Climate & Energy

Nuclear options

John McCain talks nuclear security, promises to promote ‘civilian’ nukes

John McCain gave a speech on nuclear security this morning at the University of Denver, and given his abiding love of nuclear power as the …

Climate change doing a number on U.S. West, says USDA report

Climate change is having “profound impacts” on the U.S. West and will continue to do so in coming decades, says a new report spearheaded by …

Would Boxer's bill cut CO2 emissions by 2020?

If cost-containment mechanisms in new climate bill are exploited, emissions could remain unchanged

The short, snarky answer is "No; Boxer-Lieberman-Warner is never going to become law." The longer, analytical answer, which is the primary subject of this post, is "probably not, thanks to the bill's many cost containment measures, but it would take us off the business-as-usual emissions path." Before explaining why, let me make clear that the vote on B-L-W is purely symbolic, since it is DOA as a bill can be. Most of the media, most of the public, and most of the world are unlikely to get much detail on the bill. They will just see whether a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill can get a majority, if not 60 votes, in the U.S. Senate. So I would recommend any senator vote for it -- after giving a floor statement explaining that it was in fact too weak. I can't see casting a protest vote against a symbolic bill while asserting it is too weak. The protest would get lost in the noise. Finally, it would be the height of hypocrisy for a conservative senator to cite progressive critiques of the bill, including mine, as a reasons to vote against it. Anyone who votes against this bill should at least have the guts to say whether they themselves think the bill is too weak or too strong. Why the Boxer bill wouldn't cut U.S. CO2 emissions by 2020 This story begins late Friday night, when Deep 'emissions cut' Throat sends me the World Resources Institute's 14-page summary of the Boxer substitute to the Lieberman-Warner bill [PDF], with a note, "Does this mean no emission reductions until 2028? See bottom of page 6." Intrigued, I turned to the bottom of page 6 and read this bullet:

GOP vs. John McCain?

Climate bill fight likely to divide Republicans

Politico reports on the divide between John McCain and other Republicans on climate change: By contrast, the debate on a bipartisan climate change bill sponsored …

Melting Antarctic glaciers may be releasing DDT, says study

Adélie penguins in the Antarctic are as chock-full of pesticide DDT as they were in the 1970s, even though global DDT use has dropped 80 …

Different worlds

Well-informed Republicans are not concerned about climate change

A new analysis of survey data finds: The more Democrats think they know about global warming, the more concerned they are. But Republicans who consider …

Nations meet to hash out claims to Arctic seafloor

What with climate change melting record amounts of Arctic ice, the five nations that claim land rights in the Arctic region have been rushing to …

Personal carbon trading considered in U.K.

Britain should go ahead with a carbon-credit trading system for individuals, a committee of Members of Parliament has recommended. The system could be modeled on …

G8 nations agree on the need to agree on emission cuts

A three-day meeting of G8 environment ministers in Japan this weekend concluded with a familiar call for nations to agree on goals to cut emissions. …

Got 2.7 seconds?

We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.