ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Yglesias

The Planet Is A Place For People To Live

Eric writes “The Megyn Kelly bit was hilarious, but I disagree with you about the value of maternity leave. Maternity leave subsidizes raising children, which is unfair because not everyone wants to have kids and is also bad for the planet because we don’t need more people here. Not having a child is arguably the single best thing a person can do for the environment, and couples who can’t or don’t want to have kids already face social stigma. I’m not saying it wouldn’t suck to have a kid and have to keep working, but why should society further encourage more babies?”

I think it’s a mistake to view raising children as a form of private consumption. It’s a form of socially necessary labor that’s traditionally been undertaken by women on coercive terms for sub-market wages. But there’s a reason why every country I’m aware of publicly subsidizes schools and it’s part and parcel with the idea that in general parents should be supported. It’s especially mistaken, I think, to try to look at children as a negative environmental externality. The beginning of wisdom here is to note that pollution isn’t “bad for the planet.” The planet is a gigantic roughly spherical chunk of rocks that can easily survive whatever level of greenhouse gas emissions or whatever else we care to pump into the atmosphere. The big picture ecological threat is a threat to human beings, and to the continued existence of ecological conditions that are conducive to human flourishing. Radical population reduction would sharply reduce the quantity of anthropogenic ecological impacts, but to what end? The goal needs to be to reconfigure human activity in order to make it sustainable over a longer time horizon. But sustained human flourishing requires both acceptable levels of ecological impact and also the continued production of new human beings.

Now of course the specific conclusion as regards maternity leave is open to empirical revision. If I thought the birthrate would jump to nine babies per woman in the face of taxpayer financed universal paid maternity leave, I’d reverse my view on the matter. But that seems unlikely. Actual patterns of childbearing indicate that women in control of their economic and reproductive lives (correctly) regard having and raising children to be an extremely costly undertaking on which they’re reluctant to embark.

Thinning Arctic Sea Ice Poised to Undergo Record Decline in Mid-August, Volume Minimum Likely

Sea Ice Area, Cryosphere Today, 1979-2000 in gray [click to enlarge]

It looks increasingly likely that we’ll match or beat the 2007 record for Arctic sea ice area.  That means we should easily set the record for volume, since the ice is considerably thinner than 4 years ago.  The death spiral continues.

Whether we will set the record for sea ice extent, which tends to get most of the media coverage, is a tougher call.  Extent and area are diverging more than usual, as I’ll discuss below.  But either way, the next few weeks should be pretty fascinating to watch.

As meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters explained yesterday, “Arctic sea ice poised to undergo record decline in mid-August“:

Read more

NEWS FLASH

Big Oil Pollutes Iowa Straw Poll | ThinkProgress photographs the massive presence of the Iowa Energy Forum at the Iowa GOP Straw Poll. The Iowa Energy Forum is an Astroturf effort of the American Petroleum Institute, the big oil lobbying group. “This is the first time the America Petroleum Institute, which sponsors the Iowa Energy Forum and 25 other Energy Forums around the country, has sponsored the Iowa Straw Poll.”


“In Coverage of Extreme Weather, Media Downplay Climate Change” — Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

By Neil deMause, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, the independent national media watch group

The Fires This Time

In coverage of extreme weather, media downplay climate change

On April 14, a massive storm swept down out of the Rocky Mountains into the Midwest and South, spawning more than 150 tornadoes that killed 43 people across 16 states (Capital Weather Gang, 4/18/11). It was one of the largest weather catastrophes in United States history—but was soon upstaged by an even larger storm, the 2011 Super Outbreak that spread more than 300 tornadoes across 14 states from April 25 to 28 (including an all-time one-day record of 188 twisters on April 27), killing 339 people, including 41 in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (CNN, 5/1/11).

Ensuing weeks saw Texas wildfires that had been burning since December expand to consume more than 3 million acres (Texas Forest Service, 6/28/11; CNN, 4/25/11), plus record flooding along the Mississippi River, which couldn’t contain the water from April’s storms on top of the spring snowmelt. On May 22, a super-strong F5 tornado killed 153 people as it flattened a large part of Joplin, Missouri (National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office, 5/22/11) ; in the first two weeks of June, a heat wave broke temperature records in multiple states, and the Wallow fire became the largest in Arizona state history (Washington Post, 6/14/11).

It was an unprecedented string of severe weather: By mid-June, more than 1,000 tornadoes had killed 536 people (NOAA, 6/13/11), nearly as many deaths as in the entire preceding decade. And it was only natural to ask: Were we seeing the effects of climate change?

Most scientists would say yes, or at least “probably.” The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, a global scientific body that has been a target of conservatives despite a record of soft-pedaling its findings to avoid controversy (Extra!, 7/8/07), warned on February 2, 2007, “It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.” (In science-speak, “very likely” refers to a certainty of greater than 90 percent, and is as near as you get to a definitive conclusion.) Other forecasts (e.g., Environment America, 9/8/10) have projected that wet regions will receive record rainfall thanks to increasing evaporation, while dry ones get record drought, as climate patterns shift to accommodate the new normal.

Yet despite these dire predictions, U.S. media were hesitant to investigate the links between climate change and this spring’s extreme weather. Much coverage settled for the cheap irony of contrasting extreme phenomena, as when NBC’s Saturday Today show meteorologist Bill Karins (6/11/11) quipped:
Read more

We are at a Moral Crossroads with Coal Exports

by Tom Kenworthy and Kate Gordon

In late March, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar traveled to Cheyenne, Wyo., to announce that his department would soon sell leases to 752 million tons of coal from public holdings in the Powder River Basin, and was proceeding on future sales of an additional 1.6 billion tons.

Salazar called coal “a critical component of America’s comprehensive energy portfolio, as well as Wyoming’s economy” and said “it’s important that we continue to encourage safe production of this important resource.” Salazar made no mention of the potential for some of that coal being sold and shipped to Asia. He may have been the only person in Wyoming that day with an interest in energy who wasn’t thinking about coal exports.

Just before Salazar’s visit to Wyoming, the two giant companies that mine about half of the state’s annual coal production, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, announced deals that could lead to a big jump in the now relatively small business of sending Western U.S. coal to hungry markets in China, Japan, India and other Asian nations. In mid-June, newspapers in the Pacific Northwest reported that two Oregon ports on the Columbia River are also being considered as sites for exporting coal to Asia.

All of that has prompted an escalating battle in the Pacific Northwest over what could be the first U.S. coal export terminals on the West Coast. And, combined with Salazar’s boosterism, it has raised questions about whether the United States is backsliding on the fight against global climate change.

China may be a world leader in developing clean, renewable energy, but it still has a huge appetite for coal and is expected to build 773,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity between 2007 and 2030. Even with the third largest coal reserves in the world, China is stepping up imports.

Read more

EPA’s Proposed Standards Would Limit Mercury, Arsenic, and Other Air Toxics from Power Plants for First Time

The coal-burning TransAlta plant near Centralia, WA.  AP Photo.

– A CAP cross-post

The Environmental Protection Agency took a critical step toward cleaner air on March 16, 2011, by proposing its air toxics standards for coal-fired power plants. The proposed rule would limit emissions of mercury, arsenic, and other air toxics from power plants for the first time.

These protections were called for in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, but they haven’t been implemented, and they are long overdue. Toxic mercury, arsenic, and other pollutants have been spewing uncontrolled from power plants even though we fully know how bad they are.

Unfortunately, recent attempts by House Republicans to handcuff the EPA are threatening both decades of public health progress and the further action we need to clean up the air, which will lessen the burden of asthma and other health problems. The EPA’s proposed air toxic standards and their other ongoing efforts should be defended both before Congress and in our public discourse.

To this end CAP’s sister organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has helped lead a summer-long campaign urging Americans to submit their public comments to the EPA, calling for strong protection against harmful pollution. All told, over 800,000 Americans submitted comments to the EPA.

CAP’s official comment submission

Read more

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up