This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
At a time where scientists are trying to figure out how to suck the excess carbon out of our atmosphere, Mother Nature has known how to do it for millions of years. Trees are very efficient at absorbing carbondioxide. It is estimated that one acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbondioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen.
As I have spent some sleepless nights since the latest IPCC report on how Mankind has to halve its carbonemissions by 2030. As we shall see, this is already currently happening, it is the moral thing to do, the best economic choice, and the fastest and easiest way to halve our emissions. A moral imperative.
At issue in this case is whether and how the EPA can set standards for carbonemissions at power plants. EPA , the landmark 2007 decision that said the EPA has the authority to regulate carbondioxide emitted from new motor vehicles. Carbondioxide is not a pollutant. Climate Change on the Docket.
497 (2007) (Justice Stevens ). The case involved EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases like carbondioxide under the Clean Air Act. Since Obama, EPA has used this authority to regulation carbonemissions from vehicles and power plants. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. West Virginia v.
32] Part of the reason the planet is greening stems from greater carbondioxide in the atmosphere, and greater planetary warming. [33] 33] Scientists find that plants grow faster as a result of higher carbondioxide concentrations. 63] This difference in emissions comes down to diet and lifespan. 9] Christopher D.
Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new power plant carbon pollution standards that, if strengthened, would go a long way to help meet the Biden administration’s goal of slashing carbonemissions in half from 2005 levels by the end of this decade. EN: First, why are these new standards such a big deal?
Today, the Supreme Court decided its most important environmental case since 2007. Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion leaves EPA other options to reduce carbonemissions from coal-fired power plants. We didn’t dodge the bullet. It’s more than a flesh wound but it didn’t hit any vital organs.
The shift, combined with the huge shift from ultra-dirty goal to more-moderately dirty gas helped cut our power sector carbondioxideemissions by 41 percent from a peak in 2007. Gas once played an important role in suppressing coal-fired electricity, with less carbonemissions. degrees Celsius (2.7-degrees
Perhaps the most consequential of all Paxton’s actions, however, is a lawsuit he and AGs from 19 other states, including Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, filed in 2021 challenging the EPA’s authority to curb power plant carbonemissions. Landry’s deep ties to the oil and gas industry predate his time as Louisiana’s AG.
The Supreme Court sharply limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to slash carbon pollution from power plants. The justices told EPA that it can set carbonemissions standards based only on interventions at individual power plants.
Climate: The Environmental Protection Agency does not list a timetable to act on a new carbondioxide rule for existing power plants. The agenda notes DOE is preparing a major rulemaking to reduce the use of fossil fuels in federal buildings — an implementation of a 2007 law.
in domestic or international efforts to reduce carbonemissions. Instead Mr. Ebell seems perfectly suited to eviscerate the efforts of the Obama Administration to reduce carbonemissions as part of the international cooperation to spare the globe from looming catastrophe. Carbondioxide (CO. Climate Change.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content