Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has just released two reports on the first four months of 2014, and the US Renewable Usage and CO2 emissions have both substantially increased.
“Renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) provided over 14% of the nation’s electricity for the first four months of 2014 (i.e., 14.05%) – a level that the EIA has been saying might not be reached until 2040,” writes Ken Bossong of the Sun Day Campaign.
Hydropower continues to be the #1 source of renewable energy.
One of the biggest stories is a 108% increase in solar production, over 2013. This is largely the result of the increased capacity in California, where 700 MW of rooftop solar and 2,145 MW of utility scale solar installations were made in 2013. As a result, 14% of that state’s power was obtained from solar in May. This is a marked increase over the 6% from the previous year
At noon on June 1, 2014, California set a new record of 4,767 utility-generated solar megawatts delivered into the California grid.
Despite these increases, natural gas is still California’s biggest energy source. It produced 59% of net generation in 2013, and another 3,940 MW “came online in 2013, which will help address some of the reserve capacity needs for balancing renewables.”
The wind sector produced 5.15% of America’s energy during the first four months of 2014. There was a new record set in Texas at 8:48 p.m. on March 26. Wind turbines provided 29% of the state’s electricity. EIA predicts a 7% growth rate for wind power 2014, followed by 14% next year.
Ken Bossing points out there has also been an increase in alternative fuels:
11.74% in fuel ethanol (measured as Mbbl) and
10.85% in biodiesel.
The growth of fossil fuel usage has prompted a 5.48% increase in CO2 emissions during the first quarter, primarily from the coal and natural gas sectors.
However the EIA predicts that fossil fuel based CO2 emissions for the year will end up being only be 2.2% higher than 2013.
The amount of coal usage grew almost 9%, despite the fact there have been no facilities built. This exceeds the growth of natural gas (7.43%) – which leads the nation in installations – and underlines the fact that America actually consumes more coal than gas, though it possesses much higher capacity in the latter.
Many who oppose passing climate policies argue that it could have seriously chaotic implications for the American economy. But a study published in Nature Climate Change indicates that the health cost savings of certain climate policies such as a cap-and-trade system would actually outweigh the costs. When fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide and many other chemicals are released into the atmosphere. These substances often interact with each other to form ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter, which contribute to the development of asthma and other respiratory health problems.
As of 2011, 231 counties in the U.S. exceeded the EPA's regulatory standards for ozone, the primary culprit in causing smog, and the standards for fine particulate matter were exceeded in 118. Limiting carbon emissions would inevitably address adverse air quality and their related health impacts. "Carbon-reduction policies significantly improve air quality," says Noelle Selin, an assistant professor of engineering systems and atmospheric chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-author of the study. "In fact, policies aimed at cutting carbon emissions improve air quality by a similar amount as policies specifically targeting air pollution."
For their study, MIT researchers modeled where these other air pollutants were winding up and projected their health impacts. They then conducted a cost-benefit analysis of three climate policies, including a clean-energy standard, a transportation policy and a cap-and-trade program. These three policies were modeled after those that have been introduced into Congress or discussed by economists and other pundits as ways to address climate change. For instance, the clean-energy standard model is based on the power plant emissions reductions the Obama administration had proposed as part of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan.
Overall, the research team found that health benefit savings would dwarf the expense of the cap-and-trade program's $14 billion price tag 10.5 times over. These savings would take the form of avoided sick leave and medical care. The other climate policies the researchers investigated were not found to reap as substantial savings, with one actually costing more than it saved in health savings: The sample transportation policy with rigid fuel-economy requirements was found to top out over $1 trillion in 2006 dollars, with health benefits recouping only a quarter of those costs. The clean energy standard did reap more health benefit savings than costs â by about $40 billion. "If cost-benefit analyses of climate policies don't include the significant health benefits from healthier air, they dramatically underestimate the benefits of these policies," says lead author Tammy Thompson, who conducted the research as a postdoc at MIT and is currently at Colorado State University.
MORE
Horner told CNSNews.com that the âname and shameâ effort is an alternative to a new climate change treaty already being drafted by the UN that would have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. âObamaâs statement acknowledges that he cannot get a new climate treaty past China or U.S. voters,â Horner told CNSNews.com. But he added that environmental activists are already planning to employ the same collusive sue-and-settle strategy they have used in the past to impose draconian energy restrictions on all Americans even though thereâs been no global warming for nearly 18 years. âItâs quite clear under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that after the president signs it, any binding international law agreement has to be ratified by the Senate,â Horner explained.
But he noted that âactivist green groups, in conjunction with the New York attorney generalâs office, have already developed plans to use the federal courts to force Americans to drastically reduce their energy consumption whether or not Obama signs a new climate change treaty in Paris next yearâ to replace the expired Kyoto Protocol. Horner predicted the White House strategy in a 2009 paper published by the Federalist Society, in which he wrote: âIt appears that Kyoto will be the subject of a controversial effort to sharply revise U.S. environmental treaty practiceâŚ. waiving the Constitutionâs requirement of Senate ratification by reclassifying the product of talks as a congressional-Executive agreement, not a treaty.â (See Kyoto II ...Emerging Strategy.pdf) âYou canât just dismiss this if you know what theyâre trying to do,â Horner said, pointing to a copy of a court pleading drafted by environmental activists that he received from the New York attorney generalâs office under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request two years ago .
The draft lawsuit argues that the federal government should be required to honor its international commitments even if they are not ratified by the Senate. The strategy was confirmed in June by Yvo De Boer, the UNâs former climate chief. âIf the U.S. feels that âinternationally legally bindingâ has little value, and that the real value lies in legally-binding national commitments, then these regulations can be the way for the U.S. to show leadership,â De Boer said. âWe know where this is going,â Horner told CNSNews.com. âAs they intend, it will end up in the courts, not the Senate. The issue would come down to 'How do you implement it?' and that is where stunts like the NY AG's come in. You get a court to turn these gestures into law and/or a friendly administration to roll over and get a court's blessing by settling a âsue-and-settleâ case.â âYou canât trust the courts not to do that, and it will be as good as ratifyingâ a climate treaty as far as Americans are concerned, added Horner, author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.
The Paris accord will primarily target Western developed nations such as the United States, Horner pointed out. âThe argument is: âThe atmosphere is a pie, and youâve already had your sliceâ.â âWe need another Byrd-Hagel Resolution,â he added, referring to a July 1997 resolution that passed the Senate unanimously. It stated that the United States would not be a signatory to any climate change agreement that did not include developing countries and that would âresult in serious harm to the economy of the United States.â
MORE
