A group of hard-Brexiters is working together to launch a “Museum of Communist Terror” with the aim to “keep alive...
Each morning at Camp Constitution’s summer camp, the kids and parents go off to classes while staff members do a room inspection.
“What we look for is not just cleanliness, but a patriotic and Godly theme,” says camp director Hal Shurtleff in a video of the 2016 camp.
“We are looking for creativity — are they learning what we are teaching them?”
And what are they being taught? Conspiracy theories about the United Nations (UN) and how climate change is a hoax, and they've drafted in two of the world's most notorious climate science denialists to do the job.
Koch Industries is calling for the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs), all while claiming that it does not oppose plug-in cars and inviting the elimination of oil and gas subsidies that the petroleum conglomerate and its industry peers receive.
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been called a “deafening” alarm and an “ear-splitting wake-up call” about the need for sweeping climate action. But will one more scientific report move countries to dramatically cut emissions?
Evidence, so far, says no. Countless scientific studies have been published since the 1970s on the dangers of climate change, many offering similar projections. And social science research shows that showing people research doesn’t work. So, if more reports and information don’t spark action, what will?
In a recent study led by the University of Massachusetts Lowell Climate Change Initiative, we identified a promising approach: Playing a game called the World Climate Simulation, originally developed by the nonprofit organization Climate Interactive, in which participants play delegates at international climate change negotiations.
Around the U.S., many states and municipalities were voting in the U.S. midterms on races with implications for limiting the environmental and public health impacts of fossil fuels, particularly drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). On cue, however, the oil and gas industry responded by spending massive amounts of money to defeat these initiatives and elect their preferred candidates, with plenty of success.
In just three of those states, energy and fossil fuel companies reportedly spent almost $100 million fighting a price on carbon, a ban on new fracking and drilling near homes, and a more ambitious state renewable energy requirement.
Editor’s note: A new study by scientists in the United States, China, France and Germany estimates that the world’s oceans have absorbed much more excess heat from human-induced climate change than researchers had estimated up to now. This finding suggests that global warming may be even more advanced than previously thought. Atmospheric scientist Scott Denning explains how the new report arrived at this result and what it implies about the pace of climate change.
Gas companies in California face credit downgrades, ratings agencies say, after the state pledged to get all of its power from renewable sources by 2045.
On September 10, California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill which would require 100 percent of the state electricity’s to come from carbon-free sources.
That would have no immediate effect on most gas generators, according to a report by Standard & Poor’s (S&P) analyst Michael Ferguson this month. However, he said: “We believe that over the long term, with the growth of renewable energy, these utilities face a significant threat to their market position, finances, and credit stability.”
With Washington State voters poised to put a price on carbon pollution, the oil and gas industry has made history to keep the ballot measure, Initiative 1631, from passing. The opposition campaign, funded with more than $30 million primarily from out-of-state oil and gas companies, also distributed bilingual flyers listing Latino businesses that recommended voting “no” on I-1631.
The only problem, however, is that a dozen Latino businesses say they never agreed to this, according to the Yes on 1631 campaign.
There are costs associated with electricity beyond what shows up on your monthly bill.
When that energy comes from coal, residents who live downwind pay through poorer health and, as with all fossil fuels, the whole world pays for this combustion in the form of a warmer climate. Cleaning up or closing the nation’s dirtiest power plants could help stem the damage all around.
As an atmospheric scientist, I worked with two students to compute some of the often-overlooked costs of coal-fired power stations. We found that the damage to public health and the climate this source of electricity causes far exceeds the money power generators earn from the electricity they sell.