When Obama Takes Office The Climate Will Change
Obama's administration will ground its energy and climate policy with a regard for science, as well as the broad spectrum of domestic issues that fall under the umbrella of climate and energy.
Obama's administration will ground its energy and climate policy with a regard for science, as well as the broad spectrum of domestic issues that fall under the umbrella of climate and energy.
President-Elect Obama's remarks should quiet any remaining suspicions that his campaign pledges were merely fleeting campaign promises to be discarded after Election Day.
To achieve the green goal of dealing with overpopulation, it's necessary to mix some oestrogen into the environmentalist palette.
Working overtime, the Inside-the-Beltway Punditocracy continues to reveal its ability to ignore reality with its claims that this is still a center-right nation, despite all evidence to the contrary.
We stand at the threshold of a singular opportunity in the human experiment: To re-imagine how to live on Earth in ways that honor the web of life, each other and future generations.
There is still a distortion in our memories of the violence of the '60's. After condemning Obama for vaguely knowing Ayers, McCain boasted about his "close friendship" with Henry Kissinger -- and nobody noticed the dissonance.
GM's special role in history must now evolve into using its infrastructure to restore the mass transit system -- and ecological balance -- it has helped destroy.
The EAB just ruled that the EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power plants. This may signal the beginning of a clean energy future.
Dr. Bill Chameides is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the dean of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. He blogs at w...
I had an opportunity to hear straight from the source about Lester Brown's Plan B 3.0 for saving civilization. If nothing else, it's ambitious.
The bottom line here is simple. The growth of the American ethanol industry has, at most, a marginal impact on the land use decisions of farmers around the world.
With the auto industry in dire straits, we taxpayers have maximum leverage to demand the cars necessary to help lower energy costs, cut carbon emissions and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
Yesterday, I testified to Congress about global warming, 20 years after I first alerted the public that warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.
Yesterday, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appeals board issued a ruling that will essentially halt the construction of new coal plants in the United States for the near term.
Industrial pollution is not our only problem. Lest you believe we are isolated from environmental degradations far off in foreign lands, visit Florida.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Where did the funding come from for this?
My understanding is that California is very much "in the red", so I have to wonder how the money can be available for a summit of this size, in a venue that, to put it mildly, is not on the low end of the price scale.
If it happens that Schwarzenegger is footing the bill out of his own fund, lovely, fabulous, good for him
If, as I expect is the case, the citizens of California are funding even one bottle of Chardonnay, he has some explaining to do
Obama's going to be an excellent mover on this, no doubt - but until that $15 billion for clean energy is tagged specifically for renewables and sustainables - rather than heavily funded nuclear and 'clean' coal, there's a good chance that solar, wind, geothermal, third generation biofuels and tidal will see less than a third of it.
And why - WHY - when global warming is the biggest crisis facing the planet, with deforestation globally costing up to $US2.5 trillion ANNUALLY in lost environmental services, WHY are we only talkin $15B p.a. That's less than AIG executives spend on happy endings.
Because "clean energy" is not congruent to climate change interests. Clean energy is a good goal all around, but has been coopted into the climate change agenda. The purpose of these people meeting is not to make electric cars, but to enable international carbon credit trading systems. Cap and trade is the focus. A whole variety of interests think they can game the system to their advantage. Google "carbon derivatives". At least with Fannie Mae pieces of land, not hot air, backs their toxic paper.
BTW, the "coal companies" like cap and trade only if they can lobby for allotments higher than they pollute. Also, because pollution laws are already strict, to build new plants they will have to sequester their smoke, SO2, mercury. Sequestration is too expensive unless they get carbon credits for doing what they are already obligated to do.
SO2 is removed through either hot-gas clean up or through wet scrubbing. It is not sequestered. The technology for SO2 removal has been in place for some time. Mercury is also removed, but it is not sequestered either. However carb