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.
Kansas is hardly a bastion of progressive politics, but it is a renewable energy frontrunner – way ahead of liberal Massachusetts. With my home state on the verge of launching its first serious foray into windpower off our shores, I suggest that we take inspiration from the unsentimental pragmatism that has made Kansas second-in-the-nation in wind’s share of electricity generation.
In June, I traveled to Cloud County, a staunchly conservative farming and ranching community on the Kansas prairie where the research for my book, Harvest the Wind, began nine years ago. On this trip I was searching for a few strands of hope that might span the chasm between red and blue America. This article offers some insights on what I found.
This second letter about driverless cars’ grave safety flaws seeks to expand public debate beyond this particular technology to a broader look at how we set our national transportation priorities.
At a time when our planet and those who inhabit it cry out for help, it’s stunning that Jeff Bezos has decided to pump his extra billions into space tourism. In this letter, I urge him to choose among the many wiser, more compassionate causes here on Earth.
In this letter, I respond to the tragic death of Elaine Herzberg, who was killed by a driverless car that was being tested on the streets of Tempe, Arizona, on a quiet Sunday evening. I argue for a slower, more careful exploration of this technology and for a stepped-up commitment to mass transit.
Harvard has long lagged behind many other colleges and universities in tackling the transition to a carbon-neutral future. Finally it has committed to curbing its use of fossil fuels, but its investment portfolio – replete with fossil fuel stock holdings – remains intact. In this letter I call on the university to exercise overdue leadership by cleaning up its endowment. I am responding to a short AP article lauding the university for committing to meet its operational needs through carbon-neutral fuels by 2050.
In this letter, I argue that we should no longer be supplying life support to nuclear power given its exorbitant cost and grave environmental deficits. I am responding to Eduardo Porter’s column touting nuclear as a zero-carbon fuel that shouldn’t cede its turf to wind and solar. Porter ignores the huge price advantage that wind and solar have over nuclear, and his characterization of nuclear as zero-carbon overlooks many externalities, including the huge carbon footprint of cleaning up after nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Oh yes, the human suffering too.
At a time when President Trump and his followers in Congress are hell-bent on dismantling the clean energy architecture of the Obama era, many Americans are looking beyond Washington, and even abroad, for solutions to our energy crisis. Here’s an account of my recent visit to one of these transformative gems: the Danish island of Samso.
It’s appropriate to advocate for the use of more efficient, less carbon-emitting chemicals for air conditioning, but the growing number of people needing air conditioning in a warming world deserves equal or greater focus. I make this argument in response to an article that singles out the importance of finding a better refrigerant now that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have been proven to be a deeply flawed alternative to the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were poking a hole in our ozone layer before the Montreal Protocol reined it their use.
In this letter, I challenge investment strategist Ruchir Sharma’s assertion that slow population growth is to blame for a lagging U.S. and global economy. Sharma’s shortsighted perspective fails to look at the disastrous impacts of ongoing population growth on our already overstressed global environment.