Climate 411

Nat Keohane and I have been participating in the “Carbon Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade” debate over on Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. From Round 3, which addresses the international aspects:

A cap-and-trade system allows for the creation of a global carbon market. Such a market would provide the mechanisms and flexibility necessary to achieve the environmental goals at the lowest cost and the incentives for other countries to join. A tax does neither, while requiring much more harmonization across countries.

This post is by Gernot Wagner, Ph.D., an economist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.

A call for change — no, not by Barack Obama, by Al Gore.

Gore co-authored a call for Sustainable Capitalism in today’s Wall Street Journal:

At this moment, we are faced with the convergence of three interrelated crises: economic recession, energy insecurity and the overarching climate crisis. Solving any one of these challenges requires addressing all three.

The op-ed concludes that:

Today, the sustainability challenges the planet faces are extraordinary and completely unprecedented. Business and the capital markets are best positioned to address these issues.

…as long as the incentives are correct:

We…need to internalize externalities — starting with a price on carbon. The longer we delay the internalization of this obviously material cost, the greater risk the economy faces from investing in high carbon content, “sub-prime” assets. Such investments ignore the reality of the climate crisis and its consequences for business.

This post is by Gernot Wagner, Ph.D., an economist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund, and originally appeared on the Environmental Economics blog.

What has the federal government done over the last eight years to stop global warming? Sadly, not much, despite numerous, dire warnings. Our new interactive timeline gives an at-a-glance overview of the scientific reports, lost policy opportunities, and environmental impacts over the last eight years. Click the forward and backward arrows to move through time, and click on a color-coded event box to learn more about it.

Besides giving a succinct summary of the last eight years, the timeline is fun to click around – lots of interesting information all in one place. And it makes it very clear what we need to do when the new administration comes in. There’s no time to waste.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Today’s speech by President Bush acknowledged that federal action is needed to address climate change – a new and welcome shift. But the details of his plan fall far short of what’s needed to halt global warming.

Moreover, Environmental Defense Fund strongly disagrees with elements of the President’s legislative principles, his assertion that the U.S. lacks the technology to make deep near-term cuts in emissions, and his claim that effective climate action would cause economic harm.

Read More »

This post is by Tony Kreindler, Media Director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund. It’s the fourth in a series on Why a Bill in 2008:

1. Same Politics in 2009
2. Good versus Perfect
3. The Price of Waiting
4. The World is Waiting
5. Best Answer to High Gas Prices

Why push for a climate bill in 2008? I’ve already given some important reasons in my previous posts: the politics will be much the same in 2009, we don’t want to squander the current momentum, and in any case, we simply can’t afford to wait.

But if those aren’t reason enough, here’s another: The world is waiting for us to act. To solve the global warming problem, China and other developing countries also must cap their emissions, and they won’t do this until our own cap is in place.

Read More »