You may encounter intense controversy around the idea of cleaning of America's electricity sector for any one of these three reasons: genuine economic risk, ideology or partisanship. Here are five things to remember as you do.
Now that our nation is finally holding dirty industries accountable for the worst pollution in America -- pollution that increases the risk of asthma attacks, heart disease, lung cancer and causes climate change -- big emitters are using the same Chicken Little playbook.
On Monday June 2, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a regulation that would cut carbon pollution from power plants up to 30 percent by 2030. Within hours, House Speaker John Boehner delivered his response.
When I started working to combat climate change two decades ago, it was a topic largely for environmentalists and scientists. Now business leaders, former Republican officials, public health experts, religious groups, and farmers have joined in.
In West Virginia's largest newspaper this week, journalist Ken Ward Jr., a veteran chronicler of the coalfields, spotlights poll numbers that might surprise the politicians in his state -- most of whom are already bemoaning President Obama's new carbon pollution standards as a "war on coal."
Could it be that Obama's announcement is a step, albeit a huge one, that leads to the biggest step of them all -- a new international agreement on climate change? It's kind of a fife and drum question. It could be a pipe dream or it could be drumroll.
The dangers from human-induced climate change are real and the climate science is sound. Deniers will probably shriek in the coming days, yet their scientific credibility is now nearly zero and sinking fast.
On Monday, Obama will announce new rules to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. One might be tempted to think this is just a boring old regulatory matter. But the ramifications are huge, and not just for the climate. This announcement portends a whopping new jobs opportunity for the country