MVCAC March 2020

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1 participants
4 discussions

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming » Yale Climate Connections
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 25 Mar '20

25 Mar '20

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-plantin… The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming Bruce Lieberman It seems like such a simple, straightforward, empowering idea: plant trees – a lot of trees – all over the world, and watch the planet’s temperature fall. Who doesn’t love a tree or two, even far more – the right tree in the right place? Along with the refreshing shade they provide on hot days, trees of course also store carbon, and they’ll suck it right out of our fragile atmosphere as they grow. Who could argue with more trees, more forests – more shade! – in a warming world? Nary a soul, one suspects, whether of conventional “tree hugger” category or rabid climate science detractor. Earlier this year, the one-trillion tree campaign was big news at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Salesforce founder Businessman Marc Benioff announced at the meeting that his company will “support and mobilize the conservation and restoration of 100 million trees over the next decade.” Back in Washington, D.C., President Trump and Republican lawmakers said they too support the international campaign – although Arkansas Republican Rep. Bruce Westerman came under fire for proposing a “Trillion Trees Act” that would pair a commitment to planting trees with a plan to increase logging on public lands. Numerous other Republican representatives are endorsing the trees effort. Cautions against just randomly digging and planting Over the past few weeks, chatter has picked up that planting trees is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to combating climate change. Trees are a good thing, but: We also need to protect existing forests – the Amazon, for example. We need to ramp up wind, solar, and geothermal energy. We need to burn less fossil fuel. We need to eat more of the right foods and less of the wrong ones and, above all else, eat sustainably. We need higher vehicle-mileage standards and more electric cars. We need to get our act together so we can better adapt to rising seas, more droughts and wildfires, and unpredictable swings in weather. Like other initiatives to tackle climate change, planting trees requires some forethought. Recent news coverage of the trillion tree campaign points to several things people should be thinking about before digging and planting. Authors of a 2019 study from the Swiss research university, ETH Zurich, estimated that the planet can support about 2.5 billion more acres of newly planted trees – without tearing down cities and doing away with farms. And they say those trees could store about 200 gigatons of carbon (GtC) once they mature. That’s equal to one-third of all the carbon that humans have emitted into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide pollution, the authors claimed. The New York Times summarized the study last year. Researcher: ‘Nations absolutely should plant and protect as many [trees] as possible. … But it’s also a limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change.’ Scientist Zeke Hausfather, long a regular contributor to Yale Climate Connections, suggested in a series of tweets at the time that the study was misleading on a few counts. For one thing, cumulative emissions from land use and burning fossil fuels were closer to 640 GtC, “so removing 200 GtC would represent one-third of historic emissions.” Hausfather also pointed to the practical and economic challenges of planting trees on every acre of available land. India is intimately familiar with this challenge. Last summer the country planted hundreds of millions of trees as part of an initiative to keep one-third of its land area covered in trees. But the nation’s high population and rapid industrialization pose challenges to sustained reforestation. Only about 60% of the saplings are expected to survive – the rest succumbing to disease and a lack of water. A Skeptical Science article by Dana Nuccitelli, a regular contributor to Yale Climate Connections and an environmental scientist, cites additional studies that have raised several other key points. Among them: Tundra and boreal regions unpopulated by trees play an important global role in reflecting energy from the sun back into space. Planting trees in these regions would darken landscapes at these high latitudes, causing them to absorb energy from the sun rather than reflect it – ultimately contributing to higher global temperatures and offsetting cooling created by planting trees. The ETH Zurich researchers mistakenly considered natural savannas, grasslands, and shrublands as places where forests could be restored. And in their ETH Zurich study, they estimated a carbon sequestration rate of 0.22 GtC per million hectares (i.e., for every 2.47 million acres). But 0.22 GtC is twice the amount cited by previously published estimates. Trees deserve a ‘moment’ of fame, but keep reality in mind So while the right kinds and numbers of tree species in the right places have lots of appeal, big questions remain over exactly what can be accomplished by planting one trillion trees – and whether it may cause more harm than good. James Temple, senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review, summed up the view of many experts in a January 28 piece when he wrote: “It’s great that trees are having a moment. Nations absolutely should plant and protect as many as possible. … But it’s also a limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change.” Temple raised a few more important points, some of which have been echoed elsewhere. Among them: trees take time to grow and reach maturity – decades and even centuries for redwoods and other behemoths that can store massive amounts of carbon. If you think you’re going to immediately offset your carbon footprint from flying across the country by planting a tree … think again. Another point Temple made: You really have to work the numbers to get a true sense of the challenge. For example, he wrote, the U.S. produced 5.8 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2019. To offset that much CO2 pollution, you’d have to plant a forest – and wait for it to fully mature – that is more than twice the size of Texas. The one-trillion tree campaign raises still more questions for forest ecologists – one of them having to do with biodiversity. If the campaign results in what are essentially tree plantations lacking biodiversity and genetic variation, often referred to as monoculture, those artificial forests won’t get very far. “People are getting caught up in the wrong solution,” Forrest Fleischman of the University of Minnesota told The Verge in late January. “Instead of that guy from Salesforce saying, ‘I’m going to put money into planting a trillion trees,’ I’d like him to go and say, ‘I’m going to put my money into helping indigenous people in the Amazon defend their lands.’ That’s going to have a bigger impact.” A campaign to plant “one trillion trees” sounds ambitious, it sounds daring, and it sounds exciting. And in many ways it could be all of those. But keep in mind that since 2015 and just in the Sierra Nevada – that sliver of mountain habitat that runs along the spine of California – nearly 150 million trees have died, victims of drought, disease, and invasion by beetles. Warmer winters have contributed to a population explosion of these destructive insects, and it’s a story being played out across the American West where forest fires are growing in frequency and intensity. So maybe we can plant a trillion trees around the globe. But if we don’t do much else about climate change, will we just be fueling the fire? So maybe we can and should plant a trillion trees around the globe. Go for it. But a wide array of experts insist that if we don’t also take numerous other actions to address climate change – specifically including major cuts in fossil fuel emissions and in particular carbon dioxide – we may just be fueling the fire. In the end, it comes down to more trees and lots of other actions, not to more trees or. More to read “Tree planting is Trump’s politically safe new climate plan,” Vox, Feb. 4, 2020 “Trump and the trillion trees,” The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2020 “What’s better than planting a trillion trees? Protecting the forests while we are at it.,” The New York Times, Feb. 10, 2020 “Planting trees won’t save the world,” The New York Times, Feb. 12, 2020 “Republican lawmakers introduce trillion trees act to combat climate change,” Reason, Feb. 13, 2020 “1 trillion trees: What would it take, how would it work, and is it even worth it?,”Fast Company, Feb. 19, 2020 “Panel battles over tree-planting legislation,” The Hill, Feb. 26, 2020 “A trillion trees not enough to fix climate crisis, critics say,” PhysOrg, Feb. 27, 2020 Filed under: Bruce Lieberman Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Virginia Clean Economy Act clears General Assembly, aided by beefed-up ratepayer protections - Virginia Mercury
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 07 Mar '20

07 Mar '20

Virginia Clean Economy Act clears General Assembly, aided by beefed-up ratepayer protections - Virginia Mercury, March 7, 2020 The Virginia Clean Economy Act cleared its last hurdle in the General Assembly this week when both the House of Delegates and the Senate agreed to a final version that reflected the more aggressive House timeline of making Virginia’s electric grid carbon-free by 2045 while also incorporating stronger protections for electric utility ratepayers. The bill, SB 851, heads to the desk of Gov. Ralph Northam, whose administration has been heavily involved in pushing it forward. Sen. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, the Senate patron of the bill, called the passage “a major historic moment” that will “break our reliance on fossil fuels.” “I kept thinking the entire time we were voting about the moon landing and wanted to shout, ‘The eagle has landed!’ on that final vote,” she said at a news conference Friday. “That’s how big this is. This is a giant leap forward for Virginia.” https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/03/06/virginia-clean-economy-act-clear…

1 0

West Virginia burn laws now in effect | WVNS
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 03 Mar '20

03 Mar '20

https://www.wvnstv.com/news/west-virginia-burn-laws-now-in-effect/ West Virginia burn laws now in effect Adeena Balthazor, West Virginia News Service, March 1, 2020 GHENT, WV (WVNS)– With the winter season nearing its end, many people are raking up leaves from last fall and burning them. However, certain laws going into effect only allow residents to do so within certain times. Spring fire season starts Sunday, March 1, 2020 and runs until May 31, 2020. Statewide burning is only permitted from 5 p.m. until 7 a.m. All fires mush have a ring or safety strip. Only materials such as leaves, brush and yard clippings are permitted to be burned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE: I question whether leaves should be burned anytime, night or day. They do not burn well (often damp), resulting in extremely toxic fumes, i.e. highly reactive organic species that damage the human lungs. More generally, outdoor burning of ANYTHING results in more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which needs to be discouraged and outlawed. Waste disposal services can landfill such materials or composting can be done. Duane Nichols

1 0

No PTTG & No Storage Hub: Petrochemicals and Plastics
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 02 Mar '20

02 Mar '20

https://ohvec.org/no-pttg-petrochemicals-plastic/ No PTTG: Petrochemicals and Plastic For Immediate Release Date: March 2, 2020 Contacts: Dustin White, OVEC—Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, 304-541-3144, dustin(a)ohvec.org Bev Reed, Concerned Ohio River Residents, 740-738-3024, ConcernedOhioRiverResidents(a)yahoo.com No PTTG: Petrochemicals and Plastics Local Citizens go to State Capitol and Voice Opposition to Petrochemicals/Plastics Hub CHARLESTON, W.VA.—Residents from Marshall and Ohio counties, WV, and Belmont County, OH, made a three-hour trek to the WV State Capitol today to meet with legislators to speak about their opposition to an ethane cracker plant that PTT Global Chemical wants to build in Dilles Bottom, OH, across from Moundsville, WV. The cracker plant would impact the air quality of Moundsville and Wheeling, WV, which already have poor air quality. The residents informed lawmakers of their concerns about the PTTG cracker, which is just one component of many that would be part of the Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub (ASH). This is an umbrella name for a proposed petrochemical mega-complex, which primarily would use fracked natural gas liquids to make plastics in the Ohio and Kanawha River valleys. One similar facility, the Shell ethane cracker, is already under construction in Monaca, PA. If built, the petrochemical hub would span more than 400 miles along the rivers. Infrastructure related to the hub could reach into a 500-square-mile area in more than 50 counties in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. The infrastructure would include cracker plants and other types of refineries, underground storage facilities, and thousands of miles of pipelines. The feedstock for the petrochemical factories would come from a massive increase in regional fracking. The residents noted that this proposed petrochemical buildout would exacerbate air and water pollution and threaten the health of the five million residents who depend on the Ohio River as a public water source. West Virginia already has a history of petrochemical-related disasters, including C8 pollution and the 2014 MCHM water crisis. This proposed petrochemical corridor would exacerbate both climate change and the growing global plastic pollution crisis. Nonetheless, during the 2020 Legislative Session, many legislators have pushed a pro-petrochemical agenda, often referring to the proposed hub as a “petrochemical renaissance.” Several bills were introduced to “lure” the petrochemical industry to West Virginia, including HB 4001, the Mountaineer Impact Fund, which could, according to one reporter’s analysis, “reopen the door” for an $83.7 billion investment by China Energy in petrochemical infrastructure in the state. The bill would allow West Virginia to serve as an official partner in investment deals, potentially putting taxpayers on the hook. HB 4421, the Natural Gas Liquids Economic Development Act, would provide tax credits to companies that transport or store natural gas liquids. HB 4019 would also give major tax breaks to the industry. Another proposal is HB 4615, an anti-protest bill, written to intimidate residents like those visiting the capitol today and keep them from participating in direct-action protests aimed at so-called “critical infrastructure”—oil, gas, and petrochemical industries—by enacting harsh penalties on protestors and their allies. Legislators are pushing this agenda with little to no input from community members affected by the petrochemical complex and are ignoring scientific evidence and real-world precedence: Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” has disproportionately high cases of human health impacts and economic disparity. Quotes from residents at the State Capitol today: Bev Reed, Bridgeport, OH, resident and leader with the community group Concerned Ohio River Residents, who lives just a few miles north of the proposed PTTG site: “I went to a university in West Virginia and I currently work in West Virginia. It is very unfortunate to see Ohio and West Virginia legislators pushing hard for this petrochemical/plastics hub. The Hub is about propping up a failing fossil fuel industry with plastic production at the expense of our health, air, water, pocketbooks, and future generations. There is much opposition to the hub in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia. We are here today to represent our communities. We ask the legislators to represent their people, not overseas corporate profits.” Vincent DeGeorge, Ph.D., a Wheeling resident, researcher, and teacher of materials science and engineering at a state university: “As a lifelong West Virginian and as a scientific expert in both energy and materials, I cannot justify new large-scale investment in fossil fuels and plastics as positive for our state. If West Virginia fails to diversify our economy away from its fossil-fuel dominance and dependence, and instead doubles down by adding the globally collapsing plastics industry, we can only expect our economic, environmental, and public health problems to continue for future generations.” Barbra Chamberlin, Moundsville resident: “My home in Moundsville, West Virginia is being threatened with toxic air and water and environmental destruction due to the possible construction of a petrochemical plant on the Ohio River. I have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, great-nephews and great-nieces, and a great-great-niece. I am sure they would wonder why we would do this to their home. Will the final years of my life be spent struggling to stay healthy in this toxic environment? Will I be able to breathe clean air and find clean water to drink? The transient jobs would not be worth the destruction of our home.” ### Sent from my iPad

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC March 2020