Carbon Pipelines Negative T
No Solvency – Prefer Our Evidence
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- No Regulations Now
- If they happen, they will be watered down
- Environment Turn – Leaks
No Solvency – Prefer Our EvidenceCCS fails—8 reasons Rochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H This report, based on peer-reviewed independent scientific research shows that: CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030.1 To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions have to start falling after 2015, just seven years away. CCS wastes energy. The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station.2 Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one third.3 Storing carbon underground is risky. Safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed. Even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation efforts. CCS is expensive. It could lead to a doubling of plant costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%.4 Money spent on CCS will divert investments away from sustainable solutions to climate change. CCS carries significant liability risks. It poses a threat to health, ecosystems and the climate. It is unclear how severe these risks will be. No Regulations NowNo regulationsFroomkin 12 Dan, Senior Washington Correspondent for the Huffington Post, “Auction 2012: Energy Lobby Finds Power In Money And Fear,” 1/31/12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/auction-2012-energy-lobby_n_1242134.html]//SH Perhaps most important of all, the energy industry's political power has allowed it to crush -- and now make politically unthinkable -- any effort to assess the external costs of greenhouse gases created in the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Just as one point of reference, a 2009 report from the National Research Council tried to estimate the costs of air pollution and other harms that are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels. The report pegged the price of the damage from fossil fuel production and consumption at $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005 alone -- and that notably did not include the cost of climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some toxic air pollutants and risks to national security, all of which the report was unable to quantify. Looking at power plants' burning of coal, the report found that damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter averaged about 3.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of energy produced. It estimated climate-related monetary damages at 0.1 cents to 10 cents per kwh, depending on assumptions. By contrast, coal costs 7 to 14 cents per kwh. Yet any kind of carbon tax or fee is politically impossible right now, said Kyle Ash, senior legislative representative for Greenpeace. It's not so much an issue of dogma. "There are a lot fewer climate deniers than people think," he said. It's a matter of money. "There's a lot of good data on which politicians are taking how much money from fossil fuel industries, and you can see clear connections," Ash said, pointing to a recent Greenpeace report titled "Polluting Democracy." "I think it's about who's paying for their campaigns," he said. The clearest evidence, he said, comes in the otherwise unresolvable contradiction between what politicians say and what they do. "The contradiction is that they're also really opposed to federal outlays, and they want to cut taxes," Ash said. "But they're fighting against the removal of fossil fuel subsidies." If they happen, they will be watered downBarringer and Gillis 12 (Felicity and Justin, March 27, “New Limit Pending on Emissions”, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/new-rules-will-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html) After months of delay, the Obama administration is about to unveil the first federal standards to explicitly limit greenhouse-gas emissions from new electric power plants — one of the chief sources of carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change. According to people briefed by the Environmental Protection Agency, all existing plants — including the 300 or so coal-fired power plants that now release the highest level of these emissions and yet-to-be-built plants that have already received E.P.A. permits — will be grandfathered in at current levels, meaning they are exempt from the new proposed rule. Under the new rule, expected to be announced this week, new power plants will have to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of energy produced. That standard permits the level of emissions achieved by natural gas-fired plants of the type generally built in the last few years, but would be too strict for almost all coal-fired power plants if they were not exempted. A new natural gas plant produces a little less than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. A coal plant produces about 1,800 pounds. Environment Turn – LeaksCo2 pipelines lead to dead zonesWinter 7 Human Resources Manager at Astral Media, Canada's largest radio broadcasting station, EcoGeek (Jozef Winter, November 27, 2007, “Carbon Sequestration Just a Pipe Dream?” http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/1100)//DR. H Not only that, these pipes have to be under high pressures to keep the CO2 at a supercritical fluid state, requiring a lot of energy and equipment, not to mention pumping stations along the way. To add insult to injury, the pipes will, like those in the arctic, disrupt animals' ranges and migration routes. At least if the pipes leak, we're not contaminating the environs with oil or flammable gases. There will just be a small dead zone will where everything dies from lack of oxygen. It's all very exciting stuff. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|