Climate

Two communities seeking cleaner, cheaper energy are resisting pressure to extend deals that bind them to getting power from one of the nation’s dirtiest plants.

Although climate change received no attention during the president’s speech, Americans must continue to find new ways of making progress against the ongoing environmental crisis.

Archived copies of the article:

• ghostarchive.org
• web.archive.org

The paper is here

The paper is here

It wants to lower wholesale prices by reimbursing power generators for the carbon permits they have to buy, and recover the cost directly from customer bills. Consumers would then only be paying the carbon tax on 40 per cent of their consumption instead of 80 per cent. The net benefit for consumers is expected to be about €10/MWh, while the government and gas-fired plants would see little difference.

The paper is here

The paper is here

Back in December, the retraction of a key climate report was seen as proof that the economic cost of global warming had been overstated. Now, Norway’s wealth fund says its own analysis indicates that would be the wrong conclusion to draw.

The paper is here

This is above and beyond what overfishing does. Per the article

“Historically, overfishing has been the main driver of biomass declines in many of the world’s fisheries [and] according to the FAO [UN Food and Agriculture Organization] the proportion of overfished stocks globally continues to rise,” said Ortuño Crespo, who was not involved in the study. “The current challenge is that this overfishing crisis is being further exacerbated by ocean warming and deoxygenation.”

The paper is here

Basically, if implemented, the subsidy displaces the use of biofuels for diesel while costing a lot of money

The article doesn't get into it at all, but a big part of how other countries have met air pollution rules has been to burn a lot less coal.

While archive.today doesn't always preserve an accurate record of what was on the page, it doesn't yet appear to have altered this one