If we are serious about zeroing our carbon footprint we need to at least quadruple the pace of investment in renewable energy. How can we do that when there are other things like economic development, roads, education, healthcare and defense that need more money too? We need to increase the amount of money we have to work with.
Policy & Government
A catch all category for government, politics and initiatives to influence either.
A recent poll by Care2 discovers the state’s most environmentally conscious citizens are struggling with how they will save water to meet California’s recently-imposed standards.
The University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business surveyed workers in the U.S. and U.K. finance industry about ethics and legal issues, releasing findings this month. The main finding? “Unethical behavior continues to persist.”
The combined clean energy investment of developing countries, including China, Brazil, India and South Africa, totaled $131 billion in 2014, only 6 percent less than the combined total for developed countries. The gap is narrowing and is expected to close soon. Then, we will be the ones doing the chasing.
This year’s Sustainable Cities Index reported the top 10 sustainable cities of 2015. Europe dominated the top 10 overall rankings, holding seven of the 10 places. No U.S. cities made the top 10 (Boston ranked highest at No. 15). In fact, three remaining top 10 spots belong to Asian cities that are on the forefront of sustainable development.
Speaking to this year’s graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, President Barack Obama called climate change “a serious threat to global security” and “an immediate risk to our national security.”
Dramatically higher than previously estimated, fossil fuel subsidies exceed what the world’s governments spend on health care, according to the International Monetary Fund. What’s more, they’re likely to remain this high — despite fossil fuels being the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, the main culprit driving climate change.
SPECIAL SERIES: Disrupting Short-Termism
Between 10 and 30 percent of all prescription and over-the-counter drugs sold are left unconsumed, and all those leftover medications pose significant risks to public health and the environment. But CVS Health has decided it wants to do its part to stem the tide of prescription and over-the-counter medications filling up our medicine cabinets and clogging our waterways.
The decision to give Shell Oil the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic “shows why we may never win the fight against climate change,” Bill McKibben wrote in a scathing New York Times op-ed piece. “Even in this most extreme circumstance, no one seems able to stand up to the power of the fossil fuel industry. No one ever says no.”
An Amtrak train derailed last week in Pennsylvania, which triggered a set of questions that are not often associated with tragedy. Questions like, “Is Amtrak underfunded?” and “Could technology have prevented the crash?” seem out of left field. But given the current state of politics in Washington, these questions seem more legitimate.
For five years, companies that make toxic flame retardant chemicals told us that they had hard science to show that their products save lives. Without flame retardants in all of our furniture, they’d say, thousands of children would die in house fires every year. That’s untrue. Here’s the story of the man who crafted the message.
During his inaugural address back in January, California Gov. Jerry Brown called for 50 percent renewable energy by 2030. The clean energy plan “is economically sound, environmentally beneficial and achievable,” according to a detailed analysis and policy guidance report from Strategen Consulting.
Enabling consumers to choose between competing energy providers is a paradigm shift, and with the advent of community choice aggregation (CCA), that shift is in gear.
The “Philadelphia energy hub” is stuck in the promotional stage of the issue attention-cycle, in which boosters and doomsayers each try to create a narrative that benefits a strategic interest. To have a real discussion about a Philadelphia energy hub, we need to move beyond simplistic references to good things like “a manufacturing revival” and bad things like “an environmental sacrifice zone.” Now, we have two monologues: one saying “absolutely yes” and one saying “absolutely no.” The extremes have a right to state their yes or no positions, and personally I’m glad to have them both on the scene. But the question for the large majority of us is not, “yes or no?” The question is, “under what conditions?”
In a shocking development, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, headed by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Texas), submitted a new budget for NASA that would cut the earth science budget by $300 million. Ironically, this is happening at a time when NASA just reported that atmospheric carbon dioxide has exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in human history.