Vancouver city council’s unanimous decision to commit to running on 100 per cent renewable energy...
Did you know that Bush did not mention global warming, the greatest environmental threat to our planet ever, in a State of the Union address until January, 2007.Guess it stands to reason, considering he didn't actually recognize that “an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem,” until July 2005.
The good news is that there's all sorts of proposed action on climate change bouncing around Capitol Hill right now. The bad news is that there's all sorts of proposed action on climate change bouncing around Capital Hill right now, making things more than a tad confusing.
So whose plan is the most aggressive and whose plan is nothing more than hot air?
Check this amazingly simple chart produced by the fine folks at the World Resource Institute, for a comparison of the various climate change bills and their effect on carbon emissions out to the year 2050.
The winner on overall reductions according to this chart would be the bill being proposed jointly by Sanders-Boxer and Waxman. And the biggest loser is the bill being proposed by Bingaman and Specter.
A new survey has found growing global awareness of man’s role in climate change, together with a sense of urgency around curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. The challenge now is to get world leaders to take the necessary action.
Even as President Bush tries to sabotage California's proposed auto mileage standards, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the world needs a revolution in energy that transcends oil, gas and coal to prevent problems from climate change.
The Administration's position on climate change has become increasingly muddled – with the President telling large Asian emitters they will need only to cut their “energy intensity” 25 percent by 2050, even as John Marburger, the President's Science Adviser declared that climate change is “man made.” He made that statement around the same time a federal judge rebuked the Bush Administration for refusing to release the National Assessment on the impacts of climate change in the US.
The prime minister’s call for flexibility at the largest-ever political summit on climate change held firm with the Conservative government's opposition to a UN-driven push for short-term binding targets, and its preference for goals that have less economic impact. Not to worry, though, technology will save the day.
A government-appointed advisory panel says in a 38-page report the Harper administration has gone too far in estimating the potential results of its global warming strategy. The group also said the government's plan is vague and uses questionable accounting methods. The report comes as the Conservative government is being sued by green groups for its foor-dragging.
Arctic ice has melted to its lowest recorded level, with scientists and researchers blaming rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, which have pushed up temperatures from one to four degrees.
Huge kudos to Kert Davies and Greenpeace for their effort in this latest astounding blow to the climate denial industry.
Court documents (attached at the bottom of this post) have surfaced claiming that longtime climate denier Pat Michaels has withdrawn as an expert witness from a Vermont court case after a request was submitted that he reveal his funding sources.
In the documents, Michaels states that he was dependent for his livelihood on the income he got through his wholly owned firm, New Hope Environmental Services, Inc.
“Many of New Hope's clients provide funding to New Hope with the understanding that the funding will be confidential,” Michaels and his lawyers said in one document.Hat tip to the SEJ Tip Sheet and Robert McClure at the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
Foot-dragging over meeting the Kyoto protocol’s emissions targets could land the Conservatives in federal court. Two environmentalist groups have filed papers seeking quick action from the government under new legislation.