In lead-up to Bonn climate talks, U.S. and U.N. leaders are cautiously optimistic

Climate leaders in both Congress and the United Nations are optimistic about making landmark progress on an international climate accord...

Adventures in the FUD-osphere

Don’t FUD it upImage: psdFDR must have been talking about the Internet when he famously said that we have nothing...

Marshall Institute misrepresents costs of climate action

With Congress moving forward aggressively to cap global warming pollution, opponents of strong climate legislation are muddying the economics to derail action.

First the good news: Congressional leaders have announced they will move forward with broad energy and climate legislation that will include a cap on global warming pollution -- the single most important step we can take to fight climate change.

The bad news: with Congress on the cusp of action, opponents are once again circulating analyses suggesting that a cap on carbon will hurt the economy and overburden consumers with higher energy costs. The latest making the media rounds comes from the George Marshall Institute.

Like several similar studies we saw during last year's debate over the Climate Security Act, the Marshall Institute analysis consistently misrepresents economic modeling results, painting an inaccurate picture of the estimated costs of climate policy. Here's why:

Cherry picking numbers is a sour approach. The Marshall Institute's study claims to be a meta-analysis, looking at economic studies of the Lieberman Warner bill (S.2191) by MIT, ACCF/NAM, CRA, CDA, EPA, EIA and CATF.¹ However, when the Institute makes conclusions about the impact of climate policy on employment and household consumption, it omits the most credible studies from its analysis, namely those by EPA, MIT and EIA.

Sweden’s ozone layer thickest in decades: institute

STOCKHOLM — The ozone layer over Sweden was thicker in February than it has been in decades, the Swedish meteorological...

AAAS: Climate change is coming much harder, much faster than predicted

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is holding its annual meeting, so you can expect a flurry of climate announcements -- though not as much as at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (see here and here). The Washington Post and AFP are reporting:

It seems the dire warnings about the oncoming devastation wrought by global warming were not dire enough, a top climate scientist warned Saturday.

Okay, this is what I've been saying for a few years now, but it's good to hear more and more leading climate scientists besides James Hansen and John Holdren being blunt with the public on this (see links below for others who are now telling it like it is). In this case, it's Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who said

We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations.

The source of Field's concern -- what else could it be but our old nemesis, amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks:

Drinking water: Toilet to tap — get used to it!

In the future, your drinking water is going to be recycled from your toilet — believe it. As the population...

Van Jones talks to Grist about his new job as Obama’s green jobs guru

It’s official: Van Jones is joining the Obama administration to be the voice of green jobs in the White House....

The ocean does represent a major source of energy, just not the one you’re thinking of

In the minutes after midnight on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez poured 10.8 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s...

Green-Collar Jobs, Defined and Counted

“It’s hard to define what a green job actually is.” That’s Michael Myers, an analyst for the Oregon employment department,...