Beginning today, I am taking a sabbatical from this blog and my involvement with climate change for a currently undetermined period.
After wrestling for months (years, my wife might say) with the Big Question of what I can or should do in the climate change fight, I’ve decided that the best next step for me is to . . . → Read More: Administrivia note: Time to heal and reassess
How people, whether individually or in groups of various sizes, respond to the most obvious threats of climate change — higher temperatures and humidity, floods and droughts, and perhaps most obviously, rising sea levels — is a topic as fascinating as it is important. But there are times when those responses can leapfrog right over . . . → Read More: Of climate change and invalidated assumptions and plain old obstinance
If you’re one of My Readers, then surely you’ve seen the Doonesbury strip that ran in yesterday’s Sunday papers, the one that hammers home the absurdity of climate change deniers by comparing their response to very bad medical news to their view of climate change. If, by some bizarre turn of events you haven’t seen . . . → Read More: Why that Doonesbury strip isn’t 100% helpful
“Of course all life is a process of breaking down, but the blows that do the dramatic side of the work — the big sudden blows that come, or seem to come, from outside — the ones you remember and blame things on and, in moments of weakness, tell your friends about, don’t show their effect . . . → Read More: Self-delusion and the absurdity of a “Good Anthropocene”
I’m sure most people in this little virtual corner cafe are aware of the interview President Obama gave Thomas L. Friedman, published in the The New York Times, Obama on Obama on Climate. The juxtaposition of some of Obama’s comments with some just released results from a survey conducted by the Yale Project on Climate . . . → Read More: Science is science, but indifference trumps all
I’m already fielding e-mail from friends and people I know virtually about the EPA’s proposed CO2 reduction plan for electricity plants. While I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, mostly because it was released about a half hour ago, as I type this sentence, let me point out a few things:
The main EPA . . . → Read More: A few thoughts on the new EPA rules
I mentioned in a prior post (2C in our rear-view mirror, geoengineering dead ahead) that the IEA had tweeted out an astonishing statistic, namely that from 2005 to 2012 China had added 150MW of new coal-fired electricity generation every day. I mentioned in that post that I would leave calculating the CO2 emissions from those . . . → Read More: Calculation: The emissions from those new Chinese coal plants
Brad Plumer, a writer I sincerely hope you follow on Twitter, has a new piece up about the infamous 2C “safe” limit of global warming. This is an absolute must read piece, and I hope everyone reading this site who hasn’t read it already does so.
Brad’s article is: Two degrees: How the world failed on climate change. While I . . . → Read More: 2C in our rear-view mirror, geoengineering dead ahead
I’m sure many readers of this blog have seen the first movie in the reboot of the Star Trek franchise, the 2009 film, Star Trek.
There is one scene early in that movie that captures our climate situation with almost painful on-the-nose accuracy. I’m referring, of course, to the scene where an adolescent Jim Kirk has . . . → Read More: We’re all James Tiberius Kirk in the carbon wind down
Given that the IPCC released their latest report last night (US time), the “AR5 WGII” report (available here as the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) and the full report in sections), and it contains, to put it mildly, not exactly cheery news, I thought this gem from April 12, 2009 was particularly relevant, even if I . . . → Read More: From the archives: Planetary prognosis