a broad statement of political intent to address the issues
that—according to the (old) U.N. schedule—should have been addressed by
now. This result begs the question: Did 2009 end with more or with less
ambiguity about how to address climate change? The potential answers
feel more like a Rorschach test than points of debate.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
We do know certain things:<\/strong> No one has any <\/p>\n We are confident that we have very little idea<\/a> what course the U.S. Senate will take in coming weeks and months. The leadership troika of Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham<\/a> (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) appears to be pushing ahead, <\/p>\n Continued international and U.S. policy uncertainty puts renewed <\/p>\n The Center for Public Integrity prefaces the coming activity on climate legislation with a deep dive<\/a> into lobbying records. The number of registered businesses and groups <\/p>\n New Year’s resolutions:<\/strong> The holiday break gave Climate Post some time to think about this project, the year passed, and the year ahead (and, for a goof, to begin reading the “climategate<\/a>” e-mails). And a slow news week opens up space to share thoughts.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The conceit of traditional news-gathering, and by extension, this <\/p>\n So, how can we enrich the conversation? First, by acknowledging that it’s a conversation. Climate Post is <\/p>\n Energy and climate change, and all they encompass—economics, policy, <\/p>\n Space restraints being what they are (i.e., restraining), we won’t be <\/p>\n Eric Roston is Senior Associate at the Nicholas Institute <\/a>and author of The Carbon Age<\/a>: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat. Prologue available at here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n With new year comes second chance to save the world<\/a><\/p>\n A conversation with Indian youth activist Ruchi Jain<\/a><\/p>\n Copenhagen blame game is obstacle to 2010 climate deal<\/a><\/p>\n
illusions about the difficulty of bringing the community of nations to
agreement on how to rebuild the global energy economy. We know that
the United Nations process failed to produce a legally binding
emissions-reduction and sustainable-development treaty. Or even a
political agreement that offers clear guidance to a treaty. We know
that China frustrated<\/a> European and American leaders at key moments, even blocking discussion
of national efforts in the Accord, a move that caused German Chancellor
Angela German Merkel to demand, “Why can’t we even mention our own
targets?” It will be interesting to watch the build-up to COP-16<\/a>,
in Mexico City this November, given the certainly dramatic, inevitably
anti-climactic (anti-climatic?), year-long sprint to Copenhagen.<\/p>\n
despite the pessimism engulfing much of the chattering class. Political
intrigue erupted<\/a> this week when two Democratic senators, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, announced their retirements, putting
at risk the majority’s ability to maintain a filibuster-defeating
voting block. We continue to expect global media interest in geo-engineering<\/a> to vary inversely with media interest in emissions reductions. And we know that observable<\/a> phenomena consistent<\/a> with warming<\/a> predictions<\/a> continue to emerge<\/a>.<\/p>\n
spotlight on nascent regional programs, and on the private sector.
Companies making up the FTSE 100<\/a> are, on average, projecting that they will meet the U.K.’s target of a
two-to-three percent reduction annually, according to a new Carbon
Disclosure Project report<\/a>.
Global investment managers (not, of course, compelled to act, as FTSE
firms are, by a new U.K. law) have yet to substantially incorporate
climate risk assessments into their portfolios<\/a>. Perhaps Google will find a way to solve some of the complications involved in the struggle<\/a> toward carbon neutrality.<\/p>\n
hovered steadily, around 1,160. But that number conceals about 140
newcomers to the debate, including highly visible consumer firms, such
as Campbell Soup Company, Kellogg Company, and Del Monte Foods. “[T]he
domestic politics are only growing ‘curiouser and curiouser,’ as Alice
might say from Wonderland,” report Marianne Lavelle and M.B. Pell.<\/p>\n
blog, is that what just happened is more important than anything else.
After all, it is called “the news,” and not “the recentlies” or “the
interestings.” But given the sweep of information available to each of
us with the touch of a key, there’s no longer a reason to limit
ourselves to the news, when “the recentlies” and “the interestings” can
really enrich the conversation.<\/p>\n
a community, a smallish, newish one, and I’m curious about how to make
this fact a little bit more visible. This missive goes out to friends
of the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and Duke
University, and is reproduced at the environmental magazine, Grist.org.<\/p>\n
science, business, competing values—are extraordinarily complicated,
hence the initial idea<\/a> for Climate Post to begin with. So, other than what’s “news” in a given week, what can
we help you with? What came up at a dinner party over the holidays that
no one could answer, or that sparked an hour-long discussion, or is
reported in contradictory ways? There’s an opportunity here for Climate Post to become something of an information or research concierge,
particularly in regard to policy and the work of my colleagues at the
Institute. Again, in policy, science, business, behavior, it takes a
lot of listening and learning just to become comfortable with what the
solutions are.<\/p>\n
able to hit every desirable topic every week. But hopefully the swarm
will guide us all toward engaging, informative, and productive
conversation, while still flying close to the original mission. This
blog is my blog. This blog is your blog. This blog was made for you and
me.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2223\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"