Aboe, monologue includes Alex Jones observations.

Below, interview with Senator Chris Murphy. “I knew that our time is running out to do something on climate.”
Dark Brandon meme involved.

Above, CNN report on emerging rush of development in Greenland around minerals and mining.

Below, EV manufacturers have particular concerns about supplies of critical materials.

New York Times:

Vulnerable incumbent Democratic senators like Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada are already planning events promoting the landmark legislation they passed over the weekend. Democratic ad makers are busily preparing a barrage of commercials about it across key battlegrounds. And the White House is set to deploy Cabinet members on a nationwide sales pitch.

The sweeping legislation, covering climate change and prescription drug prices, which came together in the Senate after more than a year of painfully public fits and starts, has kicked off a frenetic 91-day sprint to sell the package by November — and win over an electorate that has grown skeptical of Democratic rule.

For months, Democrats have discussed their midterm anxieties in near-apocalyptic terms, as voters threatened to take out their anger over high gas prices and soaring inflation on the party in power. But the deal on the broad new legislation, along with signs of a brewing voter revolt over abortion rights, has some Democrats experiencing a flicker of an unfamiliar feeling: hope.

“This bill gives Democrats that centerpiece accomplishment,” said Ali Lapp, the president of House Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC.

In interviews, Democratic strategists, advisers to President Biden, lawmakers running in competitive seats and political ad makers all expressed optimism that the legislation — the Inflation Reduction Act — would deliver the party a necessary and powerful tool to show they were focused on lowering costs at a time of economic hardship for many. They argued its key provisions could be quickly understood by crucial constituencies.

“It is easy to talk about because it has a real impact on people every day,” Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, the White House deputy chief of staff, said in an interview. The measure must still pass the House and could come up for a vote there later this week. “It’s congressional Democrats who’ve gotten it done — with no help from congressional Republicans.”

Dana Nuccitelli in Yale Climate Connections:

Three energy modeling groups have examined the effects of the climate provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act: Princeton REPEATEnergy Innovation, and the Rhodium Group. The first two of those groups estimate that the package will curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by around one-billion tons by 2030; Rhodium’s analysis is a bit more bearish, with a central estimate of 650 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced by the bill. On average, the groups estimate that the bill – if, as expected, passed by the House and enacted – would curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by about 900 million tons in 2030, bringing the country 13% closer to meeting its Paris commitment.

From the standpoint of reducing climate pollution, the bill’s extension of production and investment tax credits for clean electricity projects is its most consequential provision. Those tax incentives have helped spur the rapid growth of wind and solar energy in the U.S. and their displacement of coal power over the past decade.

But that domestic clean electricity growth had begun to stall, in part because the tax credits were beginning to expire, and there was uncertainty about whether they would be extended. Their 10-year extension in the pending Inflation Reduction Act would give clean energy companies and investors needed confidence to resume the accelerated deployment of renewable projects, as the chart below from the Princeton REPEAT report illustrates. These provisions would account for about 360 million tons of emissions reductions in 2030, or about 36% of the total cuts, according to the Princeton group.

Read the rest of this entry »

An organically created meme is taking over social media, riding a wave of Joe Biden’s successes over recent weeks, and I’m totally here for it.

Don’t believe it? Just ask Ayman al-Zawahiri.

More later – I’ll be on the road most of today.

Read the rest of this entry »

What could go wrong?

One more demonstration of the relative safety of renewable energy.


Rainwater almost everywhere on Earth has unsafe levels of ‘forever chemicals’, according to new research.

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large family of human-made chemicals that don’t occur in nature. They are known as ‘forever chemicals’ because they don’t break down in the environment.

They have non-stick or stain repellent properties so can be found in household items like food packaging, electronics, cosmetics and cookware.

But now researchers at the University of Stockholm have found them in rainwater in most locations on the planet – including Antarctica. There is no safe space to escape them.

“There has been an astounding decline in guideline values for PFAS in drinking water in the last 20 years,” says Ian Cousins, lead author of the study and professor at the Department of Environmental Science, Stockholm University.

For one well-known substance, the “cancer-causing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)”, water guideline values have declined by 37.5 million times in the US.

“Based on the latest US guidelines for PFOA in drinking water, rainwater everywhere would be judged unsafe to drink,” he says.

“Although in the industrial world we don’t often drink rainwater, many people around the world expect it to be safe to drink and it supplies many of our drinking water sources.”

The health risks of being exposed to these substances have been researched widely. Scientists say that they could be linked to fertility problems, increased risk of cancer and developmental delays in children. 

But others say that no cause and effect can be proven between these chemicals and poor health.

Read the rest of this entry »

You can’t threaten people with a solar panel.

New York Times:

Ukraine accused Russian forces on Sunday of firing rockets that landed on the grounds of a nuclear power plant that Russia has seized in the south of the country, further raising the risk of an accident at a complex where the United Nations’ nuclear agency has said that the principles of nuclear safety have been violated. A pro-Russian regional official blamed Ukrainian forces for the attack.

The rockets fired Saturday evening landed near a dry spent fuel storage facility, where 174 casks are stored, each containing 24 assemblies of spent nuclear fuel, according to Enerhoatom, Ukraine’s nuclear energy company. One person was wounded by shrapnel and many windows were damaged.

“Apparently, they aimed specifically at the casks with spent fuel, which are stored in the open near the site of shelling,” the company said in a post on the Telegram social messaging app.

Three radiation detection monitors were damaged so “timely detection and response in case of aggravation of the radiation situation or leakage of radiation from spent nuclear fuel casks are currently impossible,” the post said, adding that a catastrophe was “miraculously avoided.”

Russian forces have controlled the Zaporizhzhia plant since March. A representative of Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate, Andrei Yusov, said that Russia was shelling the site to destroy infrastructure and damage power lines that supply electricity to Ukraine’s national grid and, ultimately, to cause a power blackout in the south of the country. There was no independent confirmation of the assertion.

The head of the pro-Russian administration in Zaporizhzhia, Yevgeny Balitsky, said on Telegram on Sunday that Ukrainian forces had used an Uragan cluster rocket to target the spent fuel storage area and damage administrative buildings.

On Thursday, Russia’s defense ministry said that Ukraine had launched an artillery strike against the plant. During a national television phone-in show on Sunday, the head of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia regional military administration, Oleksandr Starukh, said that there was only a three-second delay between the firing and the landing of each shell, using this as evidence that the attack had come from Russian forces nearby.

Read the rest of this entry »
A dried-up river in Le Broc, southern France

Meanwhile, in Greenland: