More money has flowed into the stock market over the past 5 months than in the past 12 years, according to Bank of America

mfox@businessinsider.com (Matthew Fox) 4/23/2021

© AP Photo/Richard Drew Traders at a post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on March 4, 2020. AP Photo/Richard Drew WALL ST CRASH AND BURN

Money is quickly pouring into the stock market as the S&P 500 trades near record highs.

Bank of America said $602 billion had flowed into global stocks in the past five months, compared with $452 billion in 12 years.

A rotation out of bonds and into stocks could continue to favor stocks, the bank said.

Investors have mostly shunned the stock market over the past decade even as stocks cruised to record highs, but that trend seems to finally be reversing.

More cash has flowed into stocks in the past five months than in the past 12 years, Bank of America said in a note on Friday. It said $602 billion had flowed into global stocks in five months, compared with $452 billion over 12 years.

The trend reversal could lead to further upside, Bank of America said. In the past week alone, $14.6 billion flowed into stocks, according to the note.

While investors have shunned stocks over the past decade, companies have not. The fund flows that helped drive the market higher as investors stuck with bonds were from corporations via stock buybacks, which have totaled $6.3 trillion since 2008, the note said.

But now chief investment officers rather than CEOs could drive fund flows into stocks and drive the market higher amid a rotation into stocks and out of bonds, Bank of America said.

The lack of fund flows into stocks over the past decade has served as evidence to Fundstrat's Tom Lee that stocks are not in a bubble. In January, Lee said he didn't see how the data "marks even the proximity of a top for equities."

Read the original article on Business Insider'

Biden wants to hit wealthy Americans with new tax hikes to fund childcare and education. Here's what it could mean for you. 

RACIST IDIOT COVID DENIER
Tory MP sorry after calling lockdowns greatest civil liberties breach since WWII internment camps
Rachel Gilmore 

Conservative MP David Sweet has apologized after issuing a tweet on Friday claiming there is “no evidence” that COVID-19 lockdowns work, stating they are the “the single greatest breach" of civil liberties "since the Internment Camps during WW2.”

© Office of David Sweet, MP Flamborough-Glanbrook Conservative MP David Sweet is seen in this photo.

He did not, however, walk back his comments about lockdowns -- which a doctor said were a vast departure from the facts.

"My tweet yesterday regarding the freedom of Ontarian's was to give a timeline only. In no way was I comparing today with the atrocities of war," Sweet wrote on Twitter.

"For anyone offended I unequivocally apologize."

Read more: Hidden Hate: Exposing the roots of anti-Asian racism in Canada

In his initial tweet, issued Friday night, Sweet used the example of internment camps to highlight his firm opposition to lockdowns.

"We are experiencing the single greatest breach of our Civil Liberties since the Internment Camps during WW2," he wrote.

He doubled down in a second tweet, also issued Friday.

“To be clear I am referring to Canadian internment camps of innocent immigrants during WW2,” he wrote. “Unjustly, because of their ethnic association had their civil liberties suspended even though they were landed immigrants or Canadians.”

About 24,000 people, including 12,000 Japanese Canadians, were forced into internment camps during the Second World War. Men in the camps were often separated from their families and forced to do physical labour, according to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Many lost all their property and thousands were later exiled to Japan.

One expert said the comparison was “disgusting.”

“To compare lockdowns to [Second World War] internment camps is wrong for so many reasons,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, assistant dean at McMaster University’s department of biochemistry and biomedical sciences.

“[Second World War] internment camps disproportionately affected a minority racialized community in Canada. And this pandemic, we know, is disproportionately affecting minority racialized communities, equity-seeking groups. And these lockdowns, frankly, protect those groups.”

Miller said Sweet’s comparison show such a “naiveté” and a “lack of understanding of the situation on the ground.”

As legions of Twitter users questioned his choice of comparison with hundreds of replies, Sweet issued a third tweet claiming he wasn't comparing the two issues.

“For those who just can’t hold back outrage "since" is Not the same or interchangeable with “as” or “like”! So cancel your disingenuous leap of comparison!” he fired out.

Less than half an hour before apologizing for his remarks, he tweeted in direct response to this Global News report.

"I guess I messed up my quiet reserved persona with you!" he wrote on Twitter.
Lockdowns are effective, experts say

During his tweetstorm, Sweet also called into question the efficacy of the lockdowns, despite resounding evidence that they’ve been an effective method of combatting the virus.

“ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that lockdowns work but dozens and dozens of papers proving they don’t,” claimed Sweet in his tweet.

“I’m am saddened and appalled at my political colleagues' silence!”

Global News reached out to Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole's office but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Sweet's claims are totally contrary to all the evidence to date, which has clearly shown the efficacy of stricter lockdown measures at pushing down otherwise swelling case counts, according to Miller. Canada's disease trajectory was following a steady growth pattern, according to federal officials -- but that changed when hard-hit jurisdictions like Ontario brought down new measures.

"In recent days, following the implementation of restrictions in heavily impacted areas of Canada, the national RT has finally dipped below one," said Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam.

"This means that for the first time in many weeks, the epidemic has dropped out of a growth pattern."

The current reality on the ground makes Sweet's tweet all the more "naïve and ignorant," according to Miller.

"ICUs are overwhelmed. We're having to shuttle patients all around the province to ensure that they're able to get the care they need. You know, it's just such an absolute disconnect from reality," Miller said.

The evidence is clear, he added: lockdowns are effective.

"There's absolutely no doubt that they do work," said Miller.

"Look, the reality is that no one wants to have to institute a lockdown. There's no one in the medical field, and there's certainly no one in government, who wants to do this."

He said that because of the impact on finances and mental health, lockdowns are a "last resort."

"Unfortunately, we're in an unprecedented public health crisis and nothing but the most stringent lockdown has worked. And frankly, we were too slow to institute a lockdown that could have easily prevented the severe third wave we're in now," Miller said.

"So all objective evidence points to the fact that these lockdowns have worked to curb these numbers."

Miller said he hopes that elected officials will do better in their use of social media.

"I certainly expect better from our elected officials," he said.

"Unfortunately, things like Twitter provide a platform for misinformed and uneducated people to have an audience and say whatever they want."

SEE

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Canada's First Internment Camps 

Who benefits from "fake meats"? We invite you to join us for the NFUniversity Class on Who benefits from “fake meats”? Silicon Valley and the Future of Farming taking place on Thursday, April 29th, 2021 at noon Pacific time (1 PM AB/SK, 2 PM MB, 3PM Eastern and 4 PM Atlantic).  Click here to register!

Biden’s big climate pledge: can it succeed, and what noticeable changes could it bring?

Joe Biden has closed out a two-day climate summit of more than 40 world leaders by warning that the planet risks reaching the “point of no return” if more isn’t done to escalate efforts to constrain the climate crisis.

© Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Biden has framed this unprecedented transition as a glorious economic opportunity.

Oliver Milman 

 The Guardian

4/23/2021

Biden, along with several other national leaders, made a number of new promises in the summit. Here’s what it all means.

What has Joe Biden promised at the summit?

As its centerpiece announcement, the Biden administration has said planet-heating emissions will be cut by 50%-52% by 2030. The target was officially submitted to the United Nations as part of an overarching global system where countries submit voluntary emissions reduction goals in order to collectively avoid dangerous global heating.

Related: Biden vows to slash US emissions by half to meet ‘existential crisis of our time’

On top of this, the summit saw an American promise to double financial aid for developing countries struggling with the escalating droughts, floods, heatwaves and other impacts of the climate crisis, as well as a new US push to work with other countries on clean energy innovation.

The White House hopes the new commitments will spur other countries to do more, as well as signal the return of the US to the top table to climate leadership after a ruinous self-imposed exile under Donald Trump.

Is that enough to deal with the threat of climate change?

No. But then very little at this stage is sufficient. Despite decades of warnings from scientists, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar, only dipping last year due to pandemic-related shutdowns. The cuts required to stave off truly disastrous global heating are now precipitously steep – reduce by around half this decade and then to zero by 2050.

Some activists feel the US could be doing more, with a group of protesters dumping wheelbarrows of manure outside the White House on Thursday. The climate aid pledge has also been criticized as “very low” by ActionAid USA.

Video: 'We have to step up': Biden sets goal to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half  (NBC News)

Conversely, the US goal is one of the most ambitious for a developed country, will make a significant dent in overall emissions and has generally been received as striking the right balance between ambitious and feasible by governments desperate to see the world’s largest economy rejoin the climate battle.

“Is it enough? No,” said John Kerry, Biden’s climate envoy. “But it’s the best we can do today and prove we can begin to move.”

How will big reductions in emissions change Americans’ lives?

Emissions have been gradually declining in the US for several years, largely due to the collapse of the ailing coal industry. Cutting emissions in half within a decade will require far more aggressive, and noticeable, changes – an explosion in solar and wind jobs, a rapid shift to electric cars, the refitting of energy inefficient buildings, the demise of coal country, a revamp of farming practices.

Biden has framed this unprecedented transition as a glorious economic opportunity – “when I think of climate change, I think of jobs” has become a presidential slogan – and while experts agree that millions of new jobs can flow from a shift to clean energy the change will be jarring to some, particularly those working in fossil fuels

.

 Solar panels at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert near Primm, Nevada. Photograph: Jacob Kepler/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Regulations to force oil, coal and gas out of the energy system, along with mandates for electric cars, will have to materialize. But the climate problem is manifest – if the US is to get to net zero emissions by 2050 the focus at some point will shift to everything from airline and shipping emissions to gas stovetops in homes to whether a switch away from meat eating could help lower the sizable methane pollution from cattle.

Biden’s task is to help accelerate a shift already under way to renewables while cushioning the blow to those left by the wayside, all while avoiding a backlash from an American public wary of personal sacrifice.

How likely is it Biden will be able to deliver this?

There are record levels of alarm among the American public over the climate crisis, with majorities of Democratic and Republican voters supporting action to bring down emissions. Big business, unions and city leaders have also swung strongly behind the push for a federal response.

Imposing barriers remain in Congress, however, where Republicans have clung on to Trump-era rhetoric that acting on the climate crisis will harm the economy. The Biden climate target will put “good-paying American jobs into the shredder,” warned Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader.

Biden will be able to unilaterally shut off new oil and gas drilling on public lands and set new pollution standards for cars and power plants, but further legislation will be required. Given the paper-thin Democratic control of Congress, the fate of even broadly popular measures such as Biden’s $2tn infrastructure plan – which would greatly expand electric vehicle charging stations, boost public transit and push forward renewable energy deployment – appear uncertain.

At some point Biden will have to bring in “sticks” as well as “carrots”, such as a tax on carbon emissions and a directive to utilities to phase out fossil fuels. Again, such measures face huge hurdles in Congress.

If he does get all of that done, is it problem solved?

As the administration is keen to point out, the rest of the world is responsible for about 85% of all emissions and only through a coordinated, determined international effort will humanity avoid the punishing ravages of the climate crisis.

Canada and Japan announced upgraded emissions reduction targets at the climate summit but China, the world’s leading carbon polluter, didn’t bring anything new and some countries, such as Brazil and Australia, have deeply recalcitrant leaders. Ahead of key UN climate talks in Scotland later this year, Biden will not only have to corral an unusually divided domestic polity to achieve his goals but also prod other countries to do more. It’s an unenviable task.

TALC poses Health risk in forms like baby powder, bath bombs: Health Canada

While some forms of talc do not pose a health risk, other popular uses like in bubble baths, baby powder and bath bombs carry a risk of causing ovarian cancer, a government assessment found.

© Provided by Global News FILE - In this April 19, 2010, file photo, baby powder is squeezed from its bottle in Philadelphia. In a study released on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2020, U.S. government researchers found no evidence linking baby powder with ovarian cancer in the largest-ever analysis of an issue that has prompted thousands of lawsuits and a recent product recall. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

Amanda Connolly 

GLOBAL NEWS

4/23/2021

Researchers from Health Canada as well as from Environment and Climate Change Canada released on Thursday the final results of a screening assessment into the safety of talc products, launched in 2018.

The conclusion: avoid using products containing talc in loose powder form, and avoid using products containing talc in the female genital area.

READ MORE: Woman with cancer awarded $29M in Johnson and Johnson talcum powder suit

"The final screening assessment, based on the latest scientific evidence, concludes that certain uses of talc may be harmful to human health," reads a press release issued by health officials.

The screening flagged two areas of concern: the potential for inhaling talc particles when using products like baby powder, body powder and loose face powder, which carries a risk of lung damage; and potential risks when talc-containing products are used in certain self-care products for women.

These products include body powder, baby powder, diaper and rash creams, genital antiperspirants and deodorants, body wipes, bath bombs and bubble bath products.

There is no evidence suggesting talc poses a risk if ingested or used on top of the skin through products like pressed powder makeup, officials said.

Canadians are being advised to check the ingredient lists on products they are using, and to avoid using products containing loose talc that can be inhaled or that is intended for use around the female genitals.

Using the products around the female genitals is associated with a risk of ovarian cancer.

READ MORE: Can talcum powder cause ovarian cancer?

"Canadians concerned about current or previous use of products containing talc should also consult their health-care professional," the statement added.

Video: Health Canada finds talcum powder may cause cancer, lung damage

The safety of talc has been in the spotlight in recent years because of several lawsuits that linked use of baby powder with individuals who later developed ovarian cancer.

Johnson & Johnson has paid out roughly $5 billion in legal settlements since 2016 to individuals who say they developed cancer after using baby powder routinely for personal hygiene.

READ MORE: Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million in lawsuit linking talcum powder to cancer

Health Canada's draft assessment issued in 2018 suggested a link was likely.

Officials are now looking to adjust some of the product monographs for products containing talc, and reduce exposure to those products.

Video: Health Matters: Johnson & Johnson being investigated for possible asbestos

 VIDEO Female salmon perish at higher rate as temperatures warm

 Video: How Los Angeles is trying to recycle wastewater into drinkable water (CNBC)

TURNING GREY WATER CLEAR

Offshore wind firm to work with researchers on recycling glass fibers to tackle blade waste

Anmar Frangoul 
CNBC 4/23/2021

The issue of what to do with wind turbine blades when they're no longer needed is a headache for the industry.

In recent years, a number of companies involved in the sector have attempted to find solutions to the problem.

© Provided by CNBC This file photo, taken on July 31, 2018, shows workers checking the quality of newly-manufactured wind turbine blades at a factory in China.

A collaboration between academia and industry is to focus on the recycling of glass fiber products, in a move that could eventually help to reduce the waste produced by wind turbine blades.

In an announcement on Thursday, the University of Strathclyde, which is based in Glasgow, Scotland, said it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Aker Offshore Wind and Aker Horizons.

Among other things, the trio will work together to scale-up and commercialize a process developed in the laboratory which centers around recycling glass-reinforced polymer composites used in wind turbine blades.

According to the university, the system focuses on the "thermal recovery and post-treatment of glass fibres" from glass-reinforced polymer composite scrap, with the end result "near-virgin quality glass fibres." The idea is that, using this system, the composite waste could be re-used.

"This is a challenge not only for the wind power industry, but for all industries reliant on GRP materials in their production and manufacturing," Liu Yang, who is head of the Advanced Composites Group at the University of Strathclyde, said in statement.

"Retaining and redeploying the embodied energy in the fibres is essential as we move to a more circular economy," he added.

The issue of what to do with wind turbine blades when they're no longer needed is a headache for the industry. This is because the composite materials blades are made from can prove to be difficult to recycle, which means that many end up as landfill when their service life ends.

As the number of wind turbines on the planet increases, the problem will become even bigger. Strathclyde says blade waste could hit 400,000 tons a year in 2030.

In recent years, a number of companies involved in the sector have attempted to find solutions to the issue.

Last December, for example, GE Renewable Energy and Veolia North America signed a "multi-year agreement" to recycle blades removed from onshore wind turbines in the United States.

In an announcement at the time, GE Renewable Energy said the blades would be shredded at a Veolia North America site in Missouri before being "used as a replacement for coal, sand and clay at cement manufacturing facilities across the U.S."

In January 2020, Danish wind energy giant Vestas said it was aiming to produce "zero-waste" wind turbines by the year 2040.

CRACKPOT CAPITALIST CLIMATE IDEAS

Carbon capture and "dimming" the sun pose dilemmas for climate

Jeff Berardelli  

CBS NEWS

4/23/2021

The climate crisis is arguably the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced, and to limit warming to manageable levels, time is our biggest opponent. While the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner renewable energy is now gaining steam, the pace is simply not fast enough to head off the harmful impacts that are already being felt throughout the world.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5ºC" — the international community's benchmark guide to averting climate disaster — says to reach the goal of staying below 1.5ºC of warming requires "rapid and far-reaching transitions" in our energy, industrial and other systems that would be "unprecedented in scale." In other words, the task is herculean.

So, many experts say drastic times call for drastic measures, arguing that technology like climate geoengineering should be part of the solution toolkit. Proponents say that while switching to renewable energy, driving electric vehicles and restoring forests can get us far, that's simply not enough. The IPCC agrees, and cites one specific type of geoengineering — carbon capture and sequestration — as a necessary part of the suite of solutions.

While carbon capture — a process of trapping, compressing and then storing away harmful emissions to keep them out of the atmosphere — has its share of detractors, the climate community generally accepts that it will be necessary, though the extent to which it can and should be used is hotly debated.

But that debate pales in comparison to the controversy provoked by another proposed type of geoengineering known as Solar Radiation Management, in which humans would artificially dim the sun. That idea is loaded with compelling physical and ethical considerations which will be explored below

Carbon capture

Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has released 1.6 trillion tons of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased by 50% — at a pace 100 times faster than it naturally should. As a result, our planet is now warming 10 times faster than it has in 65 million years. The scale and speed is unprecedented.

Despite advances in clean energy like wind and solar, the world still gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels. Because it is integrated into almost every nook and cranny of modern life, the challenge of eliminating carbon from our energy system is monumental. And even if humanity can significantly slow or even stop emitting carbon pollution, carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years. The only way to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations is to pull the carbon back out of the atmosphere.

In order to do that, there are natural solutions like forest restoration as well as technical solutions like carbon capture systems.

A 2017 research paper, led by the Nature Conservancy, found that natural climate solutions like restoring forests, wetlands and grasslands can, in a best-case scenario, provide 37% of the CO2 mitigation needed to keep humanity below the upper goal (2ºC of warming) of the Paris Agreement. That's significant, but not enough.

Chad Frischmann, the senior director of research and technology at Project Drawdown, a climate solutions organization, prefers if society concentrates on developing ways to get nature to do the work.

"Overall, these natural forms of 'carbon capture' are tried, true and cost effective. More importantly, they have a ton of cascading benefits to agricultural productivity, biodiversity, and the health of the planet," he said.

But carbon capture specialists like Dr. Julio Friedmann, a global energy policy expert from Columbia University — known as @CarbonWrangler on Twitter — believe technological solutions should have a bigger role to play because even if we shift to clean energy there are certain industrial processes, like cement and steel making, that cannot easily be decarbonized.

As is clear from his Twitter handle, Friedmann is bullish on carbon removal — not as a replacement for other solutions, but as a complement to them.

"CO2 removal is one mitigation strategy. It is a mitigation strategy like efficiency, renewables, electric vehicles. It is just one of the many things that we will do," he said. "But if we do everything we know how to do today there's always this fat residual 10 billion tons a year that we have no solutions for."

Carbon capture — often referred to as CCUS, for carbon capture, utilization and storage — is an industrial process by which carbon dioxide is absorbed during power generation and industrial processes and stored away, typically underground, sometimes utilized for enhanced oil recovery or used in certain manufactured goods.

Globally, there are about 50 large-scale CCUS plants, including 10 currently operating in the U.S.

© Provided by CBS News A pipe installed as part of the Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project carries carbon dioxide captured from the emissions of the NRG Energy Inc. WA Parish generating station in Thompsons, Texas, in 2017. The project, a joint venture between NRG Energy and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp., reportedly captures and repurposes more than 90% of its own CO2 emissions. / Credit: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images

A less common but growing method is called direct air capture (DAC), in which carbon dioxide is sucked right out of the air through the use of large fans. There are currently only 15 DAC facilities worldwide which capture only 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Some larger facilities are planned. The Swiss company Climeworks is building a DAC plant in Iceland capable of capturing 4,000 tons, and the American petroleum giant Occidental plans a much more ambitious facility in the West Texas Permian Basin which it says will capture 1 million tons of CO2 a year.

Collectively all these CCUS and DAC facilities have the capacity to capture about 40 million tons of carbon dioxide yearly. It sounds like a lot, until you consider that each year humans emit almost 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere —1,000 times more than we can capture — to say nothing about all the CO2 that is already up there as a result of the Industrial Revolution.

To put it bluntly, critics say CCUS and DAC are not ready for prime-time and may never be. The processes are very expensive, they consume copious amounts of energy themselves — often, ironically, produced by burning fossil fuels — and their capacity is just a tiny fraction of what's needed.

Frischmann said, "They will never scale to the level necessary to offset fossil fuel emissions, and will take 20 years of 20% annual growth to even start making a dent in the atmosphere. Highly unlikely rate of growth."

He's also concerned about the moral hazard of promoting carbon capture as a solution, because he says these "false silver bullets" mean emitters can keep emitting with the promise that technology will suck up all their pollution. "Attention to them now allows fossil fuel companies, and their cronies, to continue business-as-usual with the promise of a Band-Aid that is not materializing anytime soon," Frischmann said.

But Friedmann disagrees. He believes good policies can help carbon capture scale up quickly.

"It's not a technology challenge, it's a finance challenge," he said. "It's helpful to think about these things like solar in 2002. Solar electricity in 2002 was expensive, not mass produced. And then there was this set of policy and innovation pushes that really dropped the price and helped commercialization."

He also feels that mopping up our mess is a moral responsibility.

"If you accept that we should remove CO2 from the air and oceans, it is essentially a way of addressing prior wrongs. It's a way of the Global North announcing its intentions to clean up its mess and say we are going to do this so the Global South doesn't have to."

© Provided by CBS News Technicians inspect the direct air capture system at the Carbon Engineering Ltd. pilot facility in Squamish, British Columbia, Canada, on Nov. 4, 2019. / Credit: James MacDonald/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Peter Kalmus (@ClimateHuman), a NASA climate scientist, says he supports the concept of carbon capture and thinks we should keep researching it, but he is "extremely skeptical it will ever be possible or helpful." He thinks it should not be included in planning until we know it can be done at scale.

Kalmus puts it colorfully: "I feel the IPCC stepped way out of bounds in normalizing it in greenhouse gas budgets and scenarios. They may as well have included genies, fairies, and pixies in their scenarios."

Kalmus shares a concern with many others in the climate community that focusing on carbon capture will distract us from the real work of getting off fossil fuels.

He said, "The most compelling 'con' to me is that it will be used by politicians, decision-makers, and the public to reduce the urgency and delay timescales for addressing what is surely the greatest emergency facing humanity."

But clearly the two arguments are not mutually exclusive: carbon capture can both be used as a delay tactic and also be a necessary part of the solution.

President Biden's ambitious climate agenda aims to bolster the U.S. carbon capture capacity, not only to clean up the environment but also to create jobs. His $2 trillion infrastructure plan includes funding for carbon recapture plants. This is a rare area of agreement for Democrats and Republicans and may be a necessary inclusion to help garner support across the aisle. It's even won support from the United Mine Workers of America, which backed incentives for using carbon capture technology along with measures to protect jobs in coal country.

SEE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-myth-of-carbon-capture-and-storage.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=CCS

THE CONTINUING DISTRACTION OF CCS

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment (plawiuk.blogspot.com)

Solar geoengineering

If the idea of artificially dimming the sun to minimize global warming seems like science fiction, you wouldn't be alone in that opinion. It is certainly fraught with potential dangers and unknowns. But the concept is actually rather simple technologically, and relatively inexpensive. The challenges are not so much technical or financial, they are political and ethical.

Proponents like Bill Gates say solar geoengineering could buy humanity time to transition over to renewable energy. Opponents argue there are a multitude of concerns about the potential consequences.

Solar geoengineering proposals go by various names, including Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention (SAI).

The idea is to fly specialized planes into the stratosphere, more than 50,000 feet above Earth's surface, and unload small aerosol particles (like sulfates) which would block some of the sunlight from reaching the Earth. Because atmospheric winds are all connected, the suspended particles would circulate the globe. Less sun equals less heating. Theoretically, the amount of cooling could be controlled by managing the amount and distribution of aerosols the planes deliver. As long as the particles are up there, the cooling would continue.

There is also a less talked-about option called Marine Cloud Brightening. It's somewhat similar in that particles are injected, but this time into clouds to make them brighter, whiter and more able to reflect sunlight back into space before it heats the Earth. Proposals suggest spraying sea salt aerosols from vessels into marine clouds. Those particles would act as condensation nuclei allowing more cloud droplets to form, blocking more sun. Here the impacts here would be more regional, not global.

Both types of solar geoengineering are explained below, in an illustration from the Union of Concerned Scientists 

  

.

© Provided by CBS News / Credit: Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientists know SAI could lower temperatures because a natural version of it is on display for all to see and measure when big volcanoes, like Mout Pinatubo in the Philippines, erupt and spew sulfates high up into the stratosphere.

In 2001, Pinatubo injected about 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it formed a hazy layer of aerosol particles composed primarily of sulfuric acid droplets. This blocked enough sunlight to reduce the planet's temperature by 1ºF over the course of 1 to 2 years

.

© Provided by CBS News A giant mushroom cloud of steam and ash exploding out of Mount Pinatubo volcano during an eruption on June 12, 1991. / Credit: ARLAN NAEG/AFP via Getty Images

"The technical challenges for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering are not great, all that is needed is a new, high-altitude jet that could carry tons of material into the lower stratosphere, about 60,000 feet up," explains Peter Irvine, a professor of solar geoengineering at University College London.

Specialized planes would be needed because the air is much thinner at that high altitude. Irvine believes it's a cost-effective option to consider given the severity of the crisis facing the planet.

"Developing and running a fleet of such aircraft would cost a few billion dollars per year initially, which is small compared to the projected damages of climate change or to the costs of decarbonizing the economy," he said.

A 2018 paper estimates the upfront cost for development of one such aircraft would be $2 to $3 billion, and maintaining a fleet of planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year would cost around $2 to $2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years.

Frischmann says it's the affordability that scares him.

"It is cheap, and this is scary. There are any number of billionaires, corporations or small states with the wealth to inject enough sulfate into the stratosphere to cause irreparable damage. Chilling thought," he said.

The damage that might be caused by tampering with the atmosphere is debatable and unknown because there simply hasn't been much real-world research done. That's partly because any atmospheric modification, or even the consideration of it, is highly controversial.

A major concern among many climate scientists is the chance of unintended consequences from artificially cooling the Earth with aerosols. Could it cause floods in one nation and droughts in another? Will it weaken the ozone layer? Will it hurt species or ecosystems? Could it be used unilaterally as a weapon by one nation to inflict climate damage on another? Some of these hypotheticals may be more likely than others, but these are questions that can only be answered by research.

Its ability to raise alarm was on display a few weeks ago. A very small research project called SCoPEx, by a group of Harvard researchers, which was scheduled for this summer, was just postponed until at least 2022. To illustrate how divisive the concept is, the team wasn't even spraying any aerosols — just testing equipment. Regardless, Swedish environmental organizations and the Indigenous Saami Council sent a letter demanding the project be canceled, calling the plan a real moral hazard and saying the technology entails risks of catastrophic consequences. The Harvard advisory committee put it on hold, pending further societal engagement.

While Irvine is bullish on SIA's "potential to reduce the risks of climate change if used as a complement to emissions cuts," he is quick to point out that a much better understanding is needed: "We don't know enough about its potential, limits and risks to make recommendations on whether or not to deploy it. Research is needed to better understand its potential physical consequences, as well as to understand the broader social and political challenges it poses."

In 2019, the U.S. government allotted $4 million for stratospheric monitoring and research efforts. The program includes assessments of solar climate interventions such as proposals to inject material into the stratosphere.

© Provided by CBS News The sun rises over an oil field over the Monterey Shale formation where gas and oil extraction using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is taking place on March 24, 2014 near Lost Hills, California. / Credit: David McNew / Getty Images

A year ago, Irvine and Dr. David Keith, another well-known expert in solar geoengineering, published a paper looking into the effectiveness and potential side effects of SAI. In a geoengineering model study, the team found that halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could potentially reduce key climate hazards and would have limited regional side effects. But a limited model study is not nearly enough to base these monumental decisions on.

Recently, solar geoengineering supporters got a boost from a powerful scientific organization. Given the urgency of the risks posed by climate change, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the U.S. government should cautiously pursue a research program for solar geoengineering, with funding in the $100 to $200 million range over 5 years.

But even if solar geoengineering worked to cool temperatures, it would do nothing for the problem of ocean acidification, because it does not address the root cause of the warming — the carbon dioxide which traps heat and dissolves in the ocean to make waters more acidic.

For all these reasons, many in the climate community believe the cons outweigh the potential pros.

"In short, do not try to fix a global, catastrophic problem with a Band-Aid that no one knows will work as intended, or knows what long-term unintended damage can be done to the planet," said Frischmann.

Kalmus sees the value in researching solar geoengineering, but says the fact that we are even contemplating it evokes visions of a dystopian future. He goes further by discussing what is likely the most risky aspect of SAI.

"Solar geoengineering has an even darker aspect which is that the moment society stopped doing it, for whatever reason, there would be a rapid spike in global mean temperature, which is an extraordinarily dangerous prospect," he said.

In other words, if the world used SAI to hold down temperatures for 30 years, and then stopped, almost immediately temperatures would spike the whole 30 years worth of warming in a year or two — with possibly devastating consequences for ecosystems and species that could not immediately adapt.

"It is a last resort lever to be pulled under the most dire circumstances for life on the planet. There is not a scenario where I see this as needed," Frischmann urges. As an expert in solutions, he points instead to a more holistic set of changes we could make to energy use, industry, transportation, agriculture and other sectors that are supported by research.

Kalmus sees resorting to extreme geoengineering solutions as lazy and selfish.

"Saying either 'we'll figure out and do carbon capture later this century' or 'we'll cool the planet with aerosols' is negligently irresponsible, and basically says, 'We old people can keep consuming and polluting, we'll force our kids to pay the price.' It's intergenerational genocide."

California governor seeks ban on new fracking by 2024


SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday said California will stop issuing fracking permits by 2024 and halt all oil drilling by 2045, using his authority to take on the state's powerful oil and gas industry in a year he will likely face voters in a recall election.

]

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Newsom's order is the beginning of a lengthy rule-making process that, if successful, would make California the largest state to ban fracking and likely the first in the world to set a deadline for the end of all oil production.


“California needs to move beyond oil," Newsom said in a news release, arguing it would “create a healthier future for our children.”

California was once one of the largest oil-producing states in the nation, with a robust industry centred in the Central Valley just north of Los Angeles. But by 2020, the state’s oil production fell to its lowest level in state history, down 68% from its peak in 1985.

Now, one of the state's top exports is electric cars. The state has ordered automakers to sell more electric work trucks and delivery vans and, last year, Newsom ordered state regulators to ban the sale of all new gas-powered cars by 2035.

Still, California is the seventh-largest oil producing state in the country, with an industry that directly employs about 152,000 people and is responsible for $152.3 billion in economic output, according to a 2019 study commissioned by the Western States Petroleum Association. Friday, WSPA President and CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd vowed “to fight this harmful and unlawful mandate.”

“Banning nearly 20% of the energy production in our state will only hurt workers, families and communities in California and turns our energy independence over to foreign suppliers,” she said.

Eliminating California's oil and gas industry won't be easy. The state has more than 60,000 active oil wells, and industry executives and their allies have lots of influence at the state capitol. But in the first quarter of 2021, permits for all types of oil drilling in California plunged 90%, according to an analysis of state data by FracTracker Alliance, an environmental advocacy group.

“The transformation is already happening in front of our eyes,” said Jared Blumenfeld, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Newsom's order directs the California Air Resources Board to figure out how the state can end oil production in a “very rigorous, open, transparent, analytical process.” The board could decide to do it before 2045, but not after.

“When you look at the science, we can’t be extracting oil after 2045,” he said. “That’s the only way we are going to achieve our carbon goals is by significantly reducing and ending extraction of oil.”

Fracking — short for hydraulic fracturing, the process of extracting oil and gas embedded in rock deep underground — accounts for a small portion of the state’s oil and gas production each year. But environmental advocates have long sought its banishment because of its harmful effects on the environment and public health.

Last year, Newsom said he did not have the authority to ban fracking on his own and asked the Legislature to do it instead. Two state senators, both Democrats, tried to do it. But last week their bill died in the Legislature because not enough lawmakers supported it.

Now, Newsom says he can do it himself, but it's unclear what changed his mind. California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said Friday that Newsom believes the best way to ban fracking is to change the law. But, when it became clear that wouldn't happen, Crowfoot said Newsom “directed us through our regulatory authorities to protect the environment and public safety to end the practice of fracking.”

Newsom did temporarily halt new fracking permits in 2019 after he discovered a sharp increase in new permits since he took office, which also prompted him to fire the state's top oil and gas regulator. That ban lifted in April 2020 after a team of independent scientists reviewed the state's permitting process.

Since taking office, the Newsom administration has issued 291 fracking permits, according to an analysis of state data by FracTracker Alliance. Still, some environmental groups were hoping Newsom would act faster.

“It's historic and globally significant that Gov. Newsom has committed California to phase out fossil fuel production and ban fracking, but we don't have time for studies and delays,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. “Every fracking and drilling permit issued does more damage to our health and climate.”

The Newsom administration said the state's rule-making process, while lengthy, is needed to make sure any new rule survives a lawsuit.

“We want this prohibition to be durable,” Crowfoot said.

The California League of Conservation voters praised Newsom, saying the announcement “is the consistent leadership our state needs if we stand a chance of preventing major climate catastrophe.”

But some in Newsom's own party were critical, including state Sen. Melissa Hurtado, a Democrat from the Central Valley, who said the fracking ban would lead to higher energy prices that would in turn increase food prices.

“The governor's actions could not come at a worse time for the Central Valley, which is already reeling from a drought that — together with this decision — may cause a national food crisis,” she said.

Adam Beam, The Associated Press

4/23/2021