If we don’t act ASAP, we'll destroy the abundance that allows democracy to thrive, creating a world of scarce food, scarce water, scarce arable land for billions. Such a world would seem to favor more totalitarian governments that control those scarce resources on behalf of powerful interests.
Want daily updates on important issues? Subscribe to
The best science suggests that on our current CO2 emissions path, by 2100 we could well pass the tipping point that would make 200+ feet of sea level rise all but unstoppable -- though it would certainly take a long time after 2100 for the full melt-out to actually occur.
Climate change makes many extreme weather events more frequent and intense, such as heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and superstorms, according to a growing body of literature. That's why so many climate scientists and others are making the link. The journal Science gets the story wrong.
It's becoming clearer every day that a candidate advocating climate action drives a wedge between the anti-science Tea Party extremists and the rest of the Republican party (and independent/moderate voters). The Virginia Governor's race is but the latest example.
New research suggests that carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be a more limited climate solution than previously thought. CCS can induce earthquakes, which can threaten the seal integrity of repositories, resulting in CO2 leakage.
While the solar industry has cut costs a staggering 99 percent since 1977, the nuclear industry has seen costs soar. If you want nuclear power to be a big contributor to climate action, focus on those who opposed placing a high and rising price on carbon pollution.
Although 70+ million Americans are concerned about climate change, there was until Keystone no grassroots climate movement to speak of. Is it possible we are going to avert catastrophic climate change without an energized movement, without there being a political cost for opposing climate action?