Discuz! Board's Archiver

tv9ei9cir6h 發表於 2013-5-30 18:30

cheap lululemon if the federal government uses all the weapons at its disposal

g out the native species, and blight the landscape. PaulMatching Students With SchoolsRobert Sanft, the chief executive of the Office of Student Enrollment in New York City’s Education Department,[url=http://www.lululemononsales.com]cheap lululemon[/url], answered questions on how gifted student testing and selection works.Welcome to City RoomCity Room® is a news blog of live reporting,[url=http://www.lululemononsales.com]lululemon stores[/url], features and reader conversations about New York City. Reader comments are moderated [Details]. Send questions, suggestions or complaints by e-mail for prompt attention. May 08   A Soaking to Talk About With several hours left to the day,[url=http://www.lululemononsales.com]lululemon cheap online[/url], Wednesday was the fifth-rainiest May day in the modern history of New York, according to a weather historian. May 08   Lhota Facing Anger After He Likens Port Authority Police to Mall Cops  Area police unions condemned Joseph J. Lhota s comment that Port Authority police officers are nothing more than mall cops, and the fallout could include lost support for his candidacy for mayor.Carbon cap-and-trade is dead—at least for this political lifetime. And while the circular firing squad among Democrats and greens has already begun, it s worth taking a deep breath and remembering that there are other tools that can be used to deal with climate change. As TIME s Joe Klein points out, the Supreme Court ruled more than three years ago that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has already begun to effectively regulate carbon emissions from automobiles with its tougher fuel efficiency standards, but it s not yet clear how the agency might work to regulate emissions from electric utilities or other sectors.As a new report from the World Resources Institute (WRI) shows, regulations could have a widely varying effect on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over the coming two decades, depending on how aggressive the government wants to be—but  even the tightest rules would be unlikely to reduce emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change. The WRI authors divide potential regulatory approaches into three self-explanatory categories— Lackluster, Middle-of-the-Road, and Go-Getter —and looked at the potential for both state and federal action. (The reports notes that 25 states have already taken action on greenhouse gas emissions on their own.)The results: if the federal government uses all the weapons at its disposal, the U.S. could reduce national greenhouse gases by around 12% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 22% by 2030. That falls to 8% and 11% if the government tries a moderate approach, and just 5% and 2% if Washington goes for the weakest approach, as this chart shows:From World Resources InstituteWhile most of the focus is on the electricity sector and auto transport, the EPA—together with other agencies—will have a number of tools they can use. The Department of Energy can improve the minimum standards it sets for appliance efficiency, while the EPA can improve land and water management—landfills alone emit significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In fact, the lesser greenhouse gases—basically everything but carbon dioxide—will prove to be a useful place for regulations to start. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) can be up to 20,000 times more potent than CO2, and they re emitted from refrigerators—especially older ones. Tighter standards—using existing technology—can cut back on those gases.But the game is ultimately about carbon dixoide—and that means power plants. Here the EPA could exercise its New Source Performance Standard—essentially the rules it sets to reduce pollutants from electricity generation. The EPA could require coal plants to operate at higher levels of efficiency—one way to cut carbon—or it could mandate biomass cofiring, which has power plants burn renewable biomass in addition to fossil fuels. (In theory that can be carbon netural—you release carbon when you burn biomass, but new trees and plants essentially offset those gases—though the practice has come under increasing scrutiny in recent months.) The ERelated articles:

  
[url=http://www.wotree.cn/home/space.php?uid=27063&do=blog&id=606929]http://www.wotree.cn/home/space.php?uid=27063&do=blog&id=606929[/url]
  
[url=http://forum.uptown.tw/forum_posts.asp?TID=0&PID=0#0]http://forum.uptown.tw/forum_posts.asp?TID=0&PID=0#0[/url]
  
[url=http://society.yoho.hk/viewthread.php?tid=8124296&extra=page%3D1]http://society.yoho.hk/viewthread.php?tid=8124296&extra=page%3D1[/url]

頁: [1]

Powered by Discuz! Archiver 7.0.0  © 2001-2009 Comsenz Inc.