Latest Articles

Over 800 EPA scientists report political interference in their work, survey says

More than 800 U.S. EPA scientists reported some form of political interference in their work in the last five years, according to a survey of EPA staff by the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS sent out some 5,500 questionnaires to EPA scientists and received some 1,580 responses; over half the respondents asserted they had experienced […]

The 14 wedges needed to stabilize emissions

In this post I will lay out "the solution" to global warming, focusing primarily on the 14 "stabilization wedges."

Part 1 argued that stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450 ppm is not politically possible today, but that it is certainly achievable from an economic and technological perspective. It would require some 14 of Princeton's "stabilization wedges" -- strategies and/or technologies that over a period of a few decades each reduce global carbon emissions by one billion metric tons per year from projected levels (see technical paper here [PDF], less technical one here [PDF]). The reason that we need twice as many wedges as Princeton's Pacala and Socolow have said we need was explained in Part 1.

I agree with the IPCC, which concluded last year that "The range of stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades." The technologies they say can beat 450 ppm are here. Technology Review, one of the nation's leading technology magazines, also argued in a cover story two years ago, "It's Not Too Late," that "Catastrophic climate change is not inevitable. We possess the technologies that could forestall global warming."

I do believe only "one" solution exists in this sense -- We must deploy every conceivable energy-efficient and low carbon technology that we have today as fast as we can. Princeton's Pacala and Socolow proposed that this could be done over 50 years, but that is almost certainly too slow.

Counties lead on global warming as federal feuding continues

Here in D.C., we're deadlocked (thanks largely to Republicans beholden to Big Oil) over no-brainers like taking back $13.5 billion in giveaways to Big Oil in order to fund the extension of key clean energy tax incentives and forestall a crash in the renewable energy industry. Meanwhile, cities, states, and counties continue to take the lead in putting in place the kind of progressive, innovative policy solutions that we can only dream of at the federal level for the time being.

A great example of the continuing groundswell of local government action to combat global warming happened just yesterday in Montgomery County, Maryland -- a wealthy suburban area just across the D.C. line.

The county council passed a series of seven bills that make up a package of 25 far-reaching environmental initiatives designed to help slash the county's global warming emissions.

The centerpiece of the county's Earth Day legislative extravaganza is a mandate requiring all new homes built after January 2010 to meet federal Energy Star standards. This would help cut residential energy use some 15-30 percent -- cutting both emissions and consumers' energy bills.

Neighbors help neighbors get power from the sun

Co-ops are hugely underrated for their potential to make good happen in the world. As an example, the renewable energy co-op I'm a member of in the Northeast, aptly named Co-op Power, had its first "member to member" solar hot water installation this weekend. The power of this co-op is in its 300-plus members' enthusiasm, and it was in evidence on this day as our trained team hoisted two panels into place, which were making hot water by evening.

A Pollan-esque energy objective in six words … and then some

Perhaps the single most important thing we can do to drive up our energy efficiency, lower energy costs, and bolster the overall reliability of our energy infrastructure is to overhaul our electric sector's regulatory model to move generation away from big, remote plants and toward local generation.

From solar to CHP, we have a panoply of technologies, fuels, and companies who would participate in such a shift. Less understood is that our regulatory model creates obstacles to all of these options, unwittingly causing us to burn too much fossil fuel and pay too much for energy.

Back in January, David challenged us all to follow Michael Pollan's lead and summarize our objectives in seven words or less. Here's mine:

Generate energy locally. Recycle whenever possible.

Like Pollan, it takes a book to explain the detail underlying that summary. This particular explanation is limited to a blog post below the fold.

Snippets from the news

• U.S. EPA scientists report political interference with their work. • Atmospheric methane and CO2 levels are through the roof. • Utah governor doesn’t want Italy’s nuclear waste. • More than 40,000 comments have come in on Cape Wind. • Canada’s emissions growth tops the G8. • Florida wants to curb ocean sewage dumping. &bull […]

F*ck the Earth Day

Warning: video below contains naughty words. Cover your ears.

Monopoly game gets hip to renewable energy

Photo: goat_girl via Flickr Refuse to play Monopoly because you fear Electric Company sources its power from coal? Fear not! Game-maker Hasbro is updating everyone’s favorite interminable game, and in the Here and Now: World Edition, Water Works and Electric Company will be replaced with Wind Energy and Solar Energy. It’s “a nod to the […]

Social concerns complicate an issue that, for scientists, is a no-brainer

A couple of months ago, I wrote a piece, now posted at Seed, about a financial mechanism for reducing deforestation and degradation (REDD) and vaster territory it will likely prime for pricing ecosystem services.

It's fun to watch the story evolve, as now we're seeing the U.K.-based Canopy Capital sign an agreement to protect a 371,000 hectare chunk of tropical forest in Guyana -- in advance even of a market infrastructure to value all the services provided by this land.

For the most part, I see action in this direction as a good thing. Certainly the climate scientists, conservationists, and environmentalists who support "natural capital" schemes have their heads and hearts in the right place. But in the course of reporting for the story, I uncovered a tier of concerns missing, for the most part, from popular media coverage of the subject. Indigenous rights groups and NGOs are highly concerned [PDF] about the implications of what amounts to leasing their land to foreign investors.

Why save the planet if you don’t know who lives here?

There were plenty of depressing numbers out there this Earth Day, from dwindling numbers of moose in Minnesota to ongoing honey bee decline.

But to me, this takes the Prozac-frosted cake: a study found that while young people could identify a thousand corporate logos, they couldn't identify even a handful of plants and animals in their backyards. Will future generations care about protecting the planet if they can't even pick a starling out of a lineup?

How can we start to change that? The No Child Left Inside Coalition has a simple idea: get 'em outside: