|
|
||
Wednesday, 26 Jul 2006
So That's Why It's Called Death ValleyClimate change threatens national parks in the western U.S.Glacier National Park without glaciers? If global warming keeps on keepin' on, 12 of the most famous U.S. national parks are at serious risk, says a report released yesterday by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. Temperatures in the Western U.S. have risen twice as fast over the past five decades as temps in the rest of the country. Beetles that would normally be killed by cold weather are chowing down on trees that sustain Yellowstone's grizzly bears. Drought and wildfires endanger wildlife and recreational activities. Within decades, mountaintops in some national parks could be snow-free in summer. The report calls for the Bush administration to put specific limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. Risks to humans, oceans, and fuzzy-wuzzy baby polar bears haven't swayed the Bushies so far, but hey, maybe parks will be the tipping point.It's Like Rain on Your Wedding DayNew Arctic Refuge drilling bill would spend proceeds on alt-energyThe recurring nightmare of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is back, but with a new twist: proceeds would support alternative energy. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is introducing a bill today to open 2,000 acres of the refuge to oil drilling. Backers of the legislation estimate that in coming decades, refuge development could bring in up to $40 billion in revenue -- all of which would go toward providing tax credits for solar power, cellulosic (not corn) ethanol, and coal-to-liquid fuel technologies. The legislation is co-sponsored by drill-obsessed Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), and also has support from two of California's Democratic representatives. Historically, Arctic Refuge drilling bills have passed the House and been shot down in the Senate. Nunes thinks his new bill has a better chance -- "There are a lot of Democratic senators over there that have a lot of ethanol interests in their state," he said -- but it's still considered a long shot.
They Weren't Kidding About the "Future" PartFeds move forward with clean coal plant -- kind ofThe U.S. government is moving ahead with FutureGen, a $1 billion demonstration clean coal plant -- and by "moving ahead," we mean they've decided that it will be built on one of four sites in either Texas or Illinois. The final siting decision will be made in September 2007; construction could begin in 2009; operations are unlikely to start up until 2012. Some enviros support the FutureGen concept -- turning coal into a hydrogen-rich gas and sequestering carbon underground, providing energy with virtually no CO2 emissions -- but wish the feds would hurry it up a little. "[I]t's a very expensive plant, and it won't bear any fruit for years. In the meantime, that money could be going to carbon-reducing technologies with a near-term benefit," says Rebecca Stanfield of Environment Illinois. When it finally gets online, FutureGen is expected to be a model of clean power generation. Meanwhile, 150 regular coal-fired plants are expected to be built in the U.S. in coming years, and they could increase the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions by 10 percent.
see also, in Grist: The scoop on FutureGen
|
Also in Grist
The Week's Most Popular
![]() From the Archives
Reps Gone Wild, 25 Jul 2006
Come Fry With Me, 24 Jul 2006
Ya Sure, You Hetcha, 21 Jul 2006
|
|