This post is by Elizabeth Thompson, Legislative Director at Environmental Defense.
The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) just issued an analysis that says we don’t have to choose between solving the global warming crisis and protecting the lowest-income Americans. We can do both through a well-designed cap-and-trade system.
This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.
We frequently hear people worrying about the expense of tackling the global warming problem (an expense that is generally overrated). But what we don’t hear much about is the cost of inaction. How much of a burden will be placed on our economy if we do nothing?
This is the topic of a study just released by the University of Maryland (and partially funded by Environmental Defense) titled "The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction". The upshot? Taking no action at all is our most expensive policy option.
The author of today’s post, Nat Keohane, Ph.D., is Director of Economic Policy and Analysis at Environmental Defense.
In yesterday’s New York Times, Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, advisor to President Bush and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, threw his hat into the climate policy ring. Mankiw called for an international carbon tax to address global climate change.
We’re glad that a highly regarded academic economist is calling for serious action to stop global warming. But we part ways with his prescription for what action to take.
Today’s post is by Jon Anda, president of Environmental Markets Network. It’s a response to a column in Tuesday’s New York Times.
The column’s writer, John Tierney, goes along with Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book “Cool It”. Lomborg acknowledges that global warming is happening, but is against “hysteria and headlong spending on extravagant CO2-cutting programs.”
In the world of greenhouse gases, the devil is in the details. Climate policy is not about any specific scenario – like the one-foot sea level rise Lomborg wades us through – but the chance of a catastrophic outcome.
Today’s post is by Jon Anda. He is President of the Environmental Markets Network, an organization within Environmental Defense focused on legislation to create an efficient carbon market.
Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote the infamous “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” has a book coming out this fall called “Cool It.” He says we should spend minimal resources to fight global warming.
I wrote a guest post for Grist yesterday about why his approach is wrong. Here’s a key point from it:
Lomborg’s preference is to leave future generations more cash and less technology. Our grandchildren can easily go back to burning coal if climate turns out to be manageable. But how easily can they spend the extra cash if the Greenland ice sheet is irreversibly melting?
The author of today’s post, Sheryl Canter, is an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.
Carbon offsets are a good idea that, unfortunately, without guidelines, can be implemented badly. The basic idea is to reduce and then offset the carbon emissions produced by your lifestyle by funding projects that reduce carbon emissions elsewhere. This works because, from a global warming perspective, it doesn’t matter where the carbon comes from. A reduction anywhere reduces the global total.
But how do you know a given offset is truly reducing carbon emissions?
