Latest Articles
-
No new subsidies needed
A massive new Apollo project? Massive subsidies for renewable technologies? Thousands of more nuclear plants?
Wrong.
It's much simpler than that. This article from Reason succinctly states what most economists agree on:
... eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market.
Read the rest of the article for more details; it's sobering and should help to focus our energies (no pun intended).
-
Want some big paper decorations?
If you've been to a Target recently you've probably noticed the gorgeous "cut paper" themed decorations hanging from the ceiling. I asked the manager of my local Target what they do with the decorations when they're through using them, because they are so lovely I hated to think of them being thrown in the trash.
-
Rapper gets thumbs-up from water expert
I wrote last week about Jay-Z tackling Africa's considerable water and sanitation problems, and an NYC shindig to preview the MTV documentary on his visits to Angola and South Africa.
I was with a good friend, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, the morning of the UN bash, before he hopped a train to NYC to share the podium with the rapper and music mogul. Peter, one of the world's leading water experts, was at the Wilson Center in Washington that morning presenting his new book, The World's Water 2006-07.
I asked Peter about the event and his take on Jay-Z as a force for progress on the issue. He wrote in an email:
-
It’s likely not the primary cause
In climate change debates, one hears a lot about the Sun. A favorite argument of those opposed to action is that the warming we're presently experiencing is due to increases in solar output, also known as solar brightening, and not from greenhouse gases.Before critiquing this argument, first remember what the IPCC says about human contribution to climate change:
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Note that the IPCC says most of the recent warming is due to human activities. This leaves as much as 50% of the recent warming not attributed to humans.
It is certainly possible -- and fully consistent with the IPCC -- for solar to have contributed some part of the warming we are experiencing.
The real question is whether solar brightening could be the dominant cause of the recent warming, with humans playing a minor role. That is unlikely, for the following reasons:
-
A fired federal employee expresses himself
Guess who said this, and when:
While my departure may be satisfying to ExxonMobil, I can assure you that this will not make the scientific challenge of climate change and its impacts go away. That 150 countries unanimously agree about the science of this issue is not because of some "green" conspiracy, but because of the solid scientific underpinning for this issue. Certainly, there are uncertainties, but decisions are made under uncertainty all the time--that is what executives are well paid to do. In this case, ExxonMobil is on the wrong side of the international scientific community, the wrong side of the findings of all the world's leading academies of science, and the wrong side of virtually all of the world's countries as expressed, without dissent, in the IPCC reports....To call ExxonMobil's position out of the mainstream is thus a gross understatement.
-
‘They predicted global cooling in the 70s’–But that didn’t even remotely resemble today’s consensus
(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: The alarmists were predicting the onset of an ice age in the '70s. Now it's too much warming! Why should we believe them this time?
Answer: It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.
-
Glimmers of hope
Last Thanksgiving I was conflicted. As I enjoyed extraordinary blessings in my own life -- due in large part to the luck of where I was born -- the world around me seemed to be crumbling.
That disconnect remains, of course, and adds a tinge of melancholy to any celebration. My blessings have only grown, along with my awareness of the billions who do not share them. But this year, glimmers of hope have emerged.
The climate "debate" seems finally to be over, and the real debate -- what to do about it -- has begun, however tentatively and haltingly. The new Congressional leadership seems to take the issue seriously, and may begin the process of helping America rejoin and resume leadership of the community of nations in search of a solution.
The question of energy security has moved to the front burner. A buzz of imagination and entrepreneurial activity surrounds the clean energy sector.
A new wave of environmentalism seems to be sweeping over the country, taking root in pop culture, business, and politics alike.
We're finally starting to collectively ponder what it would take to create a human society that exists comfortably within the confines of the world's ecological limits.
Our concern is embryonic, and the steps thus far hopelessly inadequate. But for whatever reason, I'm optimistic that we are beginning to face and understand the task ahead of us. For that, and for the countless unsung citizens and activists who have worked so long to bring it about, today I am thankful.
I am also thankful for the community that has gathered here at Gristmill, who surprise me every day with their thoughtfulness, humor, and passion.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
-
Understanding what is happening right under our noses does not require paleoclimate perfection
(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Climate science can't even fully explain why the climate did what it did in the past. How can they claim to know what is going on today?
Answer: There are two requirements for understanding what happened at a particular point of climate change in geological history. One is an internally consistent theory based on physical principles; the other is sufficient data to determine the physical properties involved.
-
Rules make people mean
I've written about this before, but I love love looove it, so I'm pointing to another story on it (also via Shea):
-
