Post has attachment
Court rejects another runway at Vienna Airport on climate change grounds 

Post has shared content
"But it is also a sign of the unprecedented sophistication and political organization of fossil fuel and related industries, which have nurtured for years a network of think tanks and politicians in preparation for this moment. That team of industry-supported activists now dominates the leadership of Trump’s environmental agencies, which have set about killing those rules in the hopes of boosting some U.S. industries."

Trump stumbled on healthcare and immigration, but on the environment he's been 'a wrecking ball'

Post has shared content
Regs work...

"One of the most striking findings in the report shows that from 1970 to 2015, six common air pollutants the EPA regulates have fallen by 71 percent. But it gets even better. These gains have not come at the cost of modern conveniences. Appliances and cars today use less energy to do the same jobs, so we now are able to do more with less. The six pollutants have declined even as national gross domestic product and the number of vehicle miles driven have soared."

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
For those not on Facebook, here's my initial reaction to +Bret Stephens's argument in his first Times column, citing my essay on 30 years of climate learning and unlearning:

First, it appears that he’s finally digging in a bit more on an issue he likely skated across, as many have done. Hints of this lie in the difference between utterly dismissive climate comments he made during his Journal stint and this line:

“Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities.”

I hope he keeps digging.

But his critique of climate certitude, among other things, fails to challenge evidence-free predictions of economic calamity made by those aiming to defeat any investments in building a global energy menu that works for the long haul.

The column also features the kind of straw men and other familiar foils (e.g.: "demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy") used by those more wedded to a world view or policy position than committed to a deep examination of a complex and consequential problem.
Uncertainty is real, but hardly a reason for simply more conversation.

While the basics of greenhouse-driven warming are clear, including a dominant role for rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the warming measured since 1950, many of the most consequential aspects of climate change remain shrouded in deep uncertainty.

- How much will a given rise in CO2 warm the world, and how fast?

- Will the rise in sea levels by 2100 be calamitous or manageable?

- Will the deeply vulnerable African nations along the southern fringe of the Sahara get wetter or drier as CO2 levels build?

- Will hurricanes pose a bigger threat to U.S. coastlines in 2100 than today?

On a time scale relevant to policy makers, the answers to these questions have been so unrelentingly uncertain that they border on being what I’d call “known unknowables.” Counting on the emergence of clearer science in the next decade would be a fool’s errand.

But so would using uncertainty as an excuse to pursue nothing beyond more debate.

I wrote about this in 2012:
While it’s fashionable these days to fight over who’s in denial about what facts on climate change, a focus on known uncertainty goes way back. I often find myself circling back, for example, to “To Hedge or Not Against an Uncertain Climate Future?” — a 2004 analysis by Michael Schlesinger, Natalia Andronova and Gary Yohe that concluded:
"Uncertainty is the reason for acting in the near term, and that uncertainty cannot be used as a justification for doing nothing."
There’s a deep and broad body of research and analysis on robust strategies for promptly crafting policy and making investments because of deep uncertainty.
There's a Society for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty, full of folks focused not only on climate but also finance, national defense and disaster risk reduction.
There are entire issues of scientific journals devoted to deep climate change UNCERTAINTY. Scan papers here:
I'm up at Cornell and have been meeting with students and faculty over the last few days about this very set of issues.
I'll be speaking on Monday afternoon at 2:55 p.m.:
Public Seminar—“Communicating Climate Change”
Location: B25 Warren Hall

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Best Mineral services providers in India – BGR MINING (Indian Mining Company)


Post has shared content
The Energy Department projects saving of 87 billion kilowatt-hours worth $3 billion over the next three decades.


Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Fortistar has announced it avoided 2.1 million t of greenhouse gas emissions in 2016.
Wait while more posts are being loaded