Breaking: North Carolina Regulators Take Legal Action Against Duke Energy for Coal Ash Dumping
North Carolina environmental regulators have cited Duke Energy for violating the conditions of a wastewater permit after it illegally dumped an estimated 61 million gallons of coal ash wastewater into a Cape Fear River tributary, according to Waterkeeper Alliance.
The state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued the citation on Thursday for the permit violations after state officials discovered the dumping during a March 11 inspection at Duke Energy's Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant.
[blackoutgallery id="326556"]
Regulators said the wastewater was flushed from two large, confined lagoons and into the on-site canal that empties in an unnamed tributary, which connects with the Cape Fear River. The state agency calculated its estimate based on log books Duke Energy maintained for the pumping activities.
Waterkeeper Alliance released aerial surveillance photos taken from a fixed-wing aircraft last week catching Duke Energy workers in the act of pumping the wastewater.
"After more than a week of indecisiveness, DENR conceded that Duke’s secret pumping was indeed illegal, but yet again, DENR’s action only came after Waterkeeper Alliance and the Cape Fear Riverkeeper caught Duke in the act with aerial surveillance photos,” said Donna Lisenby, Waterkeeper Alliance’s global coal campaign coordinator. “Once again, citizens and shrewd investigative reporters had to work overtime to pick up the slack because DENR had failed to notice this egregious dumping for several months."
The pumps and attached hoses were set up in the pair of coal ash lagoons but were not in use when state officials visited the plant last week. The pumping equipment has since been removed.
The March 11 visit to the Cape Fear plant was part of DENR’s inspections of all Duke Energy’s facilities with coal ash lagoons.
The inspections were announced in the wake of the Feb. 2 coal ash spill at the Dan River plant. The detailed information the state is gathering about each facility will factor into the state’s future decision-making with regard to all of North Carolina's coal ash lagoons.
"Duke says it is 'accepting full responsibility' for the Dan River spill," said Cape Fear Riverkeeper Kemp Burdette. "How are we to believe them when they have been deliberately pumping their toxic waste into the Cape Fear River, including on the very same day millions more gallons of sludge were also spilling into the Dan River as a result of Duke's carelessness."
State officials have notified cities downstream of the findings at the Cape Fear plant.
None of the downstream municipalities have reported problems meeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standards. However, DENR officials are collecting water samples in the Cape Fear River downstream from the plant to determine if surface water meets state water quality standards.
Duke Energy is permitted by the state to discharge treated wastewater from the ash ponds into the canal through vertical spillway pipes, known as risers. The coal ash lagoons and risers at the Cape Fear plant provide physical treatment that allows heavier, more concentrated ash residuals to settle to the bottom of the lagoons over time.
Yet the state’s investigation revealed that the pumping activities bypassed the riser structures and accelerated the drawing down of the lagoons so much that they no longer properly functioned as treatment systems.
According to Duke Energy, the company was using a temporary pumping system to lower water levels in two basins at the Cape Fear plant to perform upcoming maintenance.
“We were notified by phone in August that Duke Energy intended to conduct routine maintenance work at these ash ponds,” said Tom Reeder, director of the NC Division of Water Resources. “The state’s investigation revealed that the pumping activities ongoing at this plant far exceeded what would reasonably be considered routine maintenance.”
Prior to the March 11 inspection, staff with the Division of Water Resources inspected the Cape Fear plant on Dec. 6. During that visit, the state inspector noticed parts of disconnected pumping equipment on the berm next to one of the lagoons, but its levels did not appear to be lower.
Duke Energy did not mention to the inspector during the Dec. 6 inspection that pumping had been on-going in the months prior to the inspection.
By law, the state agency can issue civil penalties for violations of state environmental laws but is required to give the company 10 days to respond to the notice of violation.
"Duke Energy has had such a cozy relationship with NC regulators and legislators for so long they don't even think twice about breaking the law with respect to their poisonous coal ash pollution," said Waterkeeper Alliance attorney Peter Harrison.
Contribute
Fossil remains indicate these birds had a wingspan of over 20 feet. Brian Choo, CC BY-NC-SA
By Peter A. Kloess
Picture Antarctica today and what comes to mind? Large ice floes bobbing in the Southern Ocean? Maybe a remote outpost populated with scientists from around the world? Or perhaps colonies of penguins puttering amid vast open tracts of snow?
<p>
<br/>
</p>
<p>Fossils from Seymour Island, just off the Antarctic Peninsula, are painting a very different picture of what Antarctica looked like 40 to 50 million years ago – a time when the ecosystem was lusher and more diverse. Fossils of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61973-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">frogs</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/03115518.2011.565214" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">plants</a> such as ferns and conifers indicate Seymour Island was much warmer and less icy, while fossil remains from <a href="https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8268" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">marsupials and distant relatives of armadillos and anteaters</a> hint at the previous connections between Antarctica and other continents in the Southern Hemisphere.</p><p>There were also birds. Penguins were present then, as they are now, but fossil relatives of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.13679/j.advps.2019.0014" target="_blank">ducks, falcons and albatrosses</a> have also been found in Antarctica. My <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5CGShQUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">colleagues</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XlyfD9QAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">I</a> have recently published an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75248-6" target="_blank">article</a> revealing new information about the fossil group that would have dwarfed all the other birds on Seymour Island: the pelagornithids, or "bony-toothed" birds.</p>
Giants of the Sky
<p>As their name suggests, these ancient birds had sharp, bony spikes protruding from sawlike jaws. Resembling teeth, these spikes would have helped them catch squid or fish. We also studied another remarkable feature of the pelagornithids – their imposing size.</p><p>The largest flying bird alive today is the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/group/albatrosses/" target="_blank">wandering albatross</a>, which has a wingspan that reaches 11 ½ feet. The Antarctic pelagornithids fossils we studied have a wingspan nearly double that – about 21 feet across. If you tipped a two-story building on its side, that's about 20 feet.</p><p>Across Earth's history, very few groups of vertebrates have achieved powered flight – and only two reached truly giant sizes: birds and a group of <a href="https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/pterosaurs-flight-in-the-age-of-dinosaurs/what-is-a-pterosaur" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reptiles called pterosaurs</a>.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDYyNTM1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MzU3NzQ4MX0.YS7_KnVR9sjypuvU4e42zccxgYW-_WgV6iVafkDsOMM/img.jpg?width=980" id="78970" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="95d21d5a82c7b1826385df45bc05cc65" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Full-size model of a Quetzalcoatlus on display at JuraPark in Baltow, Poland. Aneta Leszkiewicz / Wikimedia
<p>Pterosaurs ruled the skies during the Mesozoic Era (252 million to 66 million years ago), the same period that dinosaurs roamed the planet, and they reached hard-to-believe dimensions. <a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/11/absurd-creature-of-the-week-quetz/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Quetzalcoatlus</a> stood 16 feet tall and had a colossal 33-foot wingspan.</p>Birds Get Their Opportunity
<p>Birds originated while dinosaurs and pterosaurs were still roaming the planet. But when an <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-killing-asteroid-impact-chicxulub-crater-timeline-destruction-180973075/" target="_blank">asteroid struck the Yucatan Peninsula 66 million years ago</a>, dinosaurs and pterosaurs both perished. Some <a href="https://www.audubon.org/news/how-birds-survived-asteroid-impact-wiped-out-dinosaurs" target="_blank">select birds survived</a>, though. These survivors diversified into the thousands of bird species alive today. Pelagornithids evolved in the period right after dinosaur and pterosaur extinction, when competition for food was lessened.</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/spp2.1284" target="_blank">The earliest pelagornithid remains</a>, recovered from 62-million-year-old sediments in New Zealand, were about the size of modern gulls. The first giant pelagornithids, the ones in our study, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75248-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">took flight over Antarctica about 10 million years later</a>, in a period called the Eocene Epoch (56 million to 33.9 million years ago). In addition to these specimens, fossilized remains from other pelagornithids have been found on every continent.</p><p>Pelagornithids lasted for about 60 million years before going extinct just before the Pleistocene Epoch (2.5 million to 11,700 years ago). No one knows exactly why, though, because few fossil records have been recovered from the period at the end of their reign. Some paleontologists cite <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2011.562268" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate change as a possible factor</a>.</p>Piecing it Together
<p>The fossils we studied are fragments of whole bones collected by paleontologists from the University of California at Riverside in the 1980s. In 2003, the specimens were transferred to Berkeley, where they now reside in the <a href="https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">University of California Museum of Paleontology</a>.</p><p>There isn't enough material from Antarctica to rebuild an entire skeleton, but by comparing the fossil fragments with similar elements from more complete individuals, we were able to assess their size.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDYyNTM2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDg2NTgzMn0.nouTygP-aON3I5a1RKEG9q1vB7_yJ30rTTd_Brc0CrA/img.jpg?width=980" id="cc47d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8ac77d6b9034f166e00fabac14d36f98" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
In life, the pelagornithid would have had numerous 'teeth,' making it a formidable predator. Peter Kloess, CC BY-NC-SA
<p>We estimate the pelagornithid's skull would have been about 2 feet long. A fragment of one bird's lower jaw preserves some of the "pseudoteeth" that would have each measured up to an inch tall. The spacing of those "teeth" and other measurements of the jaw show this fragment came from an individual as big as, if not bigger than, the largest known pelagornithids.</p><p>Further evidence of the size of these Antarctic birds comes from a second pelagornithid fossil, from a different location on Seymour Island. A section of a foot bone, called a tarsometatarsus, is the largest specimen known for the entire extinct group.<br></p><p>These pelagornithid fossil findings emphasize the importance of natural history collections. Successful field expeditions result in a wealth of material brought back to a museum or repository – but the time required to prepare, study and publish on fossils means these institutions typically <a href="https://theconversation.com/digitizing-the-vast-dark-data-in-museum-fossil-collections-102833" target="_blank">hold many more specimens than they can display</a>. Important discoveries can be made by collecting specimens on expeditions in remote locations, no doubt. But equally important discoveries can be made by simply processing the backlog of specimens already on hand.</p>
<p>
<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-a-kloess-1164526" target="_blank">Peter A. Kloess</a> is a </em><em>Doctoral Candidate, Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley.</em>
</p><p>
<em>Disclosure statement: </em><em><em>Peter A. Kloess does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</em></em>
</p><p>
<em><em></em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/giant-toothed-birds-flew-over-antarctica-40-million-to-50-million-years-ago-148772" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><iframe height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148772/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1"></iframe>From Your Site Articles
- Climate Change Threatens Two-Thirds of North American Bird ... ›
- 37% of North American Birds Face Extinction - EcoWatch ›
- Meet Five 'Extinct' Species That Have Returned to Life - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A baby orangutan displaced by palm oil plantation logging is seen at Nyaru Menteng Rehabilitation Center in Borneo, Indonesia on May 27, 2017. Jonathan Perugia / In Pictures / Getty Images
The world's largest financial institutions loaned more than $2.6 trillion in 2019 to sectors driving the climate crisis and wildlife destruction, according to a new report from advocacy organization portfolio.earth.
<p>For some perspective, portfolio.earth notes that $2.6 trillion is more than the entire GDP of Canada. The paper, Bankrolling Extinction, found that the world's largest banks funded an acceleration toward mass extinction in 2019 without trying to limit their impact on ecosystems, <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-biodiversity-banks/bank-loans-scrutinized-for-harm-to-wildlife-as-well-as-climate-idUKKBN27D001" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p><p>The top 10 banks implicated are Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Mizuho Financial, Wells Fargo, BNP Paribas, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial, HSBC, SMBC Group and Barclays, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/28/banks-lent-1-9tn-linked-to-ecosystem-and-wildlife-destruction-in-2019-report-aoe?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco&fbclid=IwAR2EberDUKgkfo7DFK19vxuZL3kBj8tzeIcnsBXG6ZjzxFOXUTQjOG07Jys" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>The authors of the report note that not only do the banks lack an internal system to limit, monitor or measure the impact of their loans on biodiversity, but the current financial system rules protect the banks from any consequences.</p>
<p>To determine how much money adversely affected the natural world, the researchers matched the loans and underwriting services from 50 large investment banks to areas the United Nations has identified as driving biodiversity loss, The Guardian reported. The most threatening sectors are food and agriculture, forestry, mining, fossil fuels, infrastructure, tourism, transportation and logistics.</p><p>For example, Bankrolling Extinction stressed the outsized role that industrial agriculture plays in biodiversity loss, especially when tropical forests in the Amazon and Asia are cleared to make way for cattle ranches and commodity crops.</p><p>Some banks have responded to pressure from investors and limited investments in Arctic drilling, coal and new oil exploration, The Guardian reported. </p>
<p>"Banks are starting to realize that if they invest in sectors that cause climate change, that will hurt their returns," Liz Gallagher, director of portfolio.earth, told Reuters. "Banks need to understand that the same holds true for destroying biodiversity."</p><p>However, The Guardian reported that an analysis by Rainforest Action Network found that the world's leading banks had not aligned their investments with the goals of the 2016 Paris climate agreement.</p><p>"This report from portfolio.earth confirms what our research also shows, that banks globally still need to step up their game and develop an approach to protect biodiversity," Peter van der Werf, senior engagement specialist at Netherlands-based asset manager Robeco, told Reuters.<br></p>
<p>If banks changed their lending patterns, that money could prevent mass extinction and tackle the climate crisis.</p><p>"Imagine a world in which projects can only raise capital when they have demonstrated that they will contribute meaningfully and positively to restoring the planet's bounty and a safe climate for all? That's the future this report envisions and builds toward," Professor Kai Chan of the Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia told The Guardian.</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Climate Crisis May Cause the Next Financial Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- World's Banks Have Given $2.7 Trillion to Fossil Fuels Since Paris ... ›
- World's Biggest Banks Are Driving Climate Change, Pumping ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A K-State weed specialist researches the impact of dicamba drift on non-resistant soybeans in 2018. K-State Research and Extension / YouTube
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of products containing the weedkiller dicamba for use on cotton and soybeans Tuesday. The EPA announcement means that two products that contain the herbicide found to cause cancer can be registered for five years. It also extended the use of a third product that also has dicamba in it, according to The Hill.
<p>The EPA said that two canceled dicamba herbicides — XtendiMax and Engenia — will now have a five-year registration. The same five-year extension was granted to the herbicide Tavium. The EPA argued that it provides relief to farmers who were unsure how they would treat their dicamba-resistant cotton and soybean crops.</p><p>"With today's decision, farmers now have the certainty they need to make plans for their 2021 growing season," said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-2020-dicamba-registration-decision" target="_blank">statement</a>. "After reviewing substantial amounts of new information, conducting scientific assessments based on the best available science, and carefully considering input from stakeholders we have reached a resolution that is good for our farmers and our environment."</p>
<p>The new rules around the three products are meant to address the concerns of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a 2018 registration of dicamba products, stating that the EPA "substantially understated" some of the risks associated with the chemical's use, as The Hill reported.</p><p>Also, a study earlier this year published in the <em><a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyaa066/5827818?redirectedFrom=fulltext" target="_blank">International Journal of Epidemiology</a></em> found that the chemical was linked to increased rates of liver and bile duct <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>.</p><p>The EPA's new rules seek to mitigate the risk by increasing the required downwind buffer from 110 feet to 240 feet, and up to 310 feet in areas where endangered species are located. States can still impose their own restrictions on the herbicide, but they will have to work with the EPA and file the appropriate requests, according to the EPA's statement.</p>
<p>Lobbying groups for<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-ag" target="_self"> big agriculture</a> and industry insiders welcomed the decision.</p><p>"The economic damage that would result from not being able to use dicamba herbicides would be tremendous," said Ken Fountain, National Cotton Council chairman, as <a href="https://www.agweb.com/article/dicamba-approved-over-top-use-2021-and-beyond" target="_blank">Ag Web</a> reported. "We greatly appreciate EPA's timely issuance of a new five-year label for the critical crop protection product for cotton farmers."</p><p>Environmentalists and consumer advocacy organizations were predictably appalled by the decision that seems to be an end-run around the court's decision.</p>
<p>"Rather than evaluating the significant costs of dicamba drift as the 9th Circuit told them the law required, EPA rushed re-approval as a political prop just before the election, sentencing farmers and the environment to another five years of unacceptable damage," said George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety, according to Ag Web. "Center for Food Safety will most certainly challenge these unlawful approvals."</p><p>Other critics noted the damage already caused by dicamba use.</p><p>"Given EPA-approved versions of dicamba have already damaged millions of U.S. acres of crops and natural areas there's no reason to trust that the agency got it right this time," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement, as The Hill reported.</p><p>"At this point, the EPA has shown such callous indifference to the damage dicamba has caused to farmers and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> alike, and has been so desperate to appease the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticide</a> industry, it has zero credibility when it comes to pesticide safety," Donley added.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- West Texas Vineyards Hit by Herbicide Drift - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Sides With Monsanto, Extends Dicamba 2 More Years ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
As U.S. Election Nears, Polling Shows 82 Percent of Voters Support 100 Percent Clean Energy Transition
2h
Energy
The majority of voters support a transition to renewable energy, including wind and solar. paedwards / Needpix
By Jessica Corbett
With an estimated 66 million ballots already cast and only a week to go until Election Day, new polling released Tuesday shows the vast majority of U.S. voters believe the nation should be prioritizing a transition to 100% clean energy and support legislation to decarbonize the economy over the next few decades.
<p><br/></p>
<p>Climate Nexus, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication <a href="https://climatenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Public-Gas-Poll-Climate-Change.pdf" target="_blank">surveyed</a> over 2,000 registered voters online in late September and early October. The poll's margin of error is plus/minus 2.2% at the 95% confidence level.</p><p>Pollsters found that 82% of voters somewhat (33%) or strongly (49%) agree that "the primary goal of U.S. energy policy should be achieving 100% clean energy."</p><p>Respondents were also asked to weigh in on legislation introduced in Congress "that would set the goal of achieving a 100% clean economy (eliminating fossil fuel emissions from the transportation, electricity, buildings, industry, and agricultural sectors) in the United States by the year 2050."</p><p>Over seven in 10 said they somewhat (31%) or strongly (40%) support such legislation—the same total percentage who said they somewhat (32%) or strongly (39%) support "requiring electric utility companies in the United States to generate 100% of their electricity from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by the year 2035."</p><p>"The conventional wisdom has clearly changed," Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale's program, said in a statement about the survey results Tuesday. "Voters strongly support a national transition from dependence on coal, oil, and gas to renewable sources like solar and wind."</p><p>The poll shows majorities of voters believe that transitioning to a 100% clean energy economy would positively impact jobs and economic growth, energy bills, rural and farming communities in their state, and communities of color in their state.</p><p>A majority of respondents (62%) also said they would be more likely to or would only vote for a candidate who supports "providing a multi-trillion-dollar federal economic stimulus that prioritizes investments in clean energy infrastructure."</p>
<div id="5206f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="584d1641628f692ff103aee7ed74b45e"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1321080152328208384" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Biden should get "uncontrolled climate change would cost $486 trillion" tattooed on his forehead imo https://t.co/nTbVdHa9gD</div> — Emily Atkin (@Emily Atkin)<a href="https://twitter.com/emorwee/statuses/1321080152328208384">1603805027.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>While support for hydraulic fracturing to increase production of natural gas and oil in the U.S. was split, 61% said there needs to be more regulation of fracking and 80% somewhat or strongly support requiring energy companies to install technology to reduce leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane.</p><p>When presented with two statements about natural gas, the majority of voters reiterated that they believe the U.S. should reduce the use of fossil fuels :</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDYyNDgxNy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MjgyNTE5Nn0.IzDbXLrMILJe7QvUmc11Po392wuun8MJkbvuzQMuUwA/img.png?width=980" id="85ad7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4a76b08bea09fe2057707ebc45dbf566" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>"The natural gas industry has spent decades convincing people their product is clean energy, and voters have believed them," said Edward Maibach, director of George Mason's center. "But we now know alarming spikes of methane emissions—caused in part by gas production—are making global warming worse. The public is beginning to catch on to the threat."</p><p>Nearly three-quarters (74%) of the poll's respondents somewhat or strongly support creating a jobs program for currently unemployed fossil fuel workers to safely close down tens of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that cause water and methane pollution; the same total percentage believe dirty energy companies should be required to cover at least some of the costs.</p><p>The new survey echoes polling results released last week following the <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/22/watch-joe-biden-and-donald-trump-face-final-presidential-debate-election-day" target="_blank">final debate</a> between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden. After Biden said that he would phase out the U.S. oil industry in a shift toward clean energy, a Morning Consult/Politico poll <a href="https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/10/23190208/2010136_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v1.pdf" target="_blank">found</a> that 57% of voters support a "concerted oil-to-renewables transition," with even greater support among Democrats.</p>
<p>Referencing those findings on Tuesday, <em>Our Daily Planet</em> <a href="https://www.ourdailyplanet.com/story/post-debate-poll-finds-57-of-registered-voters-support-phasing-out-fossil-fuels/?utm_source=Our+Daily+Planet+Subscribers&utm_campaign=e1bd284529-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_10_27_02_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_15a39131a0-e1bd284529-62405541&mc_cid=e1bd284529&mc_eid=9b209ce257" target="_blank">detailed</a> "why this matters":</p><blockquote>As Election Day draws near, new polls by Pew Research found that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/06/how-important-is-climate-change-to-voters-in-the-2020-election/" target="_blank">68% of registered voters</a> consider climate change to be a "very important" or "somewhat" important issue. Many experts (and even <a href="https://www.ourdailyplanet.com/story/trumps-losing-record-on-coal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">some coal workers)</a> agree that investing in renewable energy will <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">help create jobs and boost the economy</a>. Renewable energy is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/politics/trump-coal-industry.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">more economically viable than ever</a> and voters support it. Moderate Dems may have been nervous that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/23/energy-202-biden-draws-gop-attacks-with-call-transition-oil/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Republicans will try to skewer</a> Biden over this remark, but these polls suggest that might not work. The question will be whether it flips any voters in a crucial swing state. Only time will tell.<br></blockquote><p>In response to the fossil fuel discussion at last week's debate, 350 Action North America director Tamara Toles O'Laughlin <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/10/23/350-action-responds-final-presidential-debate" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said</a> in a statement that climate is a top issue for voters and "Biden demonstrated the capacity for leadership our country needs and deserves, including tackling the climate crisis at scale." </p><p>"While we may not always agree with his approach, we can see his willingness to listen, proven by a commitment to ending federal subsidies to the oil industry, and we look forward to finding solutions and common ground," she added. "On the other hand, we have Donald Trump, unhinged and desperate, flailing about, spewing a combination of lies and hateful rhetoric at every turn."</p><p>350 Action is among the climate advocacy groups that have <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/24/clarion-call-all-progressive-environmentalists-defeat-trumps-planetary-destruction" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">endorsed</a> Biden. The Democrat has also won the backing of various climate scientists as well as the first-ever endorsement from the editors at <em>Scientific American</em>, who <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/15/matter-life-and-death-after-175-years-scientific-american-backs-biden-magazines" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">warned</a> last month that "the 2020 election is literally a matter of life and death."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/27/election-nears-polling-shows-82-voters-believe-100-clean-power-should-be-primary-us?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Researchers say they have observed methane being released along a wide swath of the slope of the Laptev Sea. Aerohod / CC BY-SA 4.0
Arctic Ocean sediments are full of frozen gases known as hydrates, and scientists have long been concerned about what will happen when and if the climate crisis induces them to thaw. That is because one of them is methane, a greenhouse gas that has 80 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide over a 20 year period. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey has listed Arctic hydrate destabilization as one of the four most serious triggers for even more rapid climate change.
<p>Now, scientists onboard the Russian research ship R/V Akademik Keldysh have told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/27/sleeping-giant-arctic-methane-deposits-starting-to-release-scientists-find" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> that there is evidence this destabilization has already begun off Siberia's eastern coast.</p><p>"The discovery of actively releasing shelf slope hydrates is very important and unknown until now," vessel chief scientist Igor Semiletov of the Russian Academy of Sciences told The Guardian. "This is a new page."</p><p>The international team of 60 researchers said Tuesday they were the first to observe methane release over a wide area of the continental slope off of Eastern Siberia. They observed bubbles being released from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans" target="_self">ocean</a> sediment at six different observation points over a 150 kilometer (approximately 93 miles) by 10 kilometer (approximately 6 miles) stretch of the slope.</p>
<p>They also recorded methane concentrations of as much as 1,600 nanomoles per liter at a depth of around 300 meters (approximately 984 feet) on the slope of the Laptev Sea. That's 400 times higher a concentration than would be expected in normal circumstances.</p><p>While the methane bubbles are still being absorbed by the ocean, the researchers did measure methane concentrations near the surface that were four to eight times higher than normal, and said this methane would make it into the atmosphere.</p><p>"At this moment, there is unlikely to be any major impact on global warming, but the point is that this process has now been triggered. This East Siberian slope methane hydrate system has been perturbed and the process will be ongoing," Swedish scientist Örjan Gustafsso of Stockholm University told The Guardian.</p>
<p>This isn't the first alarming find that Semitelov's expedition has turned up. Last fall, they released images of a methane fountain bubbling up from the floor of the East Siberian Sea, <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/10/28/new-methane-discharge-discovered-in-russias-arctic-guardian-a71877" target="_blank">The Moscow Times reported</a>.</p><p>However, the researchers urged caution in responding to their findings. They stressed that they needed to be confirmed once the expedition is over and the data can be reviewed and written up in a peer reviewed journal.</p><p>"Potentially they can have serious climate consequences," Semitelov told The Guardian of his discoveries, "but we need more study before we can confirm that."</p><p>Scientists who were not involved with the study responded with skepticism to The Guardian story, <a href="https://theweek.com/speedreads/946300/climate-scientists-throw-cold-water-arctic-methane-bomb-report" target="_blank">The Week reported</a>.</p><p>Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather pointed to a major study of global methane emissions that relied on both satellite data and on-site observations and found that there was no increase in Arctic Ocean methane emissions as of 2017.</p>
<p>Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argued that there was no evidence that Arctic methane had had a significant climate impact in earlier eras when the region was even warmer than it is today. </p><p>"This story is ... unconvincing," he <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1321152148399362055" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tweeted</a>. "First off it's just two scientists (no publication), one of whom has made similar (unsupported) claims before & ignores the context that permafrost & methane have been degrading in this region since it was inundated in the early Holocene."</p>
Read More
Show Less