As I wrote in my recent
post about carbon footprints not being the most important thing in the world, I've been thinking a lot about electric vehicles of late.
Read my whole
post about carbon offsets here, but essentially you can back eco-projects to offset the carbon you emitted during travels.
Not exact matches
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) staff has updated
carbon intensities (CIs) and other information
about registered biorefineries, and
posted the information at the Low
Carbon Fuel... Read more →
Last night I was thinking
about what type of round up
post I would like to do for Cyber Monday and I decided that I didn't want it to be a
carbon copy of Black Friday's
post.
«They found no need to worry
about the
carbon dioxide fuel - burning puts in the atmosphere,» the
Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.
Last week I
posted a «Your Dot» contribution from Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a University of Chicago climate scientist concerned that policy makers and the public keep in mind the primacy of
carbon dioxide emissions if they are serious
about limiting the chances of propelling disruptive human - driven global warming.
The
post provides useful detail highlighting the prime point of contention
about Howarth's work — the choices he makes in defining the greenhouse impact of methane (from gas wells and pipes) and
carbon dioxide (from coal burning).
That's an important subject, of course, but I do not see in either
post (# 21 or # 22) an answer to my question: Do you support a «price» for
carbon that would need to come
about through either a «cap - and - trade» system, a «cap - and - auction» system, or a
carbon tax?
The answer, of course, is that Pieter is talking
about carbon particles (aerosols, often called black
carbon) and the
post is talking
about carbon atoms in principally CO2, but also methane and organic volatile moleclues.
Here are three reactions to my
post about Machiavelli's view of the impediments to making big changes in societies — as in the asymmetrical nature of the battle to take the
carbon out of energy systems in the face of both societal inertia and intensive efforts by entrenched interests to maintain the status quo.
In 2009, when the E.P.A. first exerted its authority to rein in
carbon dioxide, I wrote a
post that in part looked back at Scalia's skepticism
about this gas fitting under a statute created to cut eye - stinging, lung - searing smog.
We wrote
about the
carbon isotope evidence in some of our very first RealClimate
posts, more than 10 years ago.
As part of an ongoing series looking at Christopher Monckton's response to Mike Steketee and as a new addition to the Monckton Myths, this
post examines Monckton's claims
about the costs vs. benefits of
carbon pricing.
Been meaning to highlight Brad Plumer's
post on a paper
about the effect of a
carbon tax on emissions (full paper here).
In this
post, I'll have a quick look at why
carbon pricing has become so central to climate economics and raise some questions
about its primacy in policy and political circles.
[I've written
about carbon - pricing in many previous blog
posts, including on June 23, 2010, «The Real Options for U.S. Climate Policy.»]
It is
about how the small group of committed entrepreneurs introduced in Small is Possible managed to keep their dream alive and thriving through the economic recession, emerging with a model of what a sustainable local economy might look like in a
post carbon future.
The
Post «s editorial reaches a reasonable conclusion: that we should adopt a price on
carbon and work to reduce
carbon emissions for many, many reasons including «insurance» in the event that the world's scientists actually are right
about the subjects that they have spent their lives studying.
Here is a much better image Second, regarding your comment
about «all that
carbon dioxide from those evil automobiles in 1850» Take a look at the
post two
posts before yours.
I have
posted about this before, but maybe it is worth
posting again: Freshwater systems, while covering a small fraction of the Earth, seem to play a very large role in sequestration of
carbon.
A recent
post here
about thawing permafrost releasing climate - warming
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was no exception.
Before the Center for
Carbon Removal officially launched in June, I wrote a blog
post titled, «12 things I believe
about carbon removal.»
Gregory Nemet, an Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin — Madison in the La Follette School of Public Affairs and the Nelson Institute's Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, writes in this
post about how the history of other technological innovations can inform our expectations and policy around the development and deployment of
carbon removal solutions.
This is very interesting, over the last two months I have
posted here
about receiving request from the ACTU to sign a petition in favour of the
carbon tax.
Yes, we know
carbon offsets are controversial; Mike started his
post The David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute Publish a Ranking of
Carbon Offset Companies with a disclaimer
about them.
Then, in the nearer - term critical years,
about 95 % of X has to come from behavior changes (eliminating non-essential fossil expenditures, trimming the fat from the essential), since only
about 5 % is projected to come from technology changes (substitute low -
carbon for fossil sources, substitute high - efficiency for low - efficiency) in studies such as the Ceres Clean Trillion
posted recently.
«The Sustainable Lawyer, an extension of the Boston Bar Association's Task Force on Environmental Sustainability, will provide brief
posts providing tips and best practices on the greening of the legal profession, interviews with green mavens in law offices and law firms, stories
about opportunities to do green pro bono or community service work, and accounts of lawyers in a variety of settings working to reduce their
carbon footprints.»
About Blog «Some say his bones are made of carbon fiber, and his breath smells like chain lube» Frequency about 3 posts per
About Blog «Some say his bones are made of
carbon fiber, and his breath smells like chain lube» Frequency
about 3 posts per
about 3
posts per week.