Global Warming News

If you are a politician running for national office - or a coal or utility executive - the notion of "clean coal" is alluring, much like pledging to lower taxes without cutting services. Like other campaign promises, however, citizens are well advised to seek the truth before committing.

During their recent debates, neither the presidential nor the vice presidential candidates dared admit the truth: There is no such thing as clean coal. Despite years of research and billions in government subsidies, not a single commercial coal plant in the United States can capture and store its greenhouse gas emissions.

Investing in Clean Energy Is A Smart Strategy in these Troubled Economic Times

10/08/2008

Let’s face it.  America’s economy is bad shape.  Some will seize upon the troubled times to argue that we should cut back on investing in clean energy and environmental protection.  But that’s the wrong direction both for today and for the future.

For today, energy efficiency makes even more sense in tight financial times.  Businesses can’t afford to waste energy and drain their bottom lines from high energy bills, while causing more pollution to our environment.  Improving energy efficiency is an investment that can achieve a healthy return. Smart businesses view their energy efficiency investments as a profit-center.

GAIL: Better policies needed to avert climate bailout By William B. Gail, Special to the Rocky

10/07/2008

Rocky Mountain News

Will we ever learn? Imagine the scene two decades hence: Congress toiling over the weekend to approve the “Emergency Climate Stabilization Act of 2028,” driven by dire warnings that only their legislation can avoid Monday morning’s anticipated collapse of the Greenland ice sheet.

This is not a particularly realistic scenario. But the analogy with today’s credit crisis should evoke fear in those comfortable with the slow-rolling of climate action. The parallels are ominous - claims that today’s prosperity is too fragile to invest in avoidance of future risks, that the markets will self-adjust to solve all problems, or that we weren’t aware as the collapse unfolded.

AS I SEE IT: Kansas must use its wealth of renewable resources

10/07/2008

Direct cost. Based upon worldwide supply and demand, the cost of coal delivered to Kansas utilities increased 25 percent from 2007 to 2008. That trend continues, with impacts on our bills.

Oil prices. Kansas uses 19 million tons of coal every year — that’s 1,000 coal trains, almost all from Wyoming. The costs of transporting all that coal are soaring, and showing up on our electric bills.

Now For a Green Bailout

10/04/2008

Maybe the Wall Street bailout package is a good idea.
But the only thing I know for sure is this: even if we avert a total economic meltdown, we will still be in a recession. Millions of Americans still will be without jobs—or in real fear of losing their job. Worse, we will still be dependent on dirty fuels like oil and coal, which are draining our monetary resources and cooking the planet.

Energy law may jumpstart economy

10/02/2008

Although Michigan still ranks first among the states in unemployment and remains mired in a recession far worse than the rest of the nation, the new energy law passed by the Michigan legislature in September suggests that positive changes are afoot.

The new energy package offers a three-pronged plan to modernize the industry, by setting "Renewable Portfolio Standards" for energy production, promoting efficiency initiatives, and reregulating the market to allow for necessary capital investments and improvements.

Green the Bailout

09/28/2008

Many things make me weep about the current economic crisis, but none more than this brief economic history: In the 19th century, America had a railroad boom, bubble and bust. Some people made money; many lost money. But even when that bubble burst, it left America with an infrastructure of railroads that made transcontinental travel and shipping dramatically easier and cheaper.

The late 20th century saw an Internet boom, bubble and bust. Some people made money; many people lost money, but that dot-com bubble left us with an Internet highway system that helped Microsoft, I.B.M. and Google to spearhead the I.T. revolution.

The early 21st century saw a boom, bubble and now a bust around financial services. But I fear all it will leave behind are a bunch of empty Florida condos that never should have been built, used private jets that the wealthy can no longer afford and dead derivative contracts that no one can understand.

A feasible goal for renewable energy in Missouri

09/28/2008

Voters who want to boost the production of these and other clean, renewable energy sources can take a big step toward achieving that goal on Nov. 4.

The Star recommends a “yes” vote that day on Proposition C, also known as the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative.

Green energy can create jobs, spur economy

09/24/2008

We are on the cusp of an energy revolution. There is much debate as we search for real solutions to transition from our dependence on oil to a clean energy economy that will impact three areas of greatest concern to most Americans: jobs, energy costs and economic recovery.

Burning energy questions

09/24/2008

Missouri voters have an opportunity to nudge utilities down the path toward more sustainable energy. Proposition C on the November ballot would require large electric companies to get at least 15 percent of the power they sell through renewable sources like wind and solar by 2021.
  That’s a bit more, and with fewer loopholes, than a bill passed by lawmakers during the last session. It would have set “targets” for renewable energy of 11 percent by 2020.

Don’t sacrifice coasts, push for clean energy

09/22/2008

  Drill, baby, drill has echoed from the Excel Center in St. Paul all the way to the chambers of Congress, and big oil is dancing a gleeful jig to this new hit tune. Thanks to a flood of sparkling, clean-looking advertisements promoting off-shore drilling as a crystal clean savior to $4 dollar-a-gallon gas, big oil stands poised to jump on a new opportunity to buy up coastal waters and pocket a pretty profit.

But big oil’s bottom line is the only thing that stands to gain from increased off-shore drilling. Our tourist economy sure does not. In North Carolina, the Outer Banks alone draws over 5 million tourists a year, fueling a rapidly growing sector worth $390 billion nationwide. The potential of a catastrophic oil spill devastating tourism ought to be reason alone to steer clear of new oil exploration.

Green solutions worthy of attention

09/20/2008

President Bush said it best: America is addicted to oil. We currently spend more than $1 trillion a year on our fossil-fuel addiction, and if we are to believe the rhetoric of Big Oil, the answer to kicking the habit is to drill for more.

But if you’re trying to quit smoking, you don’t ask the Marlboro Man for help, and if you’re serious about quitting your oil addiction, you don’t ask Big Oil for help either.What America really needs is better energy choices. We deserve energy that is cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels. The good news is, we can and we will end our addiction and create better energy choices.

Green energy can create jobs, spur economy

09/20/2008

We are on the cusp of an energy revolution. There is much debate as we search for real solutions to transition from our dependence on oil to a clean energy economy that will impact three areas of greatest concern to most Americans: jobs, energy costs and economic recovery.

A new report finds that investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy could create 28,000 new jobs in South Carolina and 2 million nationwide over the next two years.

Making it happen

07/29/2008

Gov. Jim Doyle’s global warming task force has provided lawmakers with a good starting point for meeting the challenge of climate change.

The hard work is done. Now, the harder work begins. Last week, the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming completed 16 months of labor by voting on a series of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 22% by 2022 and 75% by 2050. Now, it’s up to Gov. Jim Doyle and the Legislature to turn those recommendations into policy. They need to start that work soon.—Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/28/08

Gore has a point on addiction to oil

07/23/2008

Al Gore might have hit on something when he put out the call last week for Americans to break their addiction to oil and other fossil fuels within 10 years. That something was that he framed his by-now-familiar warning about global warming in terms of national security and economic survival.

Rising oil prices turned out to be the nexus that tied together three big threats to our way of life, climate change, increased national debt held over seas and petroleum-based foreign policy.

Or as Gore put it: "We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change."—The Burlington Free Press, 7/22/08

Current generation must act on global warming

07/22/2008

President Bush, at the meeting in Japan of world leaders on July 9, agreed to a commitment by the world’s major industrialized nations to reduce fossil fuel emissions 50 percent by 2050. This is a welcome acknowledgment that major action is needed here in the United States to, as Bush had said earlier, "... wean ourselves off our dependency on oil."

Dealing with climate change is now no longer a partisan issue. A complete turnaround on climate change and appropriate action by the Bush administration cannot be expected within the few remaining months it will remain in office. It is now up to Congress to take stronger action to bring about reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Election year politics are no longer a justification for delay.—Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 7/20/08

Thinking green

07/21/2008

In Maryland and across the nation, people are beginning to rethink the economic and environmental implications of America’s dependence on expensive imported oil and are deciding to go green, in ways small and large.

Last week, the state rolled out hybrid buses to begin replacing its polluting diesel fleet, and Gov. Martin O’Malley gave a nod toward joining Delaware in placing power-generating windmills off the Atlantic Coast. Meanwhile, Al Gore provocatively suggested that the nation can convert all electricity generation to wind, solar and other renewable sources within 10 years.

Critics are mocking Mr. Gore’s proposal as impossible to achieve. But compared to the alternatives - drilling for oil in now-protected areas offshore and in Alaska - the former vice president’s plan or some equally ambitious mix of conservation and innovation offers the best chance to give the United States a brighter energy future and a cleaner environment.—The Baltimore Sun, 7/21/08

Bush’s embrace of climate change is larded with irony

07/18/2008

It is ironic that President Bush this week declared a kind of victory involving human causes of global warming. It was reminiscent of his absurd declaration of a military "mission accomplished" in Iraq so many years ago.

Attending the Group of Eight summit in Japan, the president commended the statesmanship of those present, while welcoming progress on global emissions reductions.

During the gathering, the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Canada embraced "an ambitious but nonbinding goal" of slashing greenhouse-gas emissions in half by 2050.

Some critics said it’s hardly a victory because five main developing nations, China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, aren’t on board. Others said the action won’t come soon enough to save the planet. It is becoming increasingly apparent that 2020 is a better target for realistic action on human-caused climate changes. One G8 observer commented that if we wait until 2050 "the world will be cooked."—Wallowa County Chieftain, 7/17/08

EPA delays the inevitable on greenhouse gases

07/17/2008

Americans apparently will have to wait for the next president to see any responsible action on regulating greenhouse gases. The Bush administration seems to be crossing its arms, closing its eyes and holding its breath until the bitter end to avoid doing the right thing on climate change.

More than a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court told the Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases were a pollutant and ruled that the agency had a duty to regulate them unless it could come up with valid scientific reasons why it shouldn’t.

Last week, EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson effectively told the high court to blow that ruling out its collective tailpipe. In a foreword to the EPA’s own court-ordered scientific study, he said the agency has no intention of restricting greenhouse-gas emissions - this, despite the report’s conclusion that those emissions pose a significant risk to public health.—The Dallas Morning News, 7/16/08

White House punts on climate change

07/16/2008

The Bush administration has made it official: The federal government will ignore climate change as an environmental threat for the remainder of the current president’s term.

The result is more missed opportunities for the environment, our health and the economy. Many of the measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have also slowed the growth in the consumption of fossil fuels in this country.—BurlingtonFreePress.com, 7/16/08

Eight years of inaction on global warming

07/15/2008

George W. Bush entered the White House expressing doubts about whether global warming is real or whether human activity is contributing to it. He has changed that tune, agreeing last week with G-8 leaders that carbon dioxide emissions must be substantially reduced.
But on his return to Washington, Bush took an action that demonstrates that whatever he now thinks about global climate change, he will leave office without having done anything about it.

At a three-day meeting of the world’s eight wealthiest countries, the Group of Eight summit, Bush and the other leaders endorsed a proposal to cut emissions in half by 2050. But there’s a vague statement of principle, not a binding plan. It appears to be lip service rather than commitment.—The Herald News, 7/14/08

Stand Up And Deliver

07/14/2008

The G8 summit held in Hokkaido last week did not generate major expectations and, therefore, did not perhaps result in any great disappointment. The chair’s summary issued at the end of the summit undertakes the usual tour across major issues and hotspots across the globe. However, the most important part deals with the subject of climate change, on which the G8 leaders agreed to a common vision of reducing by 2050 global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 50 per cent.

The language presented, however, states that "the G8 leaders seek to share with all Parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050". Yet, there is no mention of the base year from which this reduction would be measured. It could, therefore, be taken to apply to the 1990 level specified in the Kyoto Protocol or 2000 or perhaps even from the date when the summit concluded. This is clearly a flaw in the statement, the result of which would be to create doubts on the resolve of the G8 leaders in bringing about a stabilisation of the earth’s climate.—Times of India, 7/14/08

We need serious policy on climate change, not gamesmanship

07/11/2008

George Bush is right: India and China need to sign on to a carbon-emissions agreement that will hold them to pollution limits. George Bush is wrong: We don’t have to wait for Indian and China to sign on to a carbon-emissions agreement that will hold them to pollution limits.

The U.S. and the other so-called G8 members (which is more like the G24 or so, with more than a dozen other country and institution leaders in attendance at this month’s summit in Japan) should lead by example. We can then impose sanctions or some other measures to force developing countries to adhere to our rules.

The "you first " mentality is silly. If we are to be serious about tackling climate change and its impacts we should create serious policy, not play games.—MarketWatch, 7/10/08

Climate-Change Accord

07/10/2008

The G-8 summit concluded yesterday in Japan, with headlines about a climate-change agreement - and that President Bush had signed it. A big shift for Bush, said the headlines. A first.
Yes and no. It is notable that the president signed the accord, in which the eight nations agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by the year 2050. It was the first time Bush ever signed anything agreeing to a numerical goal. He refused at last year’s G-8.—The Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/10/08

Climate change: U.S. not interested

07/09/2008

Sometimes, all one can do is appreciate the synchronicity of things. On the very day we hear about the glacial progress on climate change at the G-8 summit, with President Bush at the table, of course, we hear of the cuts Vice President Dick Cheney’s office ordered in congressional testimony on the health consequences of climate change.

When the White House demanded cuts to climate change testimony by the U.S. Centers dor Disease Control and Prevention last fall, we were told it was done because of issues relating to the testimony’s accuracy. But a former Environmental Protection Agency advisor says Cheney’s office worked hard to dilute the testimony.—Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 7/8/08

Rich club musn’t miss chance on climate change

07/08/2008

Some previous G8 meetings have chiefly been rhetorical achievements. But the world does not need more hot air on climate change.

FIRST they were six, then seven, then they became eight. Now, to remain credible, the eight must invite to their annual rich nations’ summit representatives of other rich nations that are not members of the club, and representatives of some poor nations as well. This week, heads of government of the G8 Group, which notionally comprises the world’s leading economic powers, are meeting at Toyako on Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido. And so far, the only thing that is clear is that this protean organisation, which has no standing in international law but is assumed to wield more influence than many organisations that do, faces challenges that may lead to yet another of its many changes of shape and direction.—The Age (Australia), 7/8/08

Face facts: how we live and work will change in a warmer world

07/07/2008

THE core message in Professor Ross Garnaut’s draft report on climate change is stark. It raises big-picture questions - how will our life change? what might we lose? - and puts pressure on the Rudd Government to outline a suite of policies for adapting social and economic life. A social climate change agenda is needed, as soon as possible.

One issue that both the report and government policy leave virtually untouched is the future of employment in the warming world. Whatever mitigation regime we choose, the need for jobs will not disappear - and work, for working families, will remain a prime source both of income and personal identity. For communities large and small, jobs remain the important weaver of social cohesion. Remember that the US experience of letting the market determine whether communities lived or died produced the "rust belt" and the generation of discarded lives that Bruce Springsteen sings about.—The Age (Australia), 7/7/08

Climate change will collapse Earth ecosystem

07/02/2008

Recent editorials about global warming continue to miss the point.

Most editorial comments, as to the urgency of this issue, tend to reflect a bias as to its impact on their personal agenda. There is worldwide consensus that the Earth’s temperature is increasing. The real problem is the time frame in which all of this is happening.

A one degree temperature change normally has happened in 10,000 year increments during the past two million years. Recently, the Earth’s temperature has increased one degree since 1900. This is too rapid a change for nature’s system to absorb. Nature is responding with earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions with increasing frequency and intensity. This temperature increase is warming the waters and changing the time cycles for plants and insects. This combination is pushing 5,000 species a year to extinction.—Argus Leader, 7/2/08

Energy plan ignores environmental issues

06/30/2008

Energy and environmental issues increasingly are intertwined. In Texas, especially, where the skies are polluted and carbon is king, plans for new power generation must give consideration to air-quality standards and expected federal emissions limits.

But new recommendations from Gov. Rick Perry’s Competitiveness Council offer a myopic view of energy and the economy while failing to recognize that pollution has a price.

A draft of the 2008 Texas State Energy Plan argues that adding "large amounts" of coal-fired power to the grid would be an effective way to reduce electricity prices. At the same time, the council denounces carbon dioxide regulations that would make coal a costly proposition.—The Dallas Morning News, 6/29/08

Moms make climate change top priority

06/25/2008

My 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter can’t vote. Nor can a million other kids across the state. So when we grownups cast our votes this fall, we’re voting for our kids, too.

That’s why I’m interested in where candidates in Washington stand on a top priority for me as a mom and for our children’s future: climate change.

This summer and fall, as state legislative candidates are out knocking on doors, holding forums and participating in debates, I’ll be letting them know how important action on climate change is to my family and me. I’ll be taking my kids to those forums and debates to ask candidates where they stand on strengthening state policies to combat global warming.—Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6/24/08

Editorial: Carbon limits are necessary

06/16/2008

Putting a price on carbon is an essential part of any effective energy and climate policy, and we need that policy - desperately. Carbon pricing is tricky, and potentially transforming, so not rushing it through this year is no great loss.

But we can’t let this be sabotaged by people who think government has no affirmative role in this epic issue.

Warner-Lieberman would have required polluters such as power plants and oil refineries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012, by about 2 percent per year. That, said the bill’s backers, would have reduced emissions from major sources to 15 percent below current levels by 2020, and 70 percent by 2050. The bill also proposed auctioning pollution permits under a cap-and-trade system.—The News-Press,6/16/08

Senate debate a sign of readiness to tackle global warming

06/11/2008

Last week, the United States Senate had a landmark moment in the fight against global warming when 54 senators came down on the side of tackling this issue now.

While the floor debate on the Climate Security Act was ultimately cut short by a Republican filibuster, our strong vote proves that we are moving in the right direction.

When a comprehensive global warming bill last came to the floor in 2005, only 38 senators voted in favor of it. Today, our nation is poised to confront this challenge and once again become an environmental leader in the world.

In remarkable contrast to President Bush - who fiercely defends the status quo and threatened to veto the bill even before he saw the final product - both presidential candidates said they are in favor of addressing the issue now.—San Jose Mercury News, 6/10/08

Congress must act now on global warming

06/10/2008

As the U.S. Senate debated global warming Friday, a bill to reduce carbon emissions was derailed as the discussion turned to high gas prices. Republican opponents argued a provision of the proposed law would add 53 cents a gallon to the gas tax, suggesting Americans can hardly afford the existing price, which is nearing $4 a gallon, much less a higher one.—The Daily Telegram, 6/7/08

Climate bill meets disappointing end

06/09/2008

For a moment, the climate appeared to be changing in the U.S. Senate.

Last week’s decision to bring landmark global warming legislation to the Senate floor signified the start of a long overdue discussion about the most important environmental and energy issues facing this country. And while the bill faced long odds from the get-go – and a likely presidential veto – this was an opening to begin tackling tough questions and to establish a baseline for future dialogue.

Unfortunately, opponents weren’t satisfied with simply voting the bill down. They viewed this as an opportunity to avenge past political defeats and impede debate.—The Dallas Morning News, 6/8/08

Don’t give up

06/06/2008

Do you feel it’s a waste of time trying to prevent climate change? That reducing your carbon footprint is pointless when someone else is happy to increase theirs? That changing lightbulbs is a futile gesture? Well don’t, says Michael Pollan, because even small changes in your lifestyle - and your thinking - can help save the world—The Guardian, 6/6/08

Larry Schweiger: To protect polar bears, pass Climate Security Act

06/05/2008

When it comes to protecting the polar bear from extinction, we need a short-term survival strategy and a long-term solution that addresses the root of the problem: global warming.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s decision on May 14 to declare the polar bear "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act does little to help save the polar bear in the near term and reinforces a do-nothing strategy to address the ultimate cause of the polar bear’s predicament.

Scientists tell us that because of global warming, Arctic seas could be ice-free in the summer within just five years. This rapid decline of sea ice is depriving the polar bear of essential habitat and could wipe out the polar bear from the U.S. within decades.

Let’s face facts: The polar bear is faced with extinction due to global warming. Because we cannot immediately reverse this warming trend, we must protect its critical habitat so it can survive while we begin capping our greenhouse gas pollution. The Endangered Species Act protects those crucial den-building and hunting areas needed by the bear to survive. But we also need a long-term solution to global warming so we avoid losing the polar bear’s entire Arctic habitat.

Fortunately, some senators have stepped up to take the lead on legislation delivering smart, sensible solutions. The Climate Security Act, which the Senate is planning to consider this week, would reduce global warming pollution and protect America’s natural resources. By cutting our greenhouse gas emissions just 2 percent a year, we can not only treat our planet’s fever, but recharge our economy.—The Capital Times, 6/2/08

The Science of Denial

06/04/2008

The Bush administration has worked overtime to manipulate or conceal scientific evidence — and muzzled at least one prominent scientist — to justify its failure to address climate change.

Its motives were transparent: the less people understood about the causes and consequences of global warming, the less they were likely to demand action from their leaders. And its strategy has been far too successful. Seven years later, Congress is only beginning to confront the challenge of global warming.

The last week has brought further confirmation of the administration’s cynicism. An internal investigation by NASA’s inspector general concluded that political appointees in the agency’s public affairs office had tried to restrict reporters’ access to its leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen. He has warned about climate change for 20 years and has openly criticized the administration’s refusal to tackle the issue head-on.

More broadly, the investigation said that politics played a heavy role in the office and that it had presented information about global warming “in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate-change science made available to the general public.”—The New York Times, 6/4/08

Climate Action in the Senate - Sadly, even having a debate is progress.

06/02/2008

THE SENATE is scheduled to vote today on a motion to proceed to debate on the Climate Security Act of 2008. Given this nation’s sluggish response to global warming, that will qualify as a big step. The chances of passage this year are worse than 50-50. But the markers being laid for the next president are worth pursuing.

The world has clamored for U.S. leadership on climate change. Yet for seven years the Bush administration denied and dithered while the planet warmed.

The foundation of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that would put a price on carbon by having a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions permitted for each year between 2012 and 2050. Emission permits could be bought and sold; this would promote increasing energy efficiency with a minimum of government prescription. The bill calls for reductions in emissions of 19 percent by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050. Starting in 2012, the electric power, petroleum, natural gas and manufacturing sectors, as well as transportation fuels, would need allowances to pollute.—The Washington Post, 6/2/08 

Leading On Climate Change: How Action in Congress Can Move the World

05/29/2008

By Tony Blair

The climate change bill that senators are to begin debating next week is a hugely important signal of intent on behalf of U.S. legislators. Yes, negotiations could still alter the legislation. But the bill’s core proposition is correct: Unless the United States radically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, along with other major emitters, the damage to the climate will be irreversible.

Radical reduction is unlikely to happen through voluntary action alone. Measures in the bill, through a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme, would reduce emissions 70 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. These cuts would be based on a carbon market incentive system that moves with the grain of action around the globe.

Over the past few years, the debate on climate change has shifted profoundly. The scientific consensus that human activity is causing global warming has become overwhelming. The effect of unabated climate change is shocking and, as was shown by the report of Sir Nicholas Stern—the first authoritative study of the economics of climate change, commissioned by the British government in 2006—it is far riskier economically to ignore climate change than to act to abate it.—The Washington Post, 5/29/08

The Senate’s Chance on Warming

05/28/2008

For seven long years, President Bush has refused to confront the challenge of climate change and provide the leadership that this country and the world needs to reduce greenhouse gases and avoid the destructive consequences of global warming.

The Senate, and all three presidential candidates, have a chance to provide that leadership. Next week, the Senate is scheduled to take up a bill sponsored by John Warner, the Virginia Republican, and Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, that seeks aggressively to reduce emissions from all sectors of the economy.

Mr. Bush, predictably, opposes the bill. Add that to the slim Democratic majority and the complexity of the bill itself, and the chances of getting 60 filibuster-proof votes are modest at best. Even so, a majority vote would create positive momentum for the next Congress and send a strong signal to the country and the world that help on this issue is on the way.

For that reason, it is crucial for John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to show up and vote for this bill. All are on record as supporting mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases. A pressing campaign schedule is no excuse for not being counted on an issue this important to the nation’s future.—The New York Times, 5/28/08

Big Oil’s Friends in the Senate

05/05/2008

Listen to almost any politician, President Bush included, and you’ll hear that the fight against global warming cannot be won without cleaner technologies that will ease dependence on fossil fuels. Yet these same politicians are on the verge of allowing modest but vital tax credits to expire that are crucial to the future of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.

These credits are necessary to attract new investment in renewable sources until they become competitive with cheaper, dirtier fuels like coal. When the credits disappear, investments shrivel. The production tax credit for wind energy has been allowed to expire three times. In each case, new investment dropped by more than 70 percent. The credits for wind and solar expire at the end of this year, so action now is important.

Though there is plenty of blame to go around, Mr. Bush and Senate Republicans bear a heavy burden. The House approved, as part of last year’s energy bill, a multiyear extension of the credits, while insisting — under its pay-as-you-go rules — that they be offset by rescinding an equivalent amount in tax credits for the oil companies. The oil companies (though rolling in profits) screamed, Mr. Bush lofted veto threats, and the Senate, by a one-vote margin, refused to go along.

Senator John McCain — who is far ahead of his party on climate change — missed that crucial vote. He could be a hero if he now rode in off the campaign trail and corralled the Republican votes needed to extend the tax credits; his vote alone might be enough.—The New York Times (5/5/08)

Empty Promises on Warming

04/22/2008

White House aides had billed President Bush’s Rose Garden speech last week as a major turning point at which the president would unveil an ambitious set of proposals to address the problem of global warming — a late-breaking act of atonement, as it were, for seven years of doing nothing.

Sadly, Mr. Bush’s ideas amounted to the same old stuff, gussied up to look new. Instead of trying to make up for years of denial and neglect, his speech seemed cynically designed to prevent others from showing the leadership he refuses to provide — to derail Congress from imposing a price on emissions of carbon dioxide and the states from regulating emissions on their own.

Mr. Bush’s main proposal was to halt the growth of emissions in the United States, chiefly from power plants, by 2025. This means, of course, that after seven years of letting emissions grow, he would allow them to continue to grow for another 17 years — and would come nowhere near the swift reductions in emissions that scientists believe are necessary to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.

  It is hard to find anything redeeming in this speech, though it contains two obvious truths: This president has no intention of addressing climate change. The next president will have no choice but to do better.—The New York Times, 4/22/08

Cap Greenhouse Gases

04/02/2008

Just for a minute, let’s stop wringing our hands about the collapse of polar ice shelves, rising sea levels and other dire consequences of global warming. Instead, let’s focus on what we can do.

A report issued by a coalition of environmental groups concludes that, between 1990 and 2005, New England’s greenhouse-gas emissions grew by 10.9 percent. Connecticut’s grew by 8.3 percent.

The report also makes the point that New England is not on track to meet 2010 and 2020 goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Connecticut — and New England generally — are still a long way from being out of the weeds. Yet the latest figures on declines in greenhouse-gas emissions are encouraging. They underscore the simple truth that decisions made individually by a lot of people add up to major changes.

When it comes to global warming, however, we don’t have much time. Which is why lawmakers must approve legislation putting Connecticut as a whole — state government, municipalities, utilities, businesses and residents — on a path toward greenhouse-gas reductions.—The Hartford Courant, 4/2/08

Saying No to Broadwater

03/31/2008

Long Island Sound could probably survive the addition of a permanent industrial barge the length of four football fields, and fishing boats and pleasure boaters could probably learn to cope with gas tankers, and everyone could probably live with the remote possibility of a big gas explosion on the Sound. But it’s not worth the accumulation of these insults to the Sound and its stressed ecosystem. Natural gas is cleaner than oil or coal but still a globe-warming fossil fuel.

One crucial caveat remains: By steadfastly opposing this project over the gas industry’s insistence that the region needs it, Broadwater’s critics are committing themselves to bearing the cost of the cleaner, greener way. This means a serious commitment to energy conservation and serious investments in wind and solar power, and in retooling existing power plants for efficiency and cleanliness.—The New York Times, 3/31/08

On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend

03/25/2008

The next president of the United States seems sure to be more committed to environmental policy than the current president is, and a carbon tax is high on everyone’s list of options. Indeed, a carbon tax has been promoted almost as a panacea — just pop in the economic incentives and watch them work their magic. But unless steps are taken to lock the tax revenue away from policymakers and invest in substitutes, a carbon tax could lead to more revenue rather than to less pollution.

An increase in gasoline taxes — the first instinct of many American policy makers when the idea of a carbon tax comes up — would likewise be the wrong policy for the United States. Higher gas taxes would raise revenue but do little to curb pollution.

Instead, if we want to reduce carbon emissions, then we should follow Denmark’s example: tax the industrial emission of carbon and return the revenue to industry through subsidies for research and investment in alternative energy sources, cleaner-burning fuel, carbon-capture technologies and other environmental innovations.—The New York Times, 3/25/08

Pain at the Pump and Beyond

03/25/2008

The Bush administration can’t be entirely blamed for the pain at the gas pump. But its shortsighted energy policies — zealously focused on increasing the energy supply, with little attention paid to conservation and greater fuel-efficiency — means the country is far too dependent on oil that is both ruinously expensive and ruinous for the environment.

There are several reasons for oil’s dizzying price spiral. Soaring demand in fast-growing developing countries like China and India means there is little oil to spare. The turmoil in financial markets — the White House can take a good chunk of the blame for that — has driven prices even higher, as investors have bought oil and other commodities as stocks and the dollar plunge.

Meanwhile, President Bush’s strategy for ensuring that the nation’s energy security is focused on one thing: getting more oil by drilling in the Arctic and sending Vice President Dick Cheney to ask his Saudi friends to pump more. Neither could ever produce enough.

Not everyone is unhappy with oil at $100-plus a barrel. Authoritarian governments in Iran, Venezuela, Sudan and Russia are pocketing the profits and enjoying the political impunity that comes with such riches.

A lot more needs to be done to prepare the American economy for a world of scarcer, more expensive energy. To start, the nation has to replace the oilmen in the White House with leaders who have a better grasp of the economics of energy and the interests of all Americans.—The New York Times,3/25/08

Parks in Peril

03/24/2008

The country’s treasured open spaces are no more immune to air pollution from coal-fired power plants than are its big cities. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and kills trees. Mercury emissions poison streams. Nitrogen oxides and sulfates create smog and haze.

For all these reasons, Congress in 1977 amended the Clean Air Act to require the Environmental Protection Agency to make a special effort to clean the air in national parks, wildlife refuges and other places of “scenic” and “historical” value it hoped to leave in somewhat better shape for future generations.

  No administration since, Democratic or Republican, has paid any attention to this mandate, and despite high hopes, the Bush administration seems likely to fail as well.—Washington Post, 3/24/08

Ozone Alert

03/17/2008

LAST WEEK the Environmental Protection Agency tightened the limits on the amount of smog-inducing pollutants that could be released into the air from 84 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion. This is important. Not since 1997 had the ozone standard been strengthened. The EPA estimates up to 2,300 fewer premature deaths and savings of up to $19 billion in health-care costs by 2020. But the intervention of President Bush in the decision has environmental activists questioning whether politics trumped science in fashioning the new ozone rules.—Washington Post, 3/17/08

Our Moral Footprint

09/27/2007

OVER the past few years the questions have been asked ever more forcefully whether global climate changes occur in natural cycles or not, to what degree we humans contribute to them, what threats stem from them and what can be done to prevent them. Scientific studies demonstrate that any changes in temperature and energy cycles on a planetary scale could mean danger for all people on all continents.

This is the Face of Global Warming

08/28/2007

As severe storms and the resultant flooding continue to batter the Midwest with deadly results, the media is filled with scary stories of the destruction and misery being inflicted. By Laurie David

Beyond ‘Truth’

08/17/2007

It would be a mistake to dismiss the valuable environmental documentary "The 11th Hour" as a mere redux of "An Inconvenient Truth." Whereas the 2006 Al Gore-starring film, which won an Academy Award for best documentary, focused intensely on global warming, "The 11th Hour" takes a broader approach in examining Earth's ills.

Global Warming Simplicities

08/15/2007

We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest.

Hope on Climate Change? Here’s Why

08/15/2007

In the field of environmentalism—where brows tend to be frozen in furrow and despair is a professional credential—Gregg Easterbrook of the Brookings Institution is notable for his optimism. And one cause of his sunniness is smog in Los Angeles.

Carbon Challenge

08/13/2007

House Energy Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) has taken a lot of heat from us.

Dodd deserves the Oval Office: Veteran lawmaker isn’t afraid to push bold agenda

08/12/2007

While he is not as well known as some of the other candidates, Dodd's record eclipses the field.

Preserving way of life

08/10/2007

An Inuit hunter and fisherman here remembers the day his children first heard thunder and asked him whether it was the end of the world.

Is Washington listening on global warming?

08/06/2007

Last month, Miami was in the eye of a global storm over how to address global warming, as it hosted the Florida Summit on Climate Change. It remains to be seen if our leaders in Washington, D.C., will respond to winds of change or bury their heads in the sand against the rising tide of state action.

Low Energy: A House bill nibbles at the edges of a bigger problem.

08/03/2007

Debate on the long-awaited House energy bill is due to start today. And a vote on the 700-page "New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act" is expected to follow sometime tonight. Why cram it all into one day?

An Incomplete Energy Bill

08/02/2007

The House will begin debating Friday on a generally useful energy bill that would increase energy efficiency, encourage more responsible oil and gas development on public lands and stimulate investment in cleaner fuels. Yet the bill is incomplete. If it truly hopes to address the problems of global warming and energy independence, three vital issues need to be addressed.

China’s Chance to Lead

08/02/2007

China is about to emerge as the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, a position the United States has held since 1890. Now is the time for China to take the lead in finding a way to reduce global emissions, which the United States has thus far failed to do. It should start by imposing a sizable tax on the carbon content of its fossil fuel consumption and by heading an effort among other major trading countries to do the same.

The Power in the Carbon Tax

08/02/2007

Successful laws to protect the environment are built on simple concepts. They discourage harmful behavior—the dumping of sewage or industrial waste into bodies of water, the destruction of habitat, the emission of toxic chemicals—by a variety of measures, all of which raise the cost of engaging in certain behavior. You can't develop land, and profit, if you're endangering a threatened animal. You have to dispose of chemical substances responsibly. And so on.

The mirage of nuclear power

07/30/2007

Two sworn opponents—environmentalists and President Bush—tout nuclear energy as a panacea for the nation's dependence on oil and a solution to global warming. They've been joined by all the presidential candidates from both parties, with the exception of John Edwards. And none of them is talking about the recent nuclear accident in Japan caused by an earthquake.

The Dark Side of Green Light

07/29/2007

The first meaningful step that many Americans will take to combat global climate change will be to replace their incandescent light bulbs with far more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. Switching just one bulb prevents about 100 pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

The Great Swiss Meltdown

07/29/2007

Some years ago, when a German critic accused me of “meteorological mannerism” because weather plays such a large role in my books, a friend came to my defense: “We happen to have a lot of weather in Switzerland.” Even our national anthem is full of meteorological phenomena: we sing of gray mists and dark clouds and sunshine’s cleansing power.