The debate over whether climate scientists should stray into advocacy is largely moot. No amount of "objectivity" is going to diminish conservatives' decades-long hostility toward science.
If you could create your perfect living situation, what would it look like? Here's my answer.
The House GOP passed a bill that would fundamentally change the balance of power within the federal government and cripple the ability of the government to regulate. Ho hum.
New research shows that sea-level "lock in" -- the amount of sea-level rise we are making inevitable through carbon emissions -- is growing rapidly. Do we, should we, care about what will happen so far in the future?
So, I said something horrible on Twitter. Since I can’t go back in time and take it back, I thought I’d try to make something worthwhile out of it. Here goes.
Recent news about the slowing growth of the global coal market is nice and all, but coal still remains a gargantuan beast that is steadily trashing the climate.
Goldman Sachs says the market for coal exports is slowing and related infrastructure projects, like those planned for the U.S. Northwest, "will struggle to earn a positive return."
Carbon taxes work just fine. In B.C., where they have one, emissions are falling and the economy is growing. Modeling shows the same could happen in Massachusetts. Heck, the same could happen anywhere!
In 2009, EPA sent some tough regulations on water pollution from coal waste to the White House for review. They were subsequently (and substantially) weakened. A new report reveals what happened.
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.