By Michael Ricciardi •
November 29, 2009
The destruction of the Earth’s protective ozone layer (and the growth of the “hole” in this layer over the South Pole) due to the action of human-made chemicals was the leading environmental issue of the last century (entering the public lexicon sometime in the mid 1980’s), and no doubt prompted wider concerns about “greenhouse” effects and global warming that occupy so much climate science reporting today. The main (or most publicized) culprit of this ozone loss was a chemical called [...]
By Dave Levitan •
October 30, 2009
Last week I wrote in this space that when faced with a problem that so clearly requires huge top-down action from governments the world over, what two contrarians write in a book doesn’t exactly bother me that much. But now members of Congress are pissed off too.
By Michael Ricciardi •
October 23, 2009
An interview with and climate scientist and oceanographer Dr. Julian P. Sachs. quote from the interview: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 and methane since about 1850 are unprecedented in the last 800,000 years in terms of the amount and rate. High levels of these gases in the atmosphere in the geologic past (last 800 kyr there is excellent data from ice cores) have always been associated with warm temperatures, and vice versa. It is not a stretch to [...]
By Dave Levitan •
October 18, 2009
When Joe Romm over at the Indispensable Climate Progress gets going, he really gets going. Frankly, as interested as I am in this sort of thing, I’m getting bored.
By Michael Ricciardi •
September 27, 2009
The appeal of shortwave, geoengineering is in it’s purportedly rapid, remediation impact (although no global experiments have been conducted yet). However, the combined climate impact of GHG increases with a geoengineered reduction in shortwave radiation is not known, but, it is feared, could result in environmental “winners” and “losers”–meaning some regions of the planet could experience severe drought, and even increased conflict over water resources.
By Tina Casey •
March 16, 2009
If you don’t know what DARPA is, you will soon. The Defense Advanced Research Group invented the internet back in 1969, and now it has set its sights on geoengineering a cure for global warming. What does that mean? For one thing, it means that a communications network originally designed for national defense somehow [...]
By Keith Rockmael •
March 14, 2008
Is it going to come down to a choice between eating or driving? Is that what are future holds? If it does, it looks like the driving contingent may win (or in other words many others will lose…or starve). That’s a distorted overview of last night’s EcoNow presentation that highlighted the current and future state of biofuel. Actually I like the term that one of the speakers Eric Holt-Giménez used - “agrofuels” rather than “biofuels” because “bio” means “life” which certainly doesn’t represent these alt fuels.
The event held in Berkeley (where else?) gave Tad Patzek, Professor of Geoengineering at UC Berkeley, Miguel Altieri, Professor of Agroecology at UC Berkeley, Eric Holt-Giménez, Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, and Judith Mayer, Project Coordinator of the Borneo Project a chance to educate or frighten the audience into what’s happening with agrofuels, whether it’s ethanol, B20, or something else that makes our cars go.
