Green Party leader Caroline Lucas visited the fracking site at the vanguard of the UK’s burgeoning shale gas industry, saying she wanted to “thank the courageous people...
Some energy analysts responded with confusion, as the subject has been extensively studied by grid operators and the Department of Energy’s own national labs. Others were more critical, saying the intent of the review is to favor the use of nuclear and coal over renewable sources.
So, are wind and solar killing coal and nuclear? Yes, but not by themselves and not for the reasons most people think.
In a word, yes. When industry funds science, credibility suffers. And this does not bode well for the types of public-private research partnerships that appear to be becoming more prevalent as government funding for research and development lags.
In his second column, Stephens takes on ethanol, a worthy topic for inquiry: the benefits of ethanol are questionable when the full life cycle is considered. Which is why the Sierra Club is opposed to it, NRDC pointed out problems back in 2010, and the NY Times editorial board itself expressed its opposition in 2008. (So much for Stephens bringing diversity…)
But instead of diving into an honest argument, Stephens sets up a strawman to burn down.
This article is based on a collection of archival stories.
When it comes to energy, perhaps the only thing President Trump loves more than coal is oil and gas. Just a day shy of 100 days into his presidency, Trump signed an executive order to open more offshore oil drilling in U.S. waters.
The move is meant to spur the economy and reverse President Obama’s decision last December to ban drilling from large swaths of sensitive marine environments. Regardless of whether Trump succeeds in overturning Obama’s protections, it’s clear oil won’t be flowing from new offshore wells anytime soon.
This is a guest post by Karin Kirk, crossposted with permission from Yale Climate Connections.
The political environment in America is gripped by deep polarization. No news flash there.
Throughout the Presidential campaign and in the initial months of the Trump presidency, the public and their national politicians dig themselves ever deeper into entrenched positions, leaving little hope for compromise or reconciliation.
But sometimes people do the unimaginable: they change their minds.
An AskReddit discussion poses a tantalizing question, “Former climate deniers, what changed your mind?”
Coca-Cola and Nestlé have recently closed facilities, and Starbucks is bracing for a global shortage of coffee — all due to effects from climate change. Climate change impacts every resource used by businesses: from agriculture, water, land and energy to workers and the economy. No business will be untouched.
As a researcher and professor of business management, I have found that sustainable business courses across the U.S. do not align with the scientific consensus that we need radical change to avert disastrous consequences of climate change.
These future business leaders are not being prepared for the climate change challenges their companies are certain to face.
On Saturday, thousands of people in over 500 hundred marches will take to the streets to call for governments to support and fund scientific enquiry. Dr Alice Bell — campaigner, writer and researcher in the public engagement with science and technology — outlines why it’s important for people to support the global March for Science.
This is a guest post by David Pomerantz, crossposted from Energy and Policy Institute.
Virginia’s monopoly electric utility, Dominion Energy, has thrown its chips behind two establishment candidates for governor, Democrat Ralph Northam and Republican Ed Gillespie, in hopes that they can fend off populist primary opponents in both parties who have turned the utility into a campaign punching bag.