Regulating or taxing carbon emissions is no longer a partisan or ideological issue -- it's a matter of business and investment, and of vital importance.
International negotiations continued under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The two most important countries in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -- China and the U.S. -- engaged in a war of words.
A far better approach would be an idea that has been around for decades: Make the polluter pay. Making polluters pay makes sense because it makes markets more efficient by placing the incentive to reduce pollution where it belongs -- on those responsible for it.
Plans for the use of revenue thus far haven't been pretty. Governor Jerry Brown borrowed from the Cap & Trade funds to plug a budget deficit, and then pledged millions toward the foundering high-speed rail project.
The Warsaw meetings must be judged to be at least a modest success -- the baton was not dropped, rather it was passed successfully in this long relay race of negotiations.
A year after the launch of its cap-and-trade program, California formally linked its emissions trading scheme with Quebec's -- enabling carbon allowances and offset credits to be exchanged between participants in the two jurisdictions.
"Save the Whales" was a rallying cry of 1970's environmentalism. The great sea mammals had been hunted to the brink of extinction and grassroots activists rallied to save them. But there might not have been any whales left to protect if the world hadn't embraced petroleum in place of whale oil a century earlier.
Throughout the world California has a well-deserved reputation for leadership and innovation. Our efforts to combat climate change continue this tradition of leadership.
The Times piece raises three distinct questions for those concerned about energy policy and renewable fuels. First, can markets be a fair and efficient way to achieve the goals we want in this program -- more low carbon fuels, less imported oil and reasonable energy prices?
The recent elections in Australia weren't a referendum on climate change itself. And, for both Australia and the world, that's a good thing.
Lethargy is the sentiment of the past, not the present. President Obama's climate speech in June was an important milestone. The president proposed historic carbon standards for new and existing power plants, the single biggest source of US climate pollution.
In the Atlantic, NOAA forecasts an active season with 13 to 20 named storms. Seven to 11 of those storms, NOAA said, could actually develop into Category 1 or higher hurricanes.
This is serious, and not just for Californians. My state could be about to set a really unfortunate precedent.
Increasing carbon dioxide emissions and freshwater runoff challenge the ocean's ability to neutralize acidification -- an imbalance caused by absorption of the greenhouse gas from the air.
This is a pretty straightforward cap-and-trade proposal very similar to the one currently in place to control acid rain. In fact, there was a time when members of the GOP were the most enthusiastic advocates for cap-and-trade.
In the 1980s the GOP lead the charge in favor of the idea of using markets to control pollution. Moderate Republicans (of which there were a significant number) opted for dealing with environmental problems with economic tools that employ price signals to keep air and water clean.