Green Energy | Research Paper Topics

Japanese PM Says He Will Resign Over Fukushima

February 5, 2012 admin Leave a comment

Naoto Kan, Japan’s beleaguered prime minister, has acknowledged for the first time since March 11 that he may step down — but not until he’s done doing what he needs to do. Kan has come under increasing pressure from both inside and outside his party to give up his post after his handling of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and continuing nuclear crisis. In a televised meeting with his party on Thursday morning, Kan said: “I’d like to pass on my responsibility to a younger generation once we reach a certain stage in tackling the disaster and I’ve fulfilled my role.” He did not indicate when that might be.

It was an effort to save his job ahead of a no-confidence motion that took place 3PM today in the lower house of parliament. The motion, which would have required Kan to dissolve the parliament and call for new elections or resign with his Cabinet in 10 days, was voted down 293 to 152. Still, its submission by the main opposition Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and two smaller opposition groups underscores the fact that Japan’s political landscape is nearly as volatile as its geology.

In the months since March 11, Kan has come under fire for his government’s response to the crisis, from the length of time that it has taken to build temporary housing for the thousands left homeless after the tsunami to the lack of clear communication about the severity and scope of the nuclear crisis that has followed. Indeed, Kan was peculiarly absent from the public sphere during the first month of the crisis — he did not set foot in the disaster zone for weeks after the tsunami — with chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano tirelessly facing world’s cameras. More recently, detailed reports have emerged that Kan was deeply involved in trying to prevent a full-blown nuclear fallout at Fukushima during those early days, which may account for — if not excuse — his absence.

Whales in Motion

February 3, 2012 admin Leave a comment

“They say the sea is cold,” D.H. Lawrence wrote, “but the sea contains the hottest blood of all.” Whales aren’t just physically majestic, but as warm-blooded mammals who give birth to live young, they provide a human link to an underwater region that can often feel so alien. Still, between the last vestiges of whale hunting and newer threats like oil spills and noise pollution, human beings remain the greatest threat to the survival of whales. The amazing images captured by Charles Nicklin should serve as a reminder that whales, as much as we do, deserve life on this blue planet. Check out his photo gallery here.

Why We Should Hold Off Mining Uranium Near the Grand Canyon

January 31, 2012 admin Leave a comment

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar Credit: AP

Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior, isn’t really known for his eloquence. The former Colorado senator spends much of his time now wrestling over efforts to expand oil and gas drilling on federal lands and water—important work, of course, but not exactly the sort of thing that launches speechwriters on spiraling flights of eloquence.

But yesterday, as he stood on Mather Point at the Grand Canyon National Park, Salazar (ok, probably his communications people) put into words what our natural heritage really means—and why it deserves protection:

To be here – for John Wesley Powell or for any of us – is to be overwhelmed and humbled by the scale of geologic time. The minutes, hours, and days by which we measure our lives are hardly an instant in the life of these canyons.

Yet, all of us – by the decisions we make in our short time here – can alter the grandeur of this place.

(More from TIME: Got Yttrium?)

After he made those remarks, Salazar announced a decision that would have an impact on the “grandeur of this place”—fortunately, for the better. Salazar told reporters that he would be extending for at least six months a moratorium on new uranium mining claims in a million-acre buffer around the Grand Canyon. The six-month moratorium will allow time for the conclusions of a study on potential environmental harm from mining to the Grand Canyon and the surrounding waters, though Salazar indicated that he hopes for a longer pause on new mining claims.

The move—cheered by environmentalists, who had been pressing the federal government to close off the Grand Canyon buffer—comes as a two-year-long moratorium on new uranium mining originally put into place by Salazar in 2009 was set to expire. That original decision put the brakes on a Bush-era move to open up much of the lands around the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. As a result, new claims surrounding the Grand Canyon skyrocketed, rising from 400 in 2004 to 8,388 by 2010, according to the Pew Environment Group, an increase of more than 2000 percent, as the price of uranium rose. And many of those claims are held by foreign mining companies—including the Russian state atomic Rosatom and South Korea’s state-owned utility.

(More from TIME: Postcard from Fort McMurray)

Why is that worrying? Hardrock mining of the sort needed to pull uranium from the ground can be incredibly polluting, and the bill for cleaning up old mines has run to the billions. While the Grand Canyon itself is off-limits to such mining, that buffer area is still part of the canyon’s watershed, and any runoff or toxic tailings from a mine could pollute otherwise protected waters. “Uranium mining has a long, scarred history of contamination,” Jane Danowitz, the director of the Pew Environment Group’s U.S. public lands program, told me last month. “Our concern is what mining might mean for the downstream water.”

Although prices have fallen in the wake of Fukushima, uranium on the whole has become much more valuable over the past several years, as developing countries like China announced plans to vastly expand nuclear power. That alone might have been enough to peak interest in America’s uranium resources, but it’s also extremely cheap for mining companies to lay claims on federal lands in the West, thanks to an 1872 law that has never been changed that allows companies to pay 19th century prices for their claims. Not only does the outdated law cost the government billions in potential revenue, it encourages the proliferation in mining claims. Nor is the Grand Canyon the only national park threatened by mining—as a recent Pew report pointed out, mining is encroaching on Yosemite, Joshua Tree and even Mt. Rushmore.

(Photos: Mining Tragedy in West Virginia)

Salazar’s moratorium won’t stop existing mines, and it won’t cancel mining claims around the Grand Canyon that have already been made, but it will create a timeout to allow government officials to fully analyze the risks and benefits of uranium mining. For his part, Salazar has indicated that he would prefer a 20-year moratorium on new mining—though Republicans are already criticizing the Obama Administration for putting the environment before potential mining jobs. They might well remember the words of Theodore Roosevelt, who warned about the dangers of developing the Grand Canyon:

Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.

Last time I checked, I’m pretty sure TR was a Republican.

How Whale Songs Rocket to Number One

January 26, 2012 admin Leave a comment

There’s no accounting for musical taste — particularly when the kind of music you’re talking about doesn’t even originate in your own species. Bird songs may be lovely, but whale songs? Say what you will about the combination of whoops, clicks groans and faintly flatulent rumbles that whales use to communicate and woo, the odds are pretty good you’ve never gotten one them stuck in your head.

To the whales themselves, however, this is chart-busting stuff. And like the Top 100 too, the most popular whale songs change over time. In a study just published in Current Biology, a team of marine biologists from the University of Queensland and the South Pacific Whale Research Consortium have tracked those changes, determining not only how long whale songs stay current before they’re replaced, but where in the world’s oceans the news songs originate — essentially where the cetacean Motown is — and how they ripple outward.

To conduct the research, the investigators analyzed patterns in whale songs recorded over the course of a decade in six different Pacific Ocean populations. The whale pods farthest west were located around Australia; the ones farthest east were in the vicinity of French Polynesia. The other four were scattered at various points in between.

In general, the researchers found, new whale songs first popped up among males in the Australian pods, moving slowly eastward over the course of about two years. Whales that adopted the new tunes would typically do so quickly — with all of the members of the community singing from the same songsheet within a single mating season. Sometimes the new songs would simply be variations on old ones with fresh notes mixed in; other times they would be entirely different compositions. Significantly, it was rarely the whales themselves that migrated west to east — just their music. (Listen to the songs here.)

“Our findings reveal cultural change on a vast scale,” said Queensland grad student Ellen Garland, who participated in the research. The songs moved in “cultural ripples, from one population to another.” In only one case was a song found to move east to west.

The reason for the uni-directional flow, Garland and the other investigators believe, is that the westernmost whale populations are also the largest. That means that the odd male might break off and migrate, taking his catchy new tune with him, or that the sheer number of whales in the big pods singing a tune together could become audible to neighboring pods even over oceanic distances.

Just why whales are so receptive to new songs is a bit of a mystery — as is the very purpose of the songs for that matter. Most biologists believe that singing is a prelude to mating, but others believe it may serve more as a way to warn other males to stay away (which, given the single-mindedness of so many male mammals — Homo sapiens included — is ultimately about mating itself.) Quickly adopting a new song is a way to distinguish yourself from the rest of the pod, meaning that you either sound sexier to the females or scarier to the other guys.

Serendipitously, the new study was released at the same time as an unrelated paper, published in the journal Science, which shows something similar about human beings. Not only did our species originate in Africa, the paper argues, so did spoken language. The study was conducted by University of Auckland biologist Quentin Atkinson, who counted up the discrete phonemes in languages around the world, and found that the closer a population is to Africa, the greater the number of these distinct sounds it uses. African languages, for example, may exceed 100 phonemes; English has just 45; native Hawaiian — spoken in the most distant region studied — is built from just 13.

Human language may always be more complex than whale songs, but the twin studies do suggest one more way in which we are similar to our big-brained mammalian cousins. Memes, tunes and ideas don’t go viral only on land, it seems, but rather in the deep ocean as well, where smart critters can be fast learners too.

A Win for Clean Air in the Southeast—and a Blow to Coal

January 22, 2012 admin Leave a comment

Peter Andrews/Reuters

Yesterday Tom Fanning, the CEO of the majority coal-powered utility Southern Company, made a few headlines when he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a speech that the Obama administration has “virtually declared war on coal,” continuing:

The existing coal industry is under attack by some in America. Decisions are being made today that will limit our ability long-term to use coal… and, therefore, negatively impact the nation’s economic well-being.

Whether you think a “war on coal” is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your feelings about the number one source of electricity in the U.S.—I’m on the James Hansen side myself—there’s no doubt that environmental regulations and concern over public health will continue to squeeze the coal industry. And the Obama Administration really is leading the way—today the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a landmark deal with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at 11 of the company’s coal-fired power plants in Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee. As a result, TVA will phase out 18 units at older, coal-fired power plants and install updated pollution controls on three dozen additional units. The agreement—which will cost TVA an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion in new investments—will permanently retire 2,700-MW of coal power, and reduce TVA’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 69% and 67% from 2008 levels. The EPA estimates that the changes will prevent approximately 1,200 to 3,000 premature deaths, 2,000 heart attacks and 21,000 asthma attacks each year, resulting in $27 billion in annual health benefits.

If there is a war on coal, environmental forces may have just won the Battle of Midway. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson—who has come under intense pressure from conservatives in Congress—sounded a note of triumph when she spoke to reporters this afternoon:

Today I am announcing a historic Clean Air Act agreement with TVA that will protect the health of millions of Americans, so that the people of the eastern U.S. will have cleaner air.

The deal—which comes after more than 11 years of pressure from environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Southeastern states and the EPA—will also require TVA to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on clean energy projects and energy efficiency, along with money to the National Park Service and National Forest Service to improve and protect lands that have been impacted by TVA’s coal plants. Don Barger, the senior regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, said in a statement:

For decades, the Smoky Mountains has suffered from a slow motion crisis. Air pollution from TVA’s coal-fired power plants has degraded scenic vistas, damaged plant species, and impaired human health. Today’s settlement halts that trend and sends us in the right direction.

What’s less clear is exactly what that coal power will be replaced with—although with the right energy efficiency measures, TVA may not need to add a great deal of capacity to replace its retiring coal plants. (Unexpected fact: Americans actually use less energy per capita today than they did in 1980, although overall energy use is up because of population growth.) Natural gas—which burns cleaner than coal and, thanks in part to new shale deposits, is at unusually low prices—is likely to take up part of the slack as well, perhaps adding to the 11 gas-fired plants TVA already runs. (The climate advantages of such a shift to gas, however, are less clear-cut.)

But there’s no getting around the fact that the TVA deal represent a real blow to coal—and if the EPA gets its way, it may not be the last. The agency is set to push tighter regulations under the Clean Air Act on traditional pollutants—including the first-ever restrictions on mercury emissions—which will likely force utilities to either retire old coal plants or spend big money to install pollution control systems, as TVA has done. But cleaning the air won’t be free, and critics are already complaining about the cost of the TVA upgrades, which the company says will result in the loss of 300 to 400 jobs. Republican Representative John Duncan of Tennessee blasted the settlement in a statement:

I am disappointed that TVA caved in to these demands. This settlement will drive up utility bills for people in Tennessee and the surrounding states and hurt poor and lower-income people the most. I assume this deal came about because the money is not coming out of the pockets of the elitists who reached it.

House Republicans are already set to roll out legislation that would stall EPA rules to curb pollutants from power plants, industrial boilers and cement plants, which would follow-up failed attempts to curtail the EPA’s power to regulate carbon. Greens are responding. Margie Alt, the executive director of Environment America, told reporters this morning:

Big Oil and other polluters will continue to block the Clean Air Act from being updated with common sense measures that would attack mercury, smog and other pollutants. But access to clean air is a fundamental right that Americans have.

Indeed, while climate regulations remain controversial—in Congress and with much of the American people—there’s solid public support for clean air when it’s couched in terms of public health. That doesn’t leave a lot of space for coal plants. As Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward Jr. tweeted, the plants TVA is closing bought 8.2 million tons of coal in 2010—equal to the amount produced by four large West Virginia surface mines. Jackson told reporters today that “we don’t have anything against coal, but we have to reduce the pollution that comes from coal.” That may not quite be a declaration of war, but don’t expect the industry to take it laying down.

The Benefits and Costs of a "Golden Age" of Natural Gas and Fracking

January 19, 2012 admin Leave a comment

A Chesapeake Energy natural-gas well site near Burlington, Pa. Credit: Ralph Wilson / AP

Shale natural gas—usually the most boring of fuels—has been one of the hottest energy topics in 2011, alternately lionized as a cleaner-burning and plentiful power source and demonized as a poisoner of local water supplies, and even worse for the climate than coal. That debate will continue to run hot—just last week New York filed suit over potential shale gas exploration in the Delaware River Basin—but there’s little doubt that the growth of shale gas has the power to change the way we use energy. Late last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration doubled its prediction for domestic shale gas production, raising its estimate of the totally recoverable reserves of the resource from 347 trillion cubic ft. to 827 trillion. President Barack Obama lauded natural gas in his State of the Union speech this January, including the fuel in a potential clean energy standard—even though it is, after all, still a fossil fuel.

Now the International Energy Agency (IEA) has jumped on the shale gas bandwagon—though not without some reservations. In a new report (PDF) released today in Paris, the IEA explores the factors that could lead to a possible “golden age” of natural gas. The report presents a scenario where the global use of natural gas rises by more than 50% from 2010 levels, and comes to represent more than a quarter of global energy demand by 2035, displacing coal as the world’s second-most used fuel after petroleum. Global gas demand would increase to 5.1 trillion cubic meters in 2010, 1.8 trillion cubic meters more than today.

There’s no doubt that unconventional sources like shale gas are the main driver, increasing global supplies and keeping the price of gas competitive—the IEA says that unconventional gas will meet more than 40% of the uptick in consumption. And for all the attention that’s been focused on the fracking debate in the U.S., it will be China—and to a lesser extent, the Middle East—that will drive this possible golden age. Chinese gas demand will increase from about 100 billion cubic meters—roughly the current levels of German use—to a amount equivalent to the gas now used by the entire European Union.

All of this adds up, as IEA Director Nobuo Tanaka said in a statement:

We have seen remarkable developments in natural gas markets in recent months. There is a strong potential for gas to take on a larger role, but also for the global gas market to become more diversified and therefore improve energy security.

Seeing natural gas displace coal will make a real difference—especially in the world’s most polluted cities. China has embarked on an aggressive strategy to develop its own unconventional gas resources and bring in more from abroad, not so much for climate reasons—though natural gas is a cleaner fossil fuel—but for health factors. China is faced with a “very grave” environmental situation, as its top green official put it recently. Though there is worry here in the U.S. about the threat that hydofracking gas might pose to water supplies—more on that later—in China, home to 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world, that would be an acceptable risk. In fact, it would almost certainly be a welcome tradeoff—as anyone who’s spent time in blackened Chinese cities like Beijing or Chongqing would know.

But that doesn’t mean a golden age of gas would be perfect—or that it’s even going to happen. Predicting the future is inherently fraught, something we too often fail remember when trying to craft policy around energy and environmental projections that run for decades. There are always so many ways we can be wrong. In the case of the IEA’s gas predictions, the agency assumes that the price of natural gas will remain competitive, and that the cost of production of shale gas and other unconventionals will remain around $3 to $7 MBtu. That’s possible—but it’s also possible that sustained low prices could discourage energy companies from drilling, which has happened before. Already companies in the U.S. like Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest players in shale gas—are showing more interest in emerging shale oil sector, in part because oil is so much more expensive.

There’s also the regulatory uncertainty around shale gas and fracking—at least in the West. Environmental groups in the U.S. have fought back over fracking, with the federal government taking a closer look at the practice and even industry-friendly states like Texas demanding that drilling companies reveal the full list of chemicals they’re pouring into the ground. There’s an open debate over the full greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas, with a controversial report from a Cornell researcher named Robert Howarth claiming that shale gas may be worse for the climate than coal. That Howarth paper has been an outlier, however—the IEA, for its part, suggests that shale gas has a 3.5% higher “well-to-burner” carbon emissions than conventional gas and is much cleaner than coal, more in line with a recent Department of Energy analysis. The good news is that most of the problems with fracking can be dealt with by smarter and tougher regulations—if the gas industry would just stop being so obstructionist. But more regulations could well cost more—and that might dim the hopes for a golden age of gas.

Lastly, even if everything comes true and the future for gas resembles what Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon must dream about when he puts head to pillow in Oklahoma City, that might be bad news for the climate. The IEA estimates that increased natural gas could push out coal—which is good for the climate—but it could also displace nuclear and renewables, which would be bad. The golden age scenario—without major additional investment in renewables and other lower-carbon energy sources—would put the world on a track for an atmospheric carbon concentration of 650 ppm, far higher than the 450 ppm many scientists believe we need to aim for. And that could mean temperatures rising by some 3.5 C above pre-industrial levels—again, scarily high. As the IEA’s Tanaka said:

While natural gas is the ‘cleanest’ fossil fuel, it is still a fossil fuel. Its increased use could muscle out low-carbon fuels, such as renewables and nuclear – particularly in the wake of the incident at Fukushima and the likelihood of a reduced role for nuclear in some countries. An expansion of gas use alone is no panacea for climate change.

Natural gas isn’t a savior and it won’t destroy the world either. It’s just part—albeit a significant part—of the energy story to come.

Shooting an Elephant: Why GoDaddy’s CEO Was Wrong

January 18, 2012 admin Leave a comment

UPDATE, 3 p.m. Thursday: GoDaddy competitor Namecheap has launched a campaign to woo away offended GoDaddy customers. Our colleagues at Techland have the full story: Switch business now, and Namecheap is offering to make elephant donations on your behalf.

We all shoot vacation videos, but most of us choose to keep them to ourselves — or, at worst, share them with our Facebook friends. Bob Parsons, CEO of the Internet-hosting firm GoDaddy.com, which you know from its lame Super Bowl ads and absolutely nothing else — likes bigger exposure. Parsons recently posted a video of his trip to Zimbabwe, where he shot an elephant. See below:

Now, there are so many things wrong with this video that it’s hard to know where to start. First: Is it really appropriate to score a scene of hungry villagers tearing apart a dead elephant to the tune of AC/DC’s “Hells Bells“? And I can’t be the only one who found it creepy that Parsons outfitted nearly everyone in the area with bright orange GoDaddy baseball caps. Not to mention the fact that this all took place in Zimbabwe, a broken country oppressed by the tyrannical Robert Mugabe, where 64% of the population lives under the poverty line and nearly 100% live in fear. This is one step up from taking a spring break in North Korea.

(More on TIME.com: See pictures of 10 species near extinction.)

But of course the biggest criticism comes from animal-rights advocates who view Parsons’ video — which shows him shooting and killing an elephant, then standing proudly over its corpse — as, well, showing poor taste. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) singled out Parsons for particular abuse:

I am writing to present you with PETA’s first-ever scummiest CEO of the year award (your certificate is on the way). You deserve the award for your egregious disregard for the life of the elephant you shot and killed for your personal enjoyment. Such behavior only shows a poverty of understanding and a deep insecurity, perhaps in your own masculinity. Nonlethal methods are available to protect crops from elephants left hungry because of their disappearing habitat.

Parsons defended himself on his blog, arguing that his target was a “problem elephant” that had been destroying the crops of a nearby village:

I stand by my decision to help African villagers. I believe elephant management is beneficial. I have the support of the people who really matter in this situation, the families of Zimbabwe — people who need help to survive. I have the support of tribal leaders and the government.

Parsons isn’t totally wrong — there is such a thing as “problem elephants,” and human-elephant conflict is a real issue that needs to be dealt with in parts of Africa. From the World Wildlife Fund (WWF):

Not only are elephants being squeezed into smaller and smaller areas, but farmers plant crops that elephants like to eat. As a result, elephants frequently raid and destroy crops. They can be very dangerous too.

While many people in the West regard elephants with affection and admiration, the animals often inspire fear and anger in those who share their land.

Elephants eat up to 450kg of food per day. They are messy eaters, uprooting and scattering as much as is eaten. A single elephant makes light work of a hectare of crops in a very short time.

But that doesn’t mean the best way to deal with this conflict is for rich foreigners like Parsons to make like Hemingway. There are sensible, nonlethal solutions, including using chili- or tobacco-based deterrents to keep elephants out of farmers’ fields, or the simple method of growing crops that elephants don’t like. WWF has more in this issue brief.

(More on TIME.com: See how to save the world’s endangered species.)

It’s worth remembering that people bear at least as much responsibility as elephants do for any conflict, as the continuing growth of the human population puts more and more pressure on elephants. The African elephant is hardly thriving — the International Union for the Conservation of Nature lists it as vulnerable. It’s been a long time since shooting an elephant could be considered fashionable.

See the top 10 heroic animals.

See pictures of animals that can think.

See “The New Age of Extinction.”

Climate Injustice in Utah

January 13, 2012 admin Leave a comment

I’m in Cameroon right now, working on a health story with the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative and the viral ecologist Nathan Wolfe. I’ve been out of email and cell contact the past few days—hence the lack of blogging—and even now Internet contact is dicey. But while the signal’s strong I wanted to note the true [...]

The Pocketbook Environmentalist

January 7, 2012 admin Leave a comment

On this Monday Pulitzer afternoon (no Breaking News award? What gives?), I wanted to turn your attention to an interesting piece in the Huffington Post from Lynn Jurich, the president and co-founder of SunRun, a major home solar-energy installer. Jurich notes that at the very time when a sluggish economy, high unemployment and back-breaking gas prices have Americans counting their pennies, green energy—and energy efficiency—is beginning to become an affordable option, not just a virtuous one:

As the co-founder of a company that addresses this money-saving need by bringing affordable solar power to homeowners, I’ve also noticed that bargain purchases and “green” purchases have finally become one and the same.

There is a new wave of environmental consumers I like to call Pocketbook Environmentalists. They’re going green primarily because it makes good financial sense, but the fact that it benefits their families’ health and the environment also makes them feel good. More often than not, they no longer have to choose between their pocketbooks and the planet.

Jurich points to the success of companies like Zipcar, the automobile-sharing start-up that had a sparking IPO just last week, along with the growth of her own business SunRun. SunRun does more than just install home solar panels—the company also works out the finances for a new solar system, helping customers overcome the high initial cost that can make solar a tough financial decision. SunRun actually buys the solar system and owns it for the first 20 years, while customers pay to rent the system and get the power. Homeowners get the benefit of years of steady electricity at relatively low prices, no longer dependent on rising and falling fuel costs. “This makes being green cost-effective,” says Jurich. “It’s Pocketbook Environmentalism in a nutshell.”

Of course, there’s still a large premium on many green products—think the high costs of a hybrid or electric car, though if gas prices remain as high as they are now, that gap will narrow. But it should be clear by now that people aren’t going to go green just because they think they should. A study that came out today from the sustainability consultancy OgilvyEarth found that while 82% of consumers have good green intentions, only 16% are actually dedicated to doing anything about their green notions. The pocketbook usually wins, especially in tough times—and greens should take advantage of that.

How Climate Change Is Turning Plants and Animals into Refugees

January 1, 2012 admin Leave a comment

Regardless of what Rick Perry and the rest of Republican presidential candidate field believe (except for you, Jon Huntsman), climate change is real and it’s happening. The questions for the 98% of climate researchers who accept the consensus on man-made global warming is how fast the climate is changing, and what impact it will have on [...]

Research Paper Topics

Archive

Japanese PM Says He Will Resign Over Fukushima

Related Reading:

Whales in Motion

Related Reading:

Why We Should Hold Off Mining Uranium Near the Grand Canyon

Related Reading:

How Whale Songs Rocket to Number One

Related Reading:

A Win for Clean Air in the Southeast—and a Blow to Coal

Related Reading:

The Benefits and Costs of a "Golden Age" of Natural Gas and Fracking

Related Reading:

Shooting an Elephant: Why GoDaddy’s CEO Was Wrong

Related Reading:

Climate Injustice in Utah

Related Reading:

The Pocketbook Environmentalist

Related Reading:

How Climate Change Is Turning Plants and Animals into Refugees

Related Reading:

Who am I?

Check Your Grammar Here!

Writing style made easy with this software

Study Anywhere. Find Accredited Online Colleges, Universities and Schools.

Categories

Archives

Pages