Latest Articles
-
High CO2 crops could be low on nutrition
One of the silver linings of climate change, some have argued, is that high carbon dioxide levels will mean increased crop yields, which will, in turn, be good for combating global hunger (the logic, I suppose, being that if we're frying fifty years from now, at least we won't be hot and hungry). But some underpublicized studies, reported this month in Nature, cast a long shadow on this sunny assertion. (Sorry! It looks like the the article is subscription only, so I'll be as descriptive as possible.)
In the 1980s, Bruce Kimball, a soil physicist with the USDA in Arizona, began conducting scientific experiments simulating a high-CO2 environment (using a system called "free air carbon dioxide enrichment," or FACE). He found that crop yields were elevated -- plants imbibing large quantities of CO2 had more starch and more sugar in their leaves than those on a normal carbon diet. But because they also took up less nitrogen from the soil, they made less protein.
-
But key Senators are making noise about rocking the boat
When Mark Udall (D-Colo.) proposed shaving two-thirds of a cent from just one of the subsidies that go to cotton farmers, Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.) said, "it is absolutely unfair, once we have reached this very delicate balance within the bill, to reach in and single out one commodity."
That amendment -- to cut less than a penny from cotton subsidies and use the savings to protect more than 200,000 acres from sprawl and development -- failed by a vote of 175-251. So what was that very delicate balance that the House of Representatives preserved?
-
A leak, to be precise.
The following is a guest post from Natalie Troyer, publications and volunteer coordinator at Heart of America Northwest. Read her previous posts here and here. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but on Friday, July 27, a geyser from Hades erupted at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Yep, it’s true. In the wee hours of that […]
-
But still no actual decision on whether it will happen
The federal government has agreed to allot $354 million to New York City to help it launch its congestion pricing plan. Yeah, that one where state legislators were first like “Hmmm, I dunno,” and then they were all like “no way,” and then some enviros were like, “Eh, maybe it’s not that great anyway.” Not […]
-
New consensus?
At the New York Sun, Gary Shapiro notices that there’s broad bipartisan consensus on the need for "energy independence" but very little agreement about how to achieve it. Uh, hasn’t that been the prevailing situation for almost a half century now?
-
Not really
I get the point Idean Salehyan is trying to make in "The New Myth About Climate Change,” but — the headline should tip you off — the whole piece has been unnecessarily tarted up to generate controversy. It administers a stern beating to a series of strawmen. The "myth" in question is that global warming […]
-
We have what we need to beat global warming
One of the consequences of lazy, defeatist mainstream discussion of climate change (see: Robert J. Samuelson) is goofballery like this piece in The New York Times. Michael Fitzgerald argues that because we don’t yet have a weapon that can totally and awesomely kick global warming’s ass, we should spend billions of public dollars on giganto-technologies […]
-
Buoys
Wave power takes its first baby steps. Instantly, whinging descends from all sides.
-
Things I learned from the L.A. Times piece on Dingell
Rep. John Dingell is Polish stock — his immigrant grandfather changed the name from Dzieglewicz. Who knew?
