Climate Change

BY JENNA CITTADINO, CLIMATE POLICY PROGRAM ASSOCIATE

As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began hearings on carbon regulation, debate ran along traditional battle lines, but with a new script. Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA) and John Kerry (MA) moved away from discussing the environmental impacts of climate change - - and the reason, therefore, to take action to reduce carbon emissions - - and focused instead on the economic benefits of a domestic clean energy economy. Meanwhile, Republicans James Inhofe (OK) and Lamar Alexander (TN) complained that energy bills would rise and Americans would lose jobs.

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

By Sasha Abelson, Sustainability and Climate Policy Advisor

Each week I compile a newsletter of carbon and climate related articles. As I sift through articles about cap and trade, energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc., I always find myself drawn to the reader comments that follow the article. Inevitably, there will be a quote from the person who believes the earth is cooling, a rant from the guy who thinks government should not interfere with our emissions and the person who thinks a 2 degree change in global temperatures is not something to stress out about.

In 1984, Al Gore held a hearing in Congress about global warming and urged his colleagues to do something about it. As we now know, he was ridiculed and largely ignored for the best part of two decades before being vindicated with a Nobel Prize and an Oscar (oh yeah, and another Congressional hearing, at which he was taken far more seriously).

Tea or coffee? It must be the former, because everyone I know is trying to read his tea leaves, especially when it comes to energy and environment policy.