Climate 411

Coalition Asks SEC for Climate Risk Disclosure

The author of today’s post, Martha Roberts, is an economist at Environmental Defense. She contributed to the coalition’s petition to the SEC.

Climate change can have a significant impact on a company’s bottom line – just ask any insurance company. But as the Washington Post points out, it’s not only insurance companies that are affected. Climate change can cause physical damage to facilities, increase costs of regulatory compliance, and (on the plus side) create new markets for climate-friendly products – to give just a few examples.

So today, Environmental Defense and a broad coalition of investors, state treasurers, and other environmental groups petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to clarify that existing regulations require publicly traded companies to assess and disclose their financial risk from climate change. Altogether, the 22 petitioners manage more than $1.5 trillion in assets. You can find full documentation, including the petition, on our Web site.

Read More »

Posted in News / Read 1 Response

Mankiw's Argument Against Cap-and-Trade

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.

Read More »

Posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics / Read 6 Responses

What Has the Government's Climate Program Achieved?

Today’s post is by Bill Chameides, Ph.D., science adviser to Environmental Defense and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

In 2002, the Bush Administration set up the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). Yesterday, an independent panel released a report through the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) evaluating how that program has done. The headline in the New York Times sums it up: “Panel Faults Emphasis of U.S. Climate Program.”

When I look at the work of the CCSP over the last five years, here’s what stands out.

Read More »

Posted in News / Read 3 Responses

Grim Outlook for Polar Bears

The author of today’s post, Lisa Moore, Ph.D., is a scientist in the Climate and Air program.

What's a polar bear, Mommy?A frame from an Environmental Defense ad campaign about the danger of unchecked global warming.

Most Polar Bears Gone by 2050“. You may have seen that headline in the news this week. The study behind this depressing conclusion could land polar bears on the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Read More »

Posted in Arctic & Antarctic / Read 7 Responses

Bjorn Lomborg's Fundamental Mistake

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.

Read More »

Posted in Economics / Read 2 Responses

VT Court Rejects Automakers' Attempt to Continue Polluting

The author of today’s post, Jim Tripp, is General Counsel at Environmental Defense. Working with state agencies and other environmental groups, Tripp presented arguments in the Vermont trial this spring.

We won an important victory today. A federal judge in Vermont ruled against U.S. automakers’ attempt to block states from setting new rules limiting global warming pollution from automobiles. In his ruling, Judge William K. Sessions III said that the auto industry failed to prove that it could not safely meet the tailpipe standards.

A number of environmental groups joined the State of Vermont in defending the case, including us at Environmental Defense, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

So can Vermont now implement the tighter emissions requirements? Not quite yet.

Read More »

Posted in Cars and Pollution / Read 4 Responses