Though Congress has ample reason to impeach President Trump for his self-serving machinations in Ukraine, we all know that the Senate’s blind Republican partisanship will block his removal from office. Given this inevitable outcome, it’s worth considering whether Congress could have targeted a far more consequential cause for impeachment: his utter failure to engage the climate crisis.
In an electricity future substantially reliant on renewable energy, how can we cope with the variability of solar and wind? Energy storage is an essential piece of the puzzle.
In response to Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Bold Plan for Zero-Emission Cars,” I caution against making the transition to electric vehicles using oversized SUVs and trucks – the vehicles now being pushed by U.S. automakers. Instead, I call for shedding the big-car bias of our fleets along with their reliance on carbon-based fuels.
Reacting to technical and managerial setbacks at a pioneering solar plant, the Las Vegas Review Journal issued a blanket condemnation of federal loan guarantees for renewable energy projects as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Countering this claim, I credit the loan guarantee program with catalyzing a whole new era of utility-scale power generation based on renewable energy resources.
Technical advances, improved economics, and broad political support are fueling wind power’s ascent as a source of non-carbon-emitting electricity. This article explores the prospects for moving this renewable energy resource to center-stage in the U.S. pursuit of carbon neutrality.
It’s time to get serious about investing in the technologies that will move America from righteous campaign rhetoric to a net-zero carbon future.
Though still a small contributor to the electricity supply, solar power already is revolutionizing how U.S. consumers use and generate electricity. This article was written as a contribution to the “Climate Explained” section of Yale Climate Connections.
By grinding the permit-ready Vineyard Wind project to a halt, the Trump administration is dealing a major blow to offshore wind’s long-overdue development in U.S. ocean waters. This eleventh-hour move smacks of fossil fuel favoritism, I argue.
“If you’re alarmed by the state of the world, bring more children into it,” argues Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby. I argue that his dive into demographic exceptionalism ignores the resource toll of pushing way beyond the 7.7 billion now living on this planet. Four other Globe readers offer their own reasons for disagreeing with him.
When Times columnist Charles Caldwell called climate activist Greta Thunberg’s sense of urgency a threat to democracy, I countered that her concerns are well-founded and the policy tools are at hand to pull us back from the brink of climate catastrophe.
Slowing population growth in traditional and transitional societies is no small challenge. Breaking the radio silence on reproductive choice is one important step in this transformation.
The last thing Massachusetts needs is a new nuclear power complex eight times the size of the just-closed, problem-plagued Pilgrim plant in Plymouth. Yet that’s just what American University professor Joshua Goldstein proposed in his recent Globe op-ed. My letter points to the economic folly of this proposition and calls instead for a vigorous investment in renewables, storage, energy efficiency, and a smart grid.
Instead of reining in automotive fuel use and carbon emissions, recent reforms in our Corporative Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have accelerated the switch to oversized SUVs and pickups. Presidential hopeful Joe Biden says we need to restore Obama’s failed fuel economy policies. In this op-ed, I say we need to do much more.
What does oil have to do with the Trump administration’s championing of democracy in Venezuela? I offer a few thoughts, along with a caution against military intervention.
In this letter, I take the Boston Globe editorial board to task for ignoring the grave hazards of nuclear power and misrepresenting the high costs of maintaining this hugely subsidized energy resource.
Taking issue with Times columnist Bret Stephens, I argue that we have lost too must time pretending that climate change can be dealt with gradually, if at all.
Our climate crisis calls for a fundamental change in the policies that shape America’s automotive fleet. For decades, U.S. fuel economy standards have biased manufacturers and car-buyers toward oversized, energy-wasteful trucks and SUVs.
Here I argue for the revamping of our deeply flawed motor vehicle fuel economy standards, now deeply skewed in favor of SUVs and trucks.
Breathing a little extra life into financially failing nuclear plants is precarious and unnecessary, I argue in this article.
Trump’s energy policies defy science and humanity. Here I call for long-overdue bipartisanship in standing up to our president’s folly.