agricultural land, and scenic lands. In many instances, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China, entire communities have also had to be relocated to make way for reservoirs [3]. Wildlife Impacts: Dammed reservoirs are used for multiple purposes, such as agricultural irrigation, flood control, and recreation, so not all wildlife impacts associated with dams can be directly attributed to hydroelectric power. However, hydroelectric facilities can still have a major impact on aquatic ecosystems. For example, though there are a variety of methods to minimize the impact (including fish ladders and in-take screens), fish and other organisms can be injured and killed by turbine blades. Apart from direct contact, there can also be wildlife impacts both within the dammed reservoirs and downstream from the facility. Reservoir water is usually more stagnant than normal river water. As a result, the reservoir will have higher than normal amounts of sediments and nutrients, which can cultivate an excess of algae and other aquatic weeds. These weeds can crowd out other river animal and plant-life, and they must be controlled through manual harvesting or by introducing fish that eat these plants [4]. In addition, water is lost through evaporation in dammed reservoirs at a much higher rate than in flowing rivers. In addition, if too much water is stored behind the reservoir, segments of the river downstream from the reservoir can dry out. Thus, most hydroelectric operators are required to release a minimum amount of water at certain times of year. If not released appropriately, water levels downstream will drop and animal and plant life can be harmed. In addition, reservoir water is typically low in dissolved oxygen and colder than normal river water. When this water is released, it could have negative impacts on downstream plants and animals. To mitigate these impacts, aerating turbines can be installed to increase dissolved oxygen and multi-level water intakes can help ensure that water released from the reservoir comes from all levels of the reservoir, rather than just the bottom (which is the coldest and has the lowest dissolved oxygen). Life-cycle Global Warming Emissions Global warming emissions are produced during the installation and dismantling of hydroelectric power plants, but recent research suggests that emissions during a facility’s operation can also be significant. Such emissions vary greatly depending on the size of the reservoir and the nature of the land that was flooded by the reservoir. Small run-of-the-river plants emit between 0.01 and 0.03 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour. Life-cycle emissions from large-scale hydroelectric plants built in semi-arid regions are also modest: approximately 0.06 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour. However, estimates for life-cycle global warming emissions from hydroelectric plants built in tropical areas or temperate peatlands are much higher. After the area is flooded, the vegetation and soil in these areas decomposes and releases both carbon dioxide and methane. The exact amount of emissions depends greatly on site-specific characteristics. However, current estimates suggest that life-cycle emissions can be over 0.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour [5,6]. To put this into context, estimates of life-cycle global warming emissions for natural gas generated electricity are between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour and estimates for coal-generated electricity are 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour [7]. References: [1] Fearnside, Phillip M. 1989. Brazil's Balbina Dam: Environment versus the legacy of the Pharaohs in Amazonia. Environmental Management, July/Aug 1989, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 401-423. [2] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study. Hand, M.M.; Baldwin, S.; DeMeo, E.; Reilly, J.M.; Mai, T.; Arent, D.; Porro, G.; Meshek, M.; Sandor, D. eds. 4 vols. NREL/TP-6A20-52409. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [3] Yardley, Jim. November 19, 2007. Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs. New York Times. [4] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study. [5] IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. (Chapter 5 & 9). [6] National Academy of Sciences. 2010. Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619 [7] IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html#.WTdC-4VlCEc Biomass for electricity Biomass power plants share some similarities with fossil fuel power plants: both involve the combustion of a feedstock to generate electricity. Thus, biomass plants raise similar, but not identical, concerns about air emissions and water use as fossil fuel plants. However, the feedstock of biomass plants can be sustainable produced, while fossil fuels are non-renewable. Sources of biomass resources for producing electricity are diverse; including energy crops (like switchgrass), agricultural waste, manure, forest products and waste, and urban waste. Both the type of feedstock and the manner in which it is developed and harvested significantly affect land use and life-cycle global warming emissions impacts of producing power from biomass. Learn more: Biomass Resources in the United States http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts#bf-toc-3 People, I urge you to watch this video: Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? VIDEO: https://youtu.be/SSrjAXK5pGw Senator Cantwell is one of Obama's and the UN's useful idiots, supporting (as she evidently does) the UN's Agendas 21 & 30. She and Senator Patty Murray have been a royal pain in the backside of every liberty loving person in the state of Washington for too many years! God Almighty has said, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.” (II Peter 3:10 NKJV) And NO plans made by mankind can stop that from happening, assuming current climate changes are part of God's plan. That doesn't mean that we should "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may die!" No, we are supposed to be good stewards of everything God has given us. But the Earth was made for mankind, NOT mankind for the Earth!
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    One, we need to do this and lead the way. This would also create jobs by growing a new industry. This will impact fuel prices, I believe it will help to drive them down as it will reduce the global demand as we shift to renewable fuel sources...
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Climate change is here and it is a threat to America. There is no denying the majority of scientific evidence and the time to act on this is now.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Climate change is one of the greatest issues of our time. The scientific community agrees that if we do not stop burning fossil fuels and other irresponsible human activity, we will be damning ourselves to more misplaced humans than we dealt with in the 20's, 30's, and 40's.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Unproven science that is more about control than climate. The models are so far off they have to change the numbers to make their point.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE