Conquer Club

Paris pollution victim sues France for bad air

A Parisian woman is taking the French state to court for failing to protect her health from the effects of air pollution.

Clotilde Nonnez, a 56-year-old yoga teacher, says she has lived in the capital for 30 years and seen her health deteriorate.

However, it became worse than ever when pollution in Paris hit record levels last December.

Her lawyer says air pollution is causing 48,000 French deaths per year.

"We are taking the state to task because we think the medical problems that pollution victims suffer are as a result of the authorities' lack of action in tackling air pollution," François Lafforgue told Le Monde newspaper.

More cases would be brought in the coming weeks, in Lyon, Lille and elsewhere, he added.

betiko wrote:Hey, i m sure that yoga teacher would ve seen her health deteriorate after staying 30 years somewhere, init?

tzor wrote:

betiko wrote:Hey, i m sure that yoga teacher would ve seen her health deteriorate after staying 30 years somewhere, init?

She wants to go to America
People who know love America
The air is clean in America
That's what we mean by America!

tzor wrote:Our Coal is US Coal the Clean Coal

Right now, burning coal contributes more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than any other industrial process. There is technology to strip the CO2 from coal and bury it or use it elsewhere, either before the coal is burned or after. The federal government spent 20 years and billions of dollars to make it work. The result: just two commercial power plants in the U.S., both heavily subsidized. One is the Petra Nova plant in Texas that Energy Secretary Rick Perry visited last week in a show of support. The other is in Mississippi and has yet to open officially.

But two groups usually at odds with each other — environmentalists and coal companies — want "carbon capture" to succeed.

CEFC warns against risky investment in 'clean coal' technology

Federal ministers have suggested that ultra super critical coal power stations, which more efficiently generate steam to create power, should be considered a clean technology because they generate up to 30% less emissions than older coal plants.

...But he said coal was “seriously challenged” as a commercial investment because the price of renewables was declining so there was “no point” building ultra super critical coal stations that were likely to provide electricity at a higher price.

Yates said unless ultra super critical coal plants could be built such that they generated much lower emissions “it’s not really a technology which would be likely to have a long-term path”.

He concluded by saying he would not recommend investment in coal power plants, which he described as “very risky” for taxpayers.

Hanson-Young, the committee chair, told a press conference the CEFC’s evidence showed clean coal was “a unicorn dream ... that doesn’t stack up”.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/10/cefc-warns-against-risky-investment-in-clean-coal-technology

riskllama wrote:i think "ultra super critical coal power station" could use another adjective. maybe two more.