This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.
Today Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner introduced America’s Climate Security Act (ACSA), a comprehensive climate change bill that would cap and then cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Capping emissions is a crucial step in the fight against global warming, and this bill may be the one that gets us there.
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 is Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.
It’s been raining a lot in some parts of the world. In Northern India, Bangladesh, and Nepal, the worst rains in decades have devastated tea and rice crops, killed at least 3000 to 4000 people, and affected tens of millions of people since June. Great tracts of land are under water. Crop land has been destroyed; people are hungry. And the weather forecast says rain.
Click image to view original page.
Torrential rains also have caused severe flooding in Korea, Uganda, and Sudan. In North Korea, over 600 people are dead or missing, 170,000 people displaced, and almost 1 million people affected. In Sudan, 200,000 are homeless from floods. India, itself reeling, sent $250,000 in aid to flood-ravaged Uganda.
Is this all from global warming?
This post is by Keith Gaby, Communications Director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense.
Part of a series on the work of the Environmental Defense Action Fund to enact an effective climate law. You can help by writing to Congress.
"You don’t need to convince me to fight global warming. I’m already with you. You need to reach others and convince them." We hear that a lot from our online activists and members. We get it and we’re doing something about it.
In the last several years, we’ve deployed scores of on-the-ground organizers and communication specialists in key swing states to recruit unlikely allies. Our new 10-minute video, "Cap. Trade. Grow.", is part of that effort.
This post is by Sheryl Canter, Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.
This year’s Nobel Peace Prize went to people fighting global climate change. What does fighting climate change have to do with world peace? Here’s the answer that Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., one of the team of authors of the IPCC’s 2007 reports and science advisor to Environmental Defense, gave in an interview with PBS:
A stable climate helps keep the peace. We see situations all around the world where shortages of the sorts of resources that will shrivel under a changing climate, like water for food, water for agriculture, are contributory factors in places like Darfur, the Horn of Africa, where instability is rife, and governments just can’t hold it together, and people die. That’s ultimately why this is justifiably a prize for peace.
