[GWSG] Beef and C; grounded C; Saudi strategy; Exxon's strategy; Mary Robinson's strategy; a ship like a sail

[Tilley, Al]

1.  Grist’s Ari LeVaux investigates estimates of beef’s carbon footprint and finds a complicated set of arguments and counterarguments.  The primary critique of beef as an environmental archvillain is the vegetarian rancher Nicolette Hahn Niman, author of Defending Beef.  For more arguments on the other side see the Beyond Meat piece in mid-December’s GWSG newslist.    http://grist.org/food/beef-still-whats-for-dinner-still-controversial/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%2520Jan%25206&utm_campaign=daily

2.  Much of the known fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground if we are to avoid the worst of climate disruption, as James Hansen argued many years ago.  A Nature article based on modeling for 2C of warming says how much—80% of coal, 50% of gas, and 30% of oil—and where the reserves are.    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/most-fossil-fuels-are-unburnable/ar-AA7SUHS?ocid=AARDHP  We need figures for 1.5C and will probably get them when the UN revisits the limits question this summer.  National Geographic supplies more detail from and on the report.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2015/01/150107-fossil-fuel-unburnable-2-degree-climate-target-study/

3.  Saudi Arabia may have led OPEC to maintain production levels (and thus lower prices) in order to ensure that they control the market for the oil reserves which we can burn before we invite catastrophic climate disruption.  http://theenergycollective.com/eliashinckley/2181166/oil-prices-saudi-arabia-and-end-of-opec

4.  Exxon now argues that global prosperity depends on supplying developing nations with sufficient fossil fuels to accomplish a transition to the kind of world now enjoyed by the wealthier nations.  The argument purports to be humanitarian and ignores the likely consequences of what it recommends.  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/exxon-outlook-for-energy-report-counterattack  The prospect of a system of voluntary controls on carbon emissions may fit the US political situation in which fossil fuels have essentially bought control of Republican actions, but it also leaves us vulnerable to the Exxon strategy, which would be free to corrupt small and weak nations.  The best answer may be a price on carbon.  A price exacted at least by developed nations might steer global development toward sustainability even as the wealth of the fossil fuel interests works in the other direction.

5.  Mary Robinson argues that robust support for climate justice can aid us in moving toward sustainability and highlights the disastrous effects of burning fossil fuels.  Her recommendations pose a direct counter to Exxon’s propaganda campaign.  http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/09/mary-robinson-law-coming-up-short-climate-change

6.  A ship designed to act as a sail and an airfoil could cut carbon emissions by 80%.  http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/01/08/ruiseliners-and-cargo-ships-are-big-polluters-hybrid-design-could-change-all?cmpid=tpenviro-eml-2015-01-10-countries
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.unf.edu/pipermail/gwsg/attachments/20150111/a3ff1095/attachment.html