Climate Progress gets quoted on a diverse set of subjects. Here is ScienceNow on hydrogen:
Here is Greenwire on “Chinese bid to cast one-child policy as emissions curb raises eyebrows” (subs. reqd.) — they called me because of this recent post on China:
Joseph Romm, a former Energy Department assistant secretary and currently of the Center for American Progress, also dismissed China’s claim.
“The fact that their one-child policy has reduced emissions against what they would’ve been is interesting,” he said. “But it doesn’t help the planet. What we need to do now is for them to develop without building a coal plant every week.”
Romm added he didn’t see the issue being taken seriously on Capitol Hill or in international talks.
“The bottom line is, ‘Could a negotiated agreement cover it?’” he said. “Frankly, it’s been hard enough just to get a regular climate agreement.”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
We could do with 10 percent more people if all those people were building and installing wind turbines, concentrated solar power plants, and doubled the insulation in buildings.
I remember a book from Kuhn in the 1980′s about human development possibilities. He wrote, why would we worry about energy when we could have 40 percent of the people getting energy, it still would cost more but we could still do it. I didn’t agree with much of what he wrote, we can do things smarter than always the hard way. We just have to do things a better way.
Joe,
China’s one-child policy results in babies being murdered. The fact that it may have helped reduce emissions isn’t “interesting”.
Is that really what you said when they asked you about that? “Interesting”? But more work to be done? You could have pointed out that killing babies to save the planet might be going just a bit too far.
I would like to suggest that this is a fine example of a Progressive idea in which the end does not justify the means.