- Posts: 3975
- Thank you received: 14
Science Odds and Ends
19 Mar 2011 11:04 #144
by TPP
Replied by TPP on topic Science Odds and Ends
Guess What’s Building On Mount Kilimanjaro?
William Teach
Standing as the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly regaining its snow after several years of drought in East Africa and the effects of climate change in African continent.
Sigh. They should have stopped after "drought." And let's not forget that the major cause of the loss of Kilimanjaro's snow was due to the loss of the forests around the Mount, which, yes, was man caused, but was a local condition, much like NYC is much hotter than the surrounding country side. Anyhow
The snow is slowly mounting on the top point of the mountain, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the mountain may not lose its beautiful ice cap as scientists predicted.
Covered in mist most of the day, Mount Kilimanjaro is the most tourist attractive site in Tanzania, pulling in tens of thousands of tourists each year. The snow, which once disappeared in some parts of the mountain is mounting slowly, giving a beautiful view of the Kibo peak.
But, of course
Environmentalists warn that this highest peak in Africa could lose its ice cover and glaciers between 2018 and 2020 unless global campaigns to save the mountain’s ecology are taken.
So, their bat guano theory wasn't working out, so, they have to make a prediction 7-9 years away. They just won't give up on insanity. I'm sure they will figure out a way to link the increased snow cover to globull warming, though.
algore please explain, or will you admit that man-made global warming is bullsh*t?
William Teach
Standing as the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly regaining its snow after several years of drought in East Africa and the effects of climate change in African continent.
Sigh. They should have stopped after "drought." And let's not forget that the major cause of the loss of Kilimanjaro's snow was due to the loss of the forests around the Mount, which, yes, was man caused, but was a local condition, much like NYC is much hotter than the surrounding country side. Anyhow
The snow is slowly mounting on the top point of the mountain, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the mountain may not lose its beautiful ice cap as scientists predicted.
Covered in mist most of the day, Mount Kilimanjaro is the most tourist attractive site in Tanzania, pulling in tens of thousands of tourists each year. The snow, which once disappeared in some parts of the mountain is mounting slowly, giving a beautiful view of the Kibo peak.
But, of course
Environmentalists warn that this highest peak in Africa could lose its ice cover and glaciers between 2018 and 2020 unless global campaigns to save the mountain’s ecology are taken.
So, their bat guano theory wasn't working out, so, they have to make a prediction 7-9 years away. They just won't give up on insanity. I'm sure they will figure out a way to link the increased snow cover to globull warming, though.
algore please explain, or will you admit that man-made global warming is bullsh*t?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 Mar 2011 11:12 #145
by TPP
Replied by TPP on topic Science Odds and Ends
POOR algore….
EPA, Full Speed Ahead
March 21, 2011 9:30 A.M. By Drew Thornley
Last week, the Obama administration released its plans to increase regulation of mercury and other toxic emissions from our nation’s power plants. Like all of the EPA’s plans, the new regulations will adversely affect traditional power generators and prop up federally favored renewable energies. However, according to the EPA,(1)we’ll all be able to breathe easier — literally — while up to 17,000 premature deaths per year will be prevented: “Reducing toxic power-plant emissions will also cut fine-particle pollution and prevent thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of heart attacks, bronchitis cases, and asthma attacks.
EPA estimates the value of the improvements to health alone total $59 billion to $140 billion in 2016. This means that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution from power plants, we get $5 to $13 in health benefits.”
About those spent dollars: “The EPA says the annual cost to meet the new regulation will be about $11 billion in 2016, and that it will increase consumers’ electric bills on the order of three or four dollars a month,” writes the Wall Street Journal.(2) This may not be a big deal to NY Fed president William Dudley, but its cause for concern for the rest of us. And not surprisingly, our power suppliers have their concerns about the cost of the new rules — not to mention the pace of the EPA’s regulatory reaches in general.
The WSJ reports: American Electric Power Co. and some other utilities have expressed concern they won’t have time to bring their coal-fired plants into compliance on roughly half a dozen regulations expected to be proposed or adopted by the EPA over the next 20 months that target pollution.
That suggests they may ask Congress to intervene. “We do know many members of Congress are concerned about the economic impact of these rules, and more time will help mitigate the economic impact of making additional emission reductions,” an AEP spokeswoman said.
The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which also opposes the rules, raised another concern in a statement Wednesday: That utilities’ need to comply with these and similar rules would lead to a rush of demand for new construction and smoke-stack clean-up technology, resulting in higher costs or delays for some utilities.
(1) http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/
(2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204583816132832.html
(3) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576199113452719274.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore
Last week, the Obama administration released its plans to increase regulation of mercury and other toxic emissions from our nation’s power plants. Like all of the EPA’s plans, the new regulations will adversely affect traditional power generators and prop up federally favored renewable energies. However, according to the EPA,(1)we’ll all be able to breathe easier — literally — while up to 17,000 premature deaths per year will be prevented: “Reducing toxic power-plant emissions will also cut fine-particle pollution and prevent thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of heart attacks, bronchitis cases, and asthma attacks.
EPA estimates the value of the improvements to health alone total $59 billion to $140 billion in 2016. This means that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution from power plants, we get $5 to $13 in health benefits.”
About those spent dollars: “The EPA says the annual cost to meet the new regulation will be about $11 billion in 2016, and that it will increase consumers’ electric bills on the order of three or four dollars a month,” writes the Wall Street Journal.(2) This may not be a big deal to NY Fed president William Dudley, but its cause for concern for the rest of us. And not surprisingly, our power suppliers have their concerns about the cost of the new rules — not to mention the pace of the EPA’s regulatory reaches in general.
The WSJ reports: American Electric Power Co. and some other utilities have expressed concern they won’t have time to bring their coal-fired plants into compliance on roughly half a dozen regulations expected to be proposed or adopted by the EPA over the next 20 months that target pollution.
That suggests they may ask Congress to intervene. “We do know many members of Congress are concerned about the economic impact of these rules, and more time will help mitigate the economic impact of making additional emission reductions,” an AEP spokeswoman said.
The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which also opposes the rules, raised another concern in a statement Wednesday: That utilities’ need to comply with these and similar rules would lead to a rush of demand for new construction and smoke-stack clean-up technology, resulting in higher costs or delays for some utilities.
(1) http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/
(2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204583816132832.html
(3) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576199113452719274.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.608 seconds
sponsors
