If the lesson some people learn from the 2014 election is that trying to put climate change, clean energy, and the environment on the national agenda won't ever work, they will be learning exactly the wrong lesson. Here's why.
The world's leading scientists and governments repeatedly emphasize "irreversible impacts" of human-caused climate change. What do they mean by irreversible and why is it so important to understanding the unique immorality of inaction?
The world’s top scientists and governments have issued their bluntest plea yet to the world: Slash carbon pollution now (at a very low cost) or risk “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”
We are rapidly depleting many of the world's most important aquifers. NASA reports, "Nearly all of these underlie the word’s great agricultural regions and are primarily responsible for their high productivity." Further declines threaten both our food supplies and our security.
In the 2 years since superstorm Sandy made landfall, climatologists have explained the many ways human-caused global warming worsened the devastation. And absent strong action, we know warming-driven sea level rise will make Sandy-level storm surges the norm on the East Coast in the coming decades.
Can we build enough carbon-free energy fast enough to avert catastrophic climate change without having to power this energy transition with fossil fuels that would undermine the whole transition? The answer is "yes," and here's why.
NPR has gutted its staff dedicated to covering climate issues. Given the nation’s and world’s renewed focus on the threat posed by unrestricted carbon pollution, this baffling move is already receiving widespread criticism from scientists and media watchers.
A new study using long-term satellite observations confirms (for the umpteenth time) that fracking speeds up global warming and has no net climate benefit whatsoever in any timescale that matters to humanity.