This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.
Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp has a compelling Op-Ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal. He says that, “Solving global warming will be an added cost, yes – but a bargain compared with the economic cost of unchecked climate change.” The winners of the race to reinvent energy stand to make megafortunes. Here’s some of what’s in the works:
This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.
Today is the start of National Public Health Week, and this year’s focus is the impact of climate change on our nation’s health. The health risks from global warming are not distributed evenly, and some people are in more danger than others. Take a look at our article Health and Global Warming: Are You at Risk? Some of the risk factors may surprise you.
This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.
Climate change is already happening. If you don’t believe it, just ask anyone in the insurance industry, which has been bearing most of the costs. Insurance companies are scrambling to contain their exposure by hiking deductibles, limiting coverage, and often pulling out of risky markets altogether (see my previous post, "Insurance Coverage Crumbles in Coastal States").
This week, ClimateWire reporter John Fialka published a report on how climate change may shrink the insurance industry, and the "seismic economic shock" this would deliver to homeowners and businesses. He says that one solution under discussion is for the federal government to act as a backstop, shielding the private insurance industry from risk.
But that’s a bad idea – for two reasons.
This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.
Carrots and Sticks – Marc Gunther posted a nuanced discussion of how organizations like NRDC and Environmental Defense Fund work with corporations. Rather than endorse or disparage the corporation as a whole, the focus is on the actions the corporation takes. Environmentally responsible actions are praised – even from a corporation that’s doing other things that aren’t so good. It’s an effective way to motivate change.
New Jobs and Affordable Energy – The Center for American Progress published a detailed and well-documented analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act and how it would affect the economy. They say, "The bill would make significant reductions in the carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming as well as turbo charge investments in clean energy technologies such as wind, solar, and geothermal. … The boost for renewable energy would create thousands of new jobs in the clean energy industry."
This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.
Congestion pricing – an antidote to urban gridlock and tailpipe pollution used in cities around the world – advanced another step towards passage in New York City yesterday. After almost a year of research, debate, public dialogue and fine-tuning, the New York City Council voted "yes" to congestion pricing.
Next stop: Albany. If state legislators approve the plan, New York City will soon enjoy less traffic, better mass transit, cleaner air, and tens of thousands of new construction jobs – good news in a sagging economy.
This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense Fund.
Here’s the quote of the week, from a New York Times Op-Ed piece:
Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have had carbon taxes in place since the 1990s, but the tax has not led to large declines in emissions in most of these countries – in the case of Norway, emissions have actually increased by 43 percent per capita.
This observation reinforces what we’ve been saying all along about why a carbon tax isn’t the right approach. A tax doesn’t guarantee lower emissions; a cap does.