The Weekend Wonk: The Year Ahead in Climate Change News

December 28, 2013

Description:

Hosted by Yale Forum regular contributor Bruce Lieberman, 30onClimate’s premier webcast recorded on Dec. 20 offers four journalists’ perspectives on major climate issues anticipated in the 2014 new year. Topics include forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, EPA proposed rulemaking on power plant emissions, NASA satellite launches to collect better climate change data, and the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment report intended to inform audiences of climate change impacts across the U.S.

Participants: Bruce Lieberman (moderator), Zeke Hausfather, Lisa Palmer, John Wihbey

BRUCE LIEBERMAN is a freelance science writer based in Southern California near San Diego. He has written about climate change for more than a decade. Twitter:  @brucelieberman1  E-mail: bruce@yaleclimatemediaforum.org.

ZEKE HAUSFATHER, an energy systems analyst and environmental economist who has published in the fields of environmental economics, energy modeling and climate science, is currently a researcher at Berkeley Earth in Northern California. Twitter:  @hausfath  E-mail: zeke@yaleclimatemediaforum.org.

LISA PALMER is a freelance journalist based in Maryland. She reports on climate change, the environment, energy, and sustainable business. Twitter:  @Lisa_Palmer  E-mail: lisa@yaleclimatemediaforum.org.

JOHN WIHBEY is an editor and researcher at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center. He manages the JournalistsResource.org project. Twitter:  @wihbey  E-mail: john@yaleclimatemediaforum.org.

About these ads

One Response to “The Weekend Wonk: The Year Ahead in Climate Change News”

  1. Cy Halothrin Says:

    I watched the video and I’m mystified about the “EPA proposed rule-making on power plant emissions.” Not really sure what that means. Also, video indicated that the EPA would like to transfer the responsibility for making/enforcing these rules to the states (not sure if that will make things better or worse, or make any difference at all).

    If we’re talking about something like reducing sulfur emissions when burning coal, for example, OK that’s fine, maybe the EPA can do something useful. But that doesn’t really do anything to reduce CO2 emissions. I don’t actually see how any sort of power plant emissions regulations can reduce CO2 – either you burn the coal/natural gas, or you don’t. If you don’t burn it, then you’ve got to come up with alternative (not fossil fuel) methods of producing power (nukes, solar, hydro, tidal, etc), or else reduce the demand for power (ie better public transportation, more efficient heating/cooling of buildings, efficient HVDC transmissions lines, etc).

    To put it simplistically, EPA fiddling with the smokestack isn’t going to do anything to prevent AGW. The problem isn’t the quality of emissions, it’s the quantity. Either we find a way to burn less fossil fuel, or we’re screwed.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,635 other followers

%d bloggers like this: