Latest Articles

I Believe the Children Are Our Lab Rats

Pesticides could make kids dumb, diesel emissions make them sick You know how we say we shouldn’t wreck the planet for “future generations”? Turns out we’re wrecking them too! A study from Indiana University says children conceived in the summer score lower on tests in school, and suggests that in-womb pesticide exposure may be to […]

Roller Curby

High seas of South Pacific protected from bottom trawling A landmark agreement between 21 countries will restrict the controversial practice of bottom-trawling in the high seas of the South Pacific. The deal, which takes effect in September, affects a quarter of the world’s oceans, and is the first step toward implementing a U.N. resolution on […]

Dan Peplow and Sarah Augustine, activists for indigenous health in Suriname, answer questions

Dan Peplow and Sarah Augustine. Q. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? A. We are co-directors of the Suriname Indigenous Health Fund. Q. What does your organization do? A. Our organization supplies technology and support to indigenous communities that are impacted by gold mining. The communities we work with live in the rainforest deep […]

Summaries of a summary — the new black?

Finally, below is the first half of my summary of the IPCC summary (PDF):

In 2030 macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation, consistent with emissions trajectories towards stabilization between 445 and 710 ppm CO2-eq, are estimated at between a 3% decrease of global GDP and a small increase, compared to the baseline. However, regional costs may differ significantly from global averages (high agreement, medium evidence).

In 2050 global average macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation towards stabilization between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq, are between a 1% gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP. For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average (high agreement, medium evidence).

Electric hybrid bikes going mainstream

Now, before you start calling BS, take a look at this video.

And if you are still skeptical, take a look at this one:

Reece on MTR mining

Erik Reese has an op-ed in the NYT about mountaintop-removal mining and a new program that shows promise in helping landscapes recover from it. Here’s the nut: Appalachia’s land is dying. Its fractured communities show the typical symptoms of hopelessness, including OxyContin abuse rates higher than anywhere in the country. Meanwhile, 22 states power houses […]

It ain’t pretty

I want to highlight a few points from the IPCC's Mitigation Report (PDF).

First, even the most stringent global greenhouse gas targets can be met at a cost of a mere 0.1% of GDP per year!

While the report is not explicit about when action should be taken, it does say that:

In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur.

The Center for American Progress and I have encouraged stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration at 450 ppm and/or a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial era. That said, according to one of the report's charts (see page 22), reductions aimed to cut emissions 85% by 2050 must be initiated before 2015.

And maybe sooner. According to the IPCC:

Decision-making about the appropriate level of global mitigation over time involves an iterative risk management process that includes mitigation and adaptation, taking into account actual and avoided climate change damages, co-benefits, sustainability, equity, and attitudes to risk. ... if the damage cost curve increases steeply, or contains non-linearities (e.g. vulnerability thresholds or even small probabilities of catastrophic events), earlier and more stringent mitigation is economically justified.

Tucked into footnote 37 of the report, there's a brief discussion of feedbacks that could certainly, and dangerously, be categorized as a non-linear, vulnerable threshold to which we are blind.

The message of the report is clear. Countries must act, and soon. We can choose to stabilize the climate and still maintain prosperous economies. But we must make a financial commitment that just hasn't materialized. We've been going backwards. The IPCC reports:

Government funding in real absolute terms for most energy research programmes has been flat or declining for nearly two decades (even after the UNFCCC came into force) and is now about half of the 1980 level.

At this point, that is unacceptable. The policies the IPCC has recommended have great potential and low cost. The world needs make the political and economic commitments to curb emissions. The time to act is now.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The sports news comes fast and furious

Oy. I am quite behind on my sporting reporting. So I bring you a linky post — thank you, David, for teaching me the ropes. (And I’m sorry you lost your 35-tab ginormous linky post last night. We feel your pain.) Without further ado: Both the print Sports Illustrated and a recent Wall Street Journal […]

Nine things you should know about musician Andrew Bird

Andrew Bird. Photo: Cameron Wittig/andrewbird.net Meet Andrew Bird. He’s a musician and songwriter who artfully combines his talents on multiple instruments — violin, guitar, glockenspiel, his own flute-like whistling — to create an eclectic, memorable sound that defies typical terms like “indie” and “folk.” Over the last decade, Bird has been gaining momentum, releasing eight […]

Charcoal carbon sequestration — birth of a new CO2 removal wedge?

I would love to hear Graham Nash and David Crosby rerecord their old "Carry Me" song about agrichar and removing carbon from the atmosphere while revitalizing soils:

"Bury me, buuuu-reee me, bury me, across the world ..."

This is sounding so good it's scary -- like I am being set up to have my bubble burst when it turns out to violate one or more basic physical laws, or only be net negative by ignoring some huge emissions somewhere in the process, or whatever. But for today, I'm going to feel a little better: