A carbon fee program would preserve the personal choice of how we live our lives
Policies devoted to bioenergy should be redirected toward efforts to protect terrestrial carbon stocks and recarbonize the biosphere.
A lot of the costs of climate change will be borne by society at large, through taxes and insurance premiums.
Certainly providing a low-risk environment for human health carries some costs.
No matter how much carbon they assimilate, the carbon uptake by an existing mature forest is not additional,
All actions by the Environmental Protection Agency should be taken on the basis of science—not from religious beliefs, from payoffs, or to satisfy the desires of special interest groups.
In the case of PM2.5 what you can’t see can hurt you.
production of wood pellets for fuel is likely to put more CO2 in the atmosphere and maintain less biodiversity on the land during the next several decades.
The perception of high inequality in society has been associated with instability and strife in human populations
Trump’s First Year Slightly less than a year ago, I used this blog to provide an open letter to Donald Trump regarding the environment (http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/citizenscientist/some-thoughts-for-the-new-president/). My points were simple: Use science to base environmental decisions;Continue reading