California new solar-panel rule: A misguided effort at virtue-signaling? Michael Shellenberger: Why do environmentalists fight the best ways to reduce carbon emissions (nuclear and natural gas)? California wants more hunters—to pay for protecting public lands.
Patrick Moore, critic of climate alarmism, is disinvited from Canada conference for being a “detraction.” The “tallest climate tale” of 2019: check out the winner. Mitch Daniels: Green lobby opposes genetically engineered salmon in spite of environmental benefits.
A new crime appears in California: recycling fraud. H-T Waste Dive. Africa’s worst infestation of locusts in 75 years, thanks to the war against pesticides. Democrats propose a “National Climate Bank” to invest in climate innovation —with $35 billion from the U. S. government.
Since we are failing to curb global carbon emissions at all, we are left with using our huge brains, which got us into this problem in the first place, to try to wangle our way out of it.
Whether that’s solar engineering [sending back a small fraction of sunlight] or cloud seeding to reduce incident solar radiation, or reforestation, or carbon capture and sequestration from burning fossil fuels, or ocean iron fertilization or putting huge mirrors in space, humans think we can engineer our way around any issue. The best most direct strategy, that has the least bad side-effects, is to remove carbon directly from the atmosphere and make something useful out of it – like fuel – that would further lessen the burden on the environment.
One company is already doing that.
Based in Canada, Carbon Engineering’s Direct Air Capture system directly removes CO2 from the atmosphere, purifies it, and produces a pipeline-ready compressed CO2 liquid using only energy and water. This CO2 can be combined with non-fossil fuel-generated hydrogen, to produce ultra-low carbon intensity hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and Jet Fuel-A.
The new rules would make it easier to remove a species from the endangered list and weaken protections for threatened species, the classification one step below endangered. And, for the first time, regulators would be allowed to conduct economic assessments — for instance, estimating lost revenue from a prohibition on logging in a critical habitat — when deciding whether a species warrants protection.
This rule-change does not allow economic impacts to affect whether a species is listed as endangered or threatened. Indeed, the rule explicitly “acknowledge[s] that the statute and its legislative history are clear that listing determinations must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” according to five statutory factors. Thus, the rule gives the agency no authority to decline to list a species based on the economic impacts of such decision. If the agency attempted to do so, it would violate the statute and the rule.