Climate 411

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 »

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.

In a post on DailyKos on the importance of acting now, TheGreenMiles called out an argument we made for the urgency of passing climate legislation, and expanded on it by discussing how action now could positively impact change at the local level.

The Wall Street Journal blog, posting on cap-and-trade versus carbon tax, called out two of our Climate 411 posts in their discussion of the relative merits of each approach. Their recap was mostly accurate, except for this misstatement:

Environmental Defense says the threat is catastrophic “tipping points” that could melt ice sheets, disrupt ocean currents, and accelerate deforestation. Never mind that those “tipping points” don’t always jibe with work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Because Environmental Defense starts from that more-worried point…

All our posts are reviewed by our science team, and do concur with the IPCC work.

This post is by Tony Kreindler, Media Director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense. It’s the third 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

In previous posts, I’ve covered two reasons why Environmental Defense is pushing for climate legislation in 2008 – the politics will be very much the same in 2009, and we don’t want to gamble away a good bill on the chance of a perfect one someday.

Today I’ll look at a third reason: The price of waiting, even a year or two, is simply too high. Carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they’ve been in 650,000 years, and our emissions rate is increasing. It’s crucial that we start aggressively cutting emissions as soon as possible.

Here’s the math.

Source: the national allowance account for the years 2012 – 2020 from the S.2191 as reported out of the EPW Committee. The emissions growth from 2005 to 2013 is assumed to be 1.1 percent (an average of the 2004 and 2005 rate reported by the EPA [PDF]).

Read More »