Latest Articles
-
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):
-
-
Report spells out high economic costs of climate chaos
Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, writes a monthly column for Gristmill on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe.
While the U.S. was absorbed in the midterm elections, a major report on the economics of climate change was launched in the U.K. The weighty "Stern Review" -- 700 pages in all -- was the work of Sir Nicholas Stern, ex-chief economist at the World Bank. Produced at the behest of the chancellor, Gordon Brown, it has had a profound impact on political and business attitudes in this country.
This is not surprising when the headline message of the report is that climate change could shrink the global economy by a fifth, equivalent to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Stern's analysis shows that taking action now will cost an average of 1 percent of global GDP a year over the coming decades, whilst not acting will cost between 5 and 20 percent of GDP a year over the same time frame.
-
Nothing
Last weekend I was riding the King County Metro bus when a nice man who had recently moved to Seattle from Taiwan asked me to tell him about Thanksgiving. I started in about how we get together with people we love, engage in gluttony, etc., etc.
He said, "Uh, but I mean, what about the day after Thanksgiving? Tell me about the sales." At which point I realized I'd never been anywhere near a place of commerce on Black Friday. I grew up on a farm, and, well, we just don't like people or commerce enough to risk leaving the house.
Then this week I discovered an organized ritual against the wanton post-T-day, pre-Christmas consumption of holiday-related paraphernalia: Buy Nothing Day.
-
It’s depressing.
The Los Angeles Times today concluded a four-part series (with photos) on uranium mining on 27,000 square miles of Navajo lands in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
It's a depressing, but interesting, read.
-
The line-up of legal issues
Lawyers and Supreme Court commentators hardly seem the type to camp out for tickets. But that's precisely what a line of expectant court-watchers will be doing one week from today -- braving early morning Capitol Hill in hopes of gaining entrance to oral argument in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Like a pre-game sportscast, today's post will attempt to give a flavor for points of contention -- in this case, the legal issues before the court. It won't be exhaustive. If you're looking for greater detail, refer to either the briefs or to this recent report (PDF).
The case involves a suit by Massachusetts and its allies (a coalition of other states and nonprofit groups) -- I'll refer to them as the petitioners -- against the EPA for refusing to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide emitted from motor vehicles. The petitioners lost (PDF) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
When the Supreme Court decides to hear a case, it grants certiorari on specific questions. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court agreed to consider two:
