Don’t say I didn’t warn you! The Left is advancing climate refugees as the next big c

Don’t say I didn’t warn you! The Left is advancing climate refugees as the next big crisis

Posted by Ann Corcoran on April 6, 2018


This is a subject I’ve touched on from time to time—I have 51 previous posts on the topic.


https://refugeeresettlementwatch.fil...pg?w=629&h=472


I hope to continue to bring it to your attention because it might seem like a fringe issue to you, but you can be sure the NO Borders political machine is advancing it as one more reason to erase borders worldwide (and redistribute wealth from the first world to the third world).


There has been some controversy however about the use of the word “refugee” since the ‘humanitarians’ don’t want the environmentalists appropriating the word. Nevertheless, from the bits and pieces I have read, they are moving closer to an agreement.


I’m not proposing you buy this expensive book, but am just putting this out to you as one more ‘heads-up’ on the subject.


Facilitating the Resettlement and Rights of Climate Refugees


One of the most significant impacts of climate change is migration. Yet, to date, climate-induced migrants are falling within what has been defined by some as a ‘protection gap’. This book addresses this issue, first by identifying precisely where the gap exists, by reviewing the relevant legal tools that are available for those who are currently, and who will in the future be displaced because of climate change. The authors then address the relevant actors; the identity of those deserving protection (displaced individuals), as well as other bearers of rights (migration-hosting states) and obligations (polluting states).


https://refugeeresettlementwatch.fil...pg?w=221&h=332


The authors also address head-on the contentious topic of definitions, concluding with the provocative assertion that the term ‘climate refugees’ is indeed correct and should be relied upon.　


The second part of the book looks to the future by advocating specific legal and institutional pathways. Notably, the authors support the use of international environmental law as the most adequate and suitable regime for the regulation of climate refugees. With respect to the role of institutions, the authors propose a model of ‘cross-governance’, through which a more inclusive and multi-faceted protection regime could be achieved.


“Cross-governance” sound a bit ominous!


Addressing the regulation of climate refugees through a unique collaboration between a refugee lawyer and an environmental lawyer, this book will be of great interest to scholars and professionals in fields including international law, environmental studies, refugee studies and international relations.


You can bet this will be required reading for your little darlings attending Leftwing colleges and universities (LOL! the high price of the book suggests that is where it is headed!).


Click here for my ‘Climate refugees’ category.


This may be the only place on the political right where you can find this much coverage (even as little as I have provided) on the subject.


https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...xt-big-crisis/

I've always believed in environmental protections and even worked for about three years in a recycling business (of textile materials). I also think we could make renewable energy-type products and export them, although I think other countries are now going to beat us to it.

But from what I have read about greenhouse gases, the main ones are water vapor and methane. Methane comes mostly from standing freshwater and rotting vegetation which is found in the tropics more than anywhere else. There was a recent study that said the Amazon jungle contributes about 15 percent of the world's methane. https://massivesci.com/articles/meth...-gas-wetlands/

On top of it, the big deserts like in Africa, Arabia or Australia, soak up heat. In the long run the Northern hemisphere higher latitudes haven't produced much in the way of greenhouse gases, except in the summertime.

And on to the "governance" issue--I was listening to NPR and some younger woman was talking about how she would have to work at re educating her aunt. I hope this isn't going to become standard practice.

Far More Methane Leaking at Oil, Gas Sites in Pennsylvania than Reported

An EDF comparison of company-reported data and research measurements finds as much as 5 times more methane, a climate-warming greenhouse gas, is leaking.

Neela Banerjee
Feb 16, 2018

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...?itok=TCusLEAQ The Environmental Defense Fund estimates that nearly $68 million worth of energy resources are wasted through methane leaks in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale. Credit: Anna Belle Peevey

Leaks of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from oil and gas sites in Pennsylvania could be five times greater than industry reports to state regulators, according to a new analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund. Drawing from peer-reviewed research based on measurements collected downwind of oil and gas sites, along with government data, the EDF analysis estimates that the state's oil and gas wells and infrastructure leak more than 520,000 tons of methane annually, largely due to faulty equipment.

"This wasted gas causes the same near-term climate pollution as 11 coal-fired power plants and results in nearly $68 million worth of wasted energy resources," the group said in its report, released Thursday.
The underreporting of methane leaks in Pennsylvania is part of a nationwide pattern that peer-reviewed studies have uncovered in recent years as scientists compare federal and state statistics to data they gather on the ground and in aircraft flyovers.

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...?itok=VYreMRG7
The disparity between what researchers find and what industry reports raises important questions about the actual level of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and the viability of natural gas as an alternative to coal, if limits aren't placed on methane leaks from gas and oil infrastructure.
Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is a greenhouse gas about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a century. The Trump administration has been working to roll back several policies and initiatives that were designed to rein in methane emissions, most recently to end requirements to limit leaks at oil and gas sites on federal land.
As Much as 5 Times More Methane

In the new report, EDF analyzed methane leaks from Pennsylvania's conventional oil and gas wells, mostly drilled before 2008, and from unconventional wells, those unlocked since then using hydraulic fracturing. There are far more conventional wells than unconventional ones in the state, and because they are older they leak at a much higher rate. Twenty-three percent of methane at a conventional well leaked into the atmosphere compared to 0.3 percent at a fracked well, EDF estimated.
But the newer fracked wells produce considerably more natural gas than the older wells. As a result, even a small leakage rate of 0.3 percent led to a vast amount of methane entering the atmosphere, the analysis estimated. EDF calculated that fracked wells spewed about 253,500 tons of methane in 2015, and conventional wells, 268,900 tons.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection tracks methane only from unconventional oil and gas sites. In 2015, its data showed 112,100 tons of methane leaked.

(adding here - this is why pruitt needs a private phone booth so he can discuss COOKING THE BOOKS - that is what he was hired for - DISGRACEFUL)

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...?itok=3sRuHNxg
Industry's underestimation of methane leaks comes from outdated methodology, said David Lyon, the lead scientist for the EDF report. Much of the methodology can be traced back to standards for estimates established years ago by the Environmental Protection Agency, he said.
Pennsylvania Considers New Methane Rules

EDF chose to look at Pennsylvania's methane leaks because the state is expected to issue rules in March to reduce methane leaks from new oil and gas sites. The state Department of Environmental Protection is reviewing the EDF findings, said spokesman Neil Shader.
"DEP is nearing finalization of new permits that will establish thresholds for methane for new unconventional well sites and compressor stations," he said. He did not indicate if or when Pennsylvania would move to cut emissions from existing sites.


Energy In Depth, an industry advocacy group, did not respond to an email about the EDF study.
Colorado and California have adopted rules to cut methane leaks from oil and gas sites, Lyon said, which gives him hope for Pennsylvania, Texas and other oil and gas states.
"I would take an optimistic message from this: There are many solutions, and emissions can be reduced if we implement comprehensive practices," Lyon said. "The main one is frequently doing leak detection and repair. Another is looking for malfunctions and site design issues, so that you're not only working on ongoing problems but predicting future issues as well."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...ania-edf-study

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captainron

But from what I have read about greenhouse gases, the main ones are water vapor and methane.

---

You correctly included water, which most environmentalists omit in their "science". When you study the effects of water on the weather, all of the environmental greenhouse gas claims fall apart. Yes, C02 and methane are more potent. And when you isolate them in experiments, you can make horrible conclusions, which are the scare tactics environmental alarmists use. But when you bring in the properties of water and how it works in our atmosphere, there is no reason to worry. Well, at least about us changing the environment. If nature changes it, all we can do is use an umbrella or sunscreen.

Fracking in BC Releases 2.5 Times More Methane Than Government Estimates

Kate Lunau
Apr 26 2017, 11:49am

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

A lot of the talk around climate change focuses on our carbon dioxide emissions, which are produced when we burn fossil fuels. But there's an even more powerful, if lesser-known, greenhouse gas: Methane, which is 84 times more potent as a climate pollutant than CO2 over a 20-year period, according to the environmental nonprofit David Suzuki Foundation (DSF). It's crucial to know how much of it we're spewing into the environment.

Turns out that, in British Columbia, methane emissions may be much higher than expected. A new study, in the peer-reviewed Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, finds that "fugitive" methane emissions (essentially methane leaks) from BC's oil and gas industry, which is largely focused on fracking, are at least 2.5 times higher than what the province had estimated.
The problem of lowballing methane emissions doesn't seem to be limited to BC, either. A separate report from the nonprofit Environmental Defence, out today, estimates that methane emissions are 60 percent higher in Alberta than what the industry has said.

Meanwhile, the Canadian government is planning to delay new regulations that would place greater control on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, according to the CBC. They will be held up by three years, which critics call a blow to our climate commitments.

In the BC study, which the DSF calls "the first on-the-ground, comprehensive research on methane emissions in Canada," scientists travelled over 8,000 kilometres with "sniffer trucks"—vehicles equipped with methane detectors—to cover over 1,600 well pads and facilities in the Montney formation of BC, where a lot of oil and gas extraction takes place.

That region alone pushes more than 111,800 tonnes of methane into the air every single year, according to the DSF, equal to burning more than 4.5 million tons of coal. Given that provinces like Ontario and Alberta are moving away from coal as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, methane leaks happening under the radar are concerning. (BC doesn't use coal-fired power plants, but is a major exporter of coal.)

In BC, "every citizen is paying a carbon tax to try and minimize their footprint on the planet," study author John Werring, senior science and policy advisor at the DSF, told me. "We keep increasing the price of gas so you'll drive less, but here we have an industry that is producing that gas" and releasing methane into the environment.

The BC government says that it's working to limit methane emissions resulting from natural gas exploration, and that these emissions are "currently lower in BC than many jurisdictions" because of requirements to conserve the gas where possible, instead of simply venting it. Oil and gas operators also need to have a plan to manage fugitive emissions, including controlling any leaks. The province's Climate Leadership Plan also tackles methane emissions with new regulatory standards that are expected to reduce methane emissions by 45 percent by 2025—an annual reduction of 1 million tonnes.

Werring believes that we need stronger regulations around oil and gas development across Canada. "If we're going to combat climate change, the single biggest contributor is the oil and gas industry," he said. "They're the ones with the highest emissions, so we need to get that industry to start taking responsibility for fixing issues that are there."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...issions-canada