First CFLs cause migraines. Then they worsen skin conditions. Now they frig with the frequency of TV remotes. O brave new world …
Not long ago, a group of important environmental leaders published an essay on Gristmill -- "Creating an Earth Atmospheric Trust" -- about Peter Barnes' Sky Trust proposal. As it happens, Rockridge is about to release an analysis comparing Sky Trust with the Lieberman-Warner bill. We particularly evaluate what we call "cognitive policy," which is the set of ideas and values that underlie a legislative or social policy. The Rockridge Institute endorses the key ideas in the Sky Trust. The reasons for our endorsement are best understood by looking at the cognitive policy behind it. This "cognitive dimension" of their policy is the source of inspiration that makes the Sky Trust strong. The most fundamental principle behind this entire endeavor is this: An effective policy must gain popular acceptance if it is to stand the test of time and it must do so for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens. The Sky Trust proposal is an exemplary effort to instill this principle firmly in policy. Keeping Our Air Safe and Clean The proposal begins with a cognitive foundation that contextualize the problem. This provides the moral context for addressing the climate crisis and shapes the material policy that emerges from it.
The legendary hotness of Swedes is now useful for more than getting dates. Calls to the French Embassy about plans for using the famous Gallic "icy superciliousness" for air conditioning were not returned by press time.
Climate change is likely increasing cases of malaria in Kenya, various viral diseases in Australia’s outback, and tropical dengue fever in the U.S. “Widespread appearance of dengue in the continental United States is a real possibility,” write Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. David Morens in a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Climate change and poor efforts to control mosquito populations are contributors to the potential problem; in addition, write the doctors, “The combined effects of global urbanization and increasing air travel are expected to make dengue a growing international health problem for the foreseeable future.”
When we picture candy billionaire Forrest Mars, we imagine him diving into pools of M&Ms à la the coin-swimming revelry of Scrooge McDuck. That said, Mars’ attempts to keep oil and gas drills off of his Montana land were foiled yesterday, when a state judge ruled that Pinnacle Gas Resources has the right to access gas reserves underneath Mars’ ranch. Drilling is likely to commence by the end of the week.
This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project. ----- In November 2006, California voters rejected Proposition 87, a ballot initiative to raise the oil industry's taxes by $4 billion for research into renewable energy. Four months before the ballot, a survey (PDF) by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 61 percent of likely voters favored the idea, including 51 percent of Republicans. What changed between the survey and the vote? The oil industry pumped more than $60 million into a campaign to defeat the measure. Proposition 87 contained a specific provision that would have forbidden oil companies from passing the tax along to consumers. Nevertheless, a central part of the industry's message was that Proposition 87 would raise the price of gasoline. On the Hill and in the voting booth, the specter of higher costs and taxes is the big weapon in the fossil-fuel industry's arsenal against climate action. The question is, what's the defense? It is important to acknowledge and to anticipate that putting a price on carbon will raise energy prices. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released an estimate (PDF) last November that carbon pricing to achieve a modest 15 percent reduction in emissions would cost the poorest fifth of the population between $750 and $950 a year on average. That's big money to a family living on $13,000 -- and fossil-energy costs presumably would grow as carbon caps get stricter. But we can mitigate those costs:
Wired this month features an interesting conversation between Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke and musician David Byrne. In it, Yorke, a longtime vegan whose 2006 solo effort focused on global warming, mentions his carbon-related guilt about touring. Here’s the relevant clip: Yorke: … [At] the moment we make money principally from touring. Which is hard for me to reconcile because I don’t like all the energy consumption, the travel. It’s an ecological disaster, traveling, touring. Byrne: Well, there are the biodiesel buses and all that. Yorke: Yeah, it depends where you get your biodiesel from. There are ways to minimize it. …
Discontented with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s announcement that it will not meet its deadline for deciding whether to list polar bears as a threatened species, the Big Three green groups — Greenpeace, NRDC, and the Center for Biological Diversity — have notified the government that they plan to sue.
Unseasonably warm weather brought out a record number of voters in New Hampshire’s primary on Tuesday — and is it mere coincidence that the majority of them voted for candidates with real plans to tackle climate change? Well, OK, probably yes. Hillary Clinton was the victor on the Democratic side; she’s got a strong platform on climate and clean energy (though her main Democratic opponents, Barack Obama and John Edwards, do too). In the GOP primary, John McCain was the winner; he’s the only Republican candidate who’s actually spelled out a strategy for coping with climate change, and he cosponsored …
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.