While some Russian soldiers in Ukraine are voting with their feet against Vladimir Putin’s shameful war, their hasty retreat doesn’t mean that Putin is surrendering. Last week, in fact, he opened a whole new front — on energy. Putin thinks he’s found a cold war that he can win. He’s going to try to literally freeze the European Union this winter by choking off supplies of Russian gas and oil to pressure the E.U. into abandoning Ukraine.
Search website. Enter your search term above.
Most Americans support climate action, but you wouldn’t know it from Congress or the courts – or from most of the media. A recent study found that a majority of people significantly underestimated the extent to which their fellow Americans are concerned about climate disruption, as well as public support for policies to address it. That misperception can affect our ability to work collectively on climate action.
It can be hard to guess what others are thinking. Especially when it comes to climate change.
People imagine that a minority of Americans want action, when it’s actually an overwhelming majority, according to a study recently published in the journal Nature Communications. When asked to estimate public support for measures such as a carbon tax or a Green New Deal, most respondents put the number between 37 and 43 percent. In fact, polling suggests that the real number is almost double that, ranging from 66 to 80 percent.
The concept of net-zero has troubled us at Treehugger for some time. We first discussed it in terms of architecture and building, where, according to the International Living Future Institute’s definition, “One hundred percent of the project’s energy needs being supplied by onsite renewable energy on a net annual basis.” But in our post, “The Grid is Not a Bank,” I quoted Passivhaus architect Bronwyn Barry, who wrote, “The reality is that the grid does not have the capacity to store all excess energy generated in summer, so buildings employing this ‘fuzzy math’ still require that the grid supply their winter deficit.”
In an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Russian disinformation agents created Twitter profiles meant to look like local newspapers.
Named things like The Milwaukee Voice, The Seattle Post, and Camden City News, the accounts would post legitimate articles about their targeted communities, before slipping in articles bashing then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
Economists have been examining the impact of climate change for almost as long as it’s been known to science.
In the 1970s, the Yale economist William Nordhaus began constructing a model meant to gauge the effect of warming on economic growth. The work, first published in 1992, gave rise to a field of scholarship assessing the cost to society of each ton of emitted carbon offset by the benefits of cheap power — and thus how much it was worth paying to avert it.
“Rare” weather disasters are becoming much more common. There were five 1,000-year events, one each in South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Maryland and Louisiana, during a one-year period in 2015-2016. Five-hundred and 100-year disasters are more frequent, too.
A multibillion-dollar slate of moderate climate-mitigation measures in the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act has been met so far with general public approval. But a broader reaction to the historic federal action underlies the discourse: What took you so long…
Twenty years ago, Senator John McCain tried to spearhead an effort. What has happened to Republicans since then?
When Kimberly Nicholas, a sustainability scientist at Lund University in Sweden, decided that she needed to confront the climate effects of her frequent flying, she took a scientist’s approach. She spent hours making meticulous spreadsheets comparing the costs of all the modes of transport she might take—in terms of time, finances, and emissions—and when she finished, she still didn’t know what the right choice was. She had, she says, “analysis paralysis.”