Energy and Environment

February 10, 2010

The Oregon petition, signed by the 31,000 scientists, states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

January 28, 2010 

December 19, 2009

July 25, 2009

In two of his recent op-eds for the New York Times, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has challenged critics of the government's intentions to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and he has even specifically endorsed the pending Waxman-Markey bill which includes a "cap-and-trade" program. According to Krugman, the costs of such legislation are no big deal, and in exchange we avert catastrophe. So why all the criticism?

There is a growing notion that rich countries should slash imports from poor countries whose antiquated factories are heavy carbon emitters: this eco-protectionism is in fact good old-fashioned protectionism and would hit the poor hardest.

[P]oliticians in the European Union (EU) and the US have been peddling protectionism – threatening to impose restrictions on imports from countries that refuse to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is no doubt music to the ears of the labour unions and environmentalists that have been calling for such tariffs, but it is bad news for everyone else – especially the poor.

Government officials from around the world have descended on the Indonesian resort island of Bali for two weeks of climate negotiations. The talk is of a new Kyoto-like treaty, with global caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. But such a treaty would harm the poor, hampering their adaptability to climate change, while doing little to prevent it.

Governments should reject calls for a post-Kyoto treaty “Kyoto 2”

Civil Society Report says climate policy should focus on removing barriers to adaptation

Governments and activists have been celebrated from 12-21 September the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol that saved the ozone layer - or did it? This well-published author shows how other factors in real life up in the stratosphere had more effect than the CFC ban. He fears similar hype will lead to radical and expensive policies in the attempts to alter climate change - and the cost will hit the poorest hardest.