She was going to comply with the law, simply because it was the law, but what about the law that comes by way of our birth? Something that drives us to preserve life?
On the eve of California's landmark, first ever cap-and-trade auction, voters in three Western states were asked some key questions: Should polluters be held financially accountable for their climate pollution emissions? And if so, how should the resulting funds be spent?
Invest in BP, Chevron? We don't think so, says investment firm MSCI Inc, reports Jason Plautz at InsideClimate News.
We all know about the fiscal cliff. Imagine there was an environmental cliff. If there was, here are three items that I think the EPA (and Congress) would need to move on.
In his first press conference since being re-elected, President Barack Obama acknowledged he'll focus on climate change in his second term.
The biggest news out of California may be that the supermajority could solve our budget problems without raising any new taxes or cutting existing programs.
Manmade climate change is happening right now, bringing us more "unprecedented" weather events like Hurricane Sandy more often.
AB32 should be a no-brainer for California businesses, so long as it's done right. Implementing the law is a challenge we all face moving forward, but it's one that smart state businesses should be engaged in, not fighting against.
Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Kirk became the Atlantic's 11th named storm of 2012, a feat typically not reached until closer to the end of hurricane season in November.
AB 32 is the most ambitious program in the United States to combat the pernicious effects of global warming. But the program will only be successful if it is embraced by the California citizens who say they want action on climate change.
Among political insiders in Washington, the conventional wisdom is that action on global climate change is a dead issue for the foreseeable future. But the atmospheric thermostat isn't on hold while we wait for a better political moment.
There are many other arguments in favor of cap-and-trade schemes as opposed to carbon-and-border taxes. But trade may help mitigate climate change, as long as the temptation to resort to inappropriate trade policies is avoided.
Both he and President Obama have so far avoided any significant reference to environmental matters that have potentially life and death implications for future generations, if not out own. How does one correct this great disservice to the American people?
A carbon tax -- even a modest one -- would be progress. It would generate revenues, and if climate advocates can bring power to the negotiating table, those revenues in part might be devoted to other aspects of energy innovation, like paying for renewable power incentives.
The so-called "green economy," which governments, business leaders, and some environmental organizations touted at last month's summit in Rio de Janeiro, is actually a greenwashed economy.
Governments have repeatedly set the overall emissions cap and then left it up to the political process to allocate the available number of allowances among sources to build support for an initiative without reducing the system's environmental performance or driving up its cost.