VN đối mặt không khí nhiễm thủy ngân rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/vn-face-mercury-gas-air-pollution-tt-09192014152808.html Adapting to Change: From Research to Decision-making nordicadaptation2014.net/frontpage/ Third Nordic International Conference on Climate Change Adaptation Copenhagen, Denmark 25-27 August 2014 Welcome to the Third Nordic International Conference on Climate Change Adaptation. The conference is a follow-up to the highly successful conferences in Stockholm (2010) and Helsinki (2012) and aims to bring together scientists, practitioners and policy-makers with a particular interest in the Nordic region. Download the full programme here nordicadaptation2014.net/fileadmin/user_upload/NordicAdaption2014/Detailed_program.pdf What is this about? As highlighted in consecutive reports from the IPCC, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is taking place and the chances are high that future climate is going to change even more than what has already been realized. Impacts of changes over recent decades are likewise visible throughout the Nordic region, manifested e.g. through observed changes in the hydrological cycle, reductions in sea ice cover, lengthening growing seasons and the occurrence and strength of heavy rain events. Adaptation to these changes is already high on the agenda in the Nordic and international societies. However, science is providing new information on changes and their consequences, which calls for a wider dialogue to enable adjustments of already initiated adaptation plans as well as providing the baseline knowledge for future initiatives. The conference “Adapting to Change: From Research to Decision-making” like its two predecessors seeks to advance existing common ground between scientists, practitioners and decision-makers and establish new ways forward for informed adaptation. The conference is targeted at scholars as well as private and public practitioners and decision-makers at strategic and operational levels and across a wide range of disciplines and sectors. This includes researchers and professionals within the fields of climate change, climate change impacts and adaptation, students, regional and local planners, business strategists and risk managers and policy-makers as well as representatives of NGO’s and Nordic/international organizations. While some sessions will have a definite Nordic focus, the conference - just like the field of climate change adaptation is by no means restricted to the Nordic region. We cordially invite and strongly encourage international participants to join and share their experiences. Examples of pertinent questions to be highlighted Some of the key questions to be addressed at the conference will include (but not be restricted to): • Is the 2 degrees target still achievable? • How much will extreme events change in the future? • Where are Nordic and European climate change impact hot spots? • Are recent flooding events related to climate change? • Are we adapted to the present climate? • What are the time scales of interest / urgency for adaptation? • Are ongoing adaptation strategies based on sound technical information or a result of “rush job”? • Can the costs of adaptation be carried by locals, and is that fair? • Is societal resilience an indispensable 4th element in the sustainability triangle of sustainable environment, economy and social fabric? • Should adaptation always be proactive (instead of adaptive or reactive)? • Can adaptation be justified by (relative large) side-benefits – instead of emphasizing expected benefits of adapting to climate change? Why you should attend? Visit Copenhagen and meet with professionals, including top level researchers, decision makers and representatives of the business sector. Participate in discussions about what is new on agendas for research and decision-making concerning climate change impacts, risks, and adaptation. You will get an opportunity to present and discuss your work, and special sessions will facilitate an open dialogue on key conclusions and uncertainties that are emerging from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Like its predecessors, the conference aims to provide an overview of current state-of-the-art within the area of climate change adaptation and to establish a forum for researchers, practitioners and decision-makers to meet and share ideas and experiences. Key-note speakers will include several IPCC AR5 Lead Authors. The second circular may be downloaded here The first circular may be downloaded here The list of participants may be downloaded here A Commitment to Keep Our Waters Clean and Safe blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/ When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it gave EPA the responsibility to protect public health and the environment from pollution stemming from farms and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). We take this charge seriously and have dedicated one of EPA’s six National Enforcement Initiatives to preventing animal waste from CAFOs from contaminating water. If not managed properly, animal waste can impair drinking water sources, transmit disease-causing bacteria and parasites, and pollute the rivers and lakes on which we all depend. In 2011, an EPA review of a poultry CAFO owned by Lois Alt in West Virginia determined that when it rained, manure and other pollutants were discharging into a nearby creek that flowed into the Potomac River. The discharge required a permit under the Clean Water Act which would have defined safeguards to minimize pollution. EPA issued an administrative order to address this pollution. The Alt CAFO then clarified existing management practices and adopted new ones in its operations to reduce runoff of manure, and then challenged the order in court. After EPA’s follow-up inspection and correspondence with Ms. Alt confirmed that the changes would reduce pollution, EPA withdrew the order and requested the court to dismiss the case because the dispute was over. It was time to move on and focus on more pressing issues of environmental and public health protection. The district court nonetheless heard the case. After more than a year of legal proceedings, the district court issued a decision that offers an overly broad view of the Clean Water Act’s exemption for agricultural stormwater. Although EPA thinks that the district court decision is wrong, we also think that it is time to stop spending resources on litigation about this CAFO. EPA is not going to appeal this decision; our resources are better spent remedying more serious, ongoing pollution across the country. The briefs we filed in this case – and many others – state that Congress established CAFOs as point sources, and that when CAFOs discharge pollutants from the production area into waters of the United States, as the Alt operation did, the law requires permit authorization. EPA stands by this position. Pollution from CAFOs flowing into local waterways when it rains is an environmental and public health risk. The law gives EPA the authority to require that agriculture operations with large numbers of animals in a small area that discharge pollutants to U.S. waters obtain a permit, to reduce their environmental impact. EPA remains committed to working with the agricultural community to ensure compliance with this legal requirement and to pursue enforcement when necessary. One district court decision does not change either the law across the country or EPA’s commitment to protecting water quality. A smart and strategic enforcement program requires us to make choices about where to spend our time for the biggest benefit to the public. We stand firm on this commitment to protect public health and the environment. Editors Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyones rights or obligations. Please share this post. However, please dont change the title or the content. If you do make changes, dont attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author. Join Greenversations. Read the comment policy and leave a comment. Understanding State Goals under the Clean Power The Clean Power Plan is about getting all the power we need, with less of what we don’t need: pollution. Many people are now looking more closely at the plan and want to know a little more about how it all works, especially about what role their state will play in reducing carbon pollution. Because the agency is looking for well-informed comments and input on the proposed plan, I wanted to explain a few key aspects of the proposal. By answering a few questions such as – 1. 1) what’s the baseline? 2. 2) how is EPA using the Clean Air Act? 3. 3) how can the power sector cut carbon pollution? 4. 4) how did EPA set goals for each state? and 5. 5) what flexibilities do states have? I hope you’ll come away with a better understanding of the Clean Power Plan and how it will achieve significant air pollution reductions. As more questions come up, we’ll use this space and epa.gov/cleanpowerplan to answer them. Now, on to the questions! What baseline did EPA use to determine how much pollution must be reduced? EPA did not set a baseline. Remember, the plan is about generating the power we need, but with less pollution. So instead of setting a baseline, the Clean Power Plan works by setting state goals to reduce the “pollution-to-power ratio” of the covered fossil-fuel fired power plants in a given state. EPA projects that by 2030, when states meet these goals, the U.S. power sector will emit 30 percent less carbon pollution than it did in 2005. But 2005 – or any other year – is not used as a “baseline” year for a fixed percentage of reductions. We are using that statistic only because people need to know how much pollution we’ll reduce by when and compared to what, so we’re just comparing where we will be in 2030 to where we were in 2005. How does the Clean Air Act work to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants? EPA is proposing carbon pollution guidelines using section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Basically, this part of the law requires EPA to identify the best and cheapest ways to reduce pollution from a given source – in this case, power plants that burn fossil fuels. The key to reducing carbon pollution from the power sector is to generate and use power more efficiently. Put another way, the goal is to reduce the carbon pollution emitted for each megawatt-hour of electricity generated. That provides power with less pollution. The amount of carbon pollution per megawatt-hour produced is called an emission rate. It is the rate at which pollution is emitted per unit of power generated. If a source emits a lot of carbon dioxide but produces relatively little energy, then its “carbon intensity” is considered high. Using section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing that states develop plans to reduce the carbon intensity of the power sector. The goal is not to limit the amount of power we produce. It’s about reducing the overall amount of carbon pollution from power plants, while still producing the energy we need. How can the power sector reduce carbon emissions? EPA found that there are a wide variety of commercially available, technically feasible, and cost-effective ways that states, cities and businesses across the country are already using to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector. EPA identified four measures–that are the commonly used, technically sound, affordable, and that result in significant reductions in carbon intensity. They are – 1) improving efficiency at existing coal-fired power plants, 2)increasing utilization of existing natural gas fired power plants, 3) expanding the use of wind, solar, or other low- or zero-emitting alternatives, and 4) increasing energy efficiency in homes and businesses. By applying some or all of these measures a state can reduce the carbon intensity of its power system. These aren’t the only approaches that states can use, but EPA determined that—taken together—they are the best system of emission reduction, as that term is defined in the Clean Air Act. How did EPA set goals for each state? By looking at the mix of power sources and the ability of each state to take advantage of any of the four carbon pollution reduction measures, the EPA calculated goals for each state. The proposed state goals are based on a consistent national formula and calculated using specific information about the state or its region’s individual power profile. The result of the equation is the state goal. Each state goal is a rate – a pollution-to-power ratio – for the future carbon intensity of covered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants in a given state. States can meet their goal using any measures that make sense to them—they do not have to use all the measures EPA identified, and they can use other approaches that will work to bring down that carbon intensity rate. I hope this explanation makes clear that EPA is not setting goals based on percentage reductions against a baseline year. But when states meet their goals in 2030, EPA projects that the increased efficiency and reduced carbon intensity will result in a 30 percent less carbon pollution when compared with 2005 levels. How do the state goals give states flexibility? EPA has set a goal for each state based on an analysis of the best system of reductions, based on estimates of the potential in each state for efficiency improvements and increased utilization of cleaner generation. Once the state has a goal, however, it is free to meet that goal in the way that works best for that state. It can rely more or less heavily on specific measures such as efficiency or renewable energy, or even pursue others such as increases in transmission efficiency or new gas generation. The state can also choose the policy or portfolio of policies that works best to achieve the goal. Learn more about the Clean Power Plan The Clean Air Act and the state planning process offer enough time and flexibility for every state to cut wasted energy, improve efficiency, and reduce pollution – while still having all the reliable and affordable power we need to grow our economy and maintain our competitive edge. In the coming months, we’ll be seeking comments and feedback on the proposed Clean Power Plan, and I encourage you to learn more and join the discussion: www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards Editors Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyones rights or obligations. Please share this post. However, please dont change the title or the content. If you do make changes, dont attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author. Public Input Vital to Clean Water Proposal 2014 September 18 blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/ At EPA, our mission is to protect human health and the environment. We follow the law and the best available science, and we always rely heavily on public input. Anytime this agency considers an action, we listen carefully to all stakeholders. Our proposal to clarify protections for streams and wetlands under the Clean Water Act is no different. Public input was a major reason EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule. For almost a decade, members of Congress, the Supreme Court, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public have called for a rulemaking to protect clean water and provide greater predictabilityand consistency about which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act. The proposal will keep our water clean and offer the clarity they requested (See who requested a rulemaking). Before we put pen to paper on our proposal, we carefully considered the 415,000 comments we received on this issue over the past decade. Public input shaped the agencies’ views on where the Clean Water Act should apply. Since releasing the proposal in March, EPA and the Army Corps have conducted unprecedented outreach to a wide range of stakeholders, holding more than 340 meetings all across the country to offer information, listen to concerns, and answer questions. The agencies have responded to every request from outside groups to discuss the proposal and reached out proactively to many organizations to offer information and meetings. EPA Administrator McCarthy herself has heard from farmers, commodity groups, hunters and sportsmen, conservationists, business leaders, and faith groups. EPA officials from Washington, D.C. traveled across the country, holding roundtables in nine states and visiting farms in states from Texas and Colorado to Pennsylvania, Arizona and Mississippi. We’re not just holding meetings for the sake of it – we are listening carefully. We’ve heard from the business community that they can’t succeed without clean, reliable water supplies. We’ve heard from farmers and ranchers, who have questions and concerns about how the proposal may impact them. We’ve heard from hunters and fishermen who stress the importance of clean water to recreation and to the tourism, sporting goods, and outfitting industries that support it. All of these perspectives matter to the agencies. Because public input is so vital, the agencies extended the original public comment period from 90 days to 182 days. The comment period is open until October 20, and the EPA and the Army Corps welcome input to make sure we have a strong, achievable final rule. The agencies give careful consideration to all comments and aim to publish a final rule in spring 2015. Editors Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyones rights or obligations. Please share this post. However, please dont change the title or the content. If you do make changes, dont attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author. Join Greenversations. Read the comment policy and leave a comment. Permalink | No Comments
Posted on: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:06:12 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015