Nearly two decades after writing a book that popularized the term "global warming," MoJo contributing writer Bill McKibben founded 350.org. He is chronicling his journey into organizing with a series of columns leading up to the global climate summit in Copenhagen this December. You can find the others here.
It's been a year
since Barack Obama's historic election as our first African-American
president. That night, many Americans shed tears of joy, exchanged
congratulatory embraces, and voiced high expectations for real change.
Senate
Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer can pass a
climate bill out of her committee without Sen. Max Baucus, but losing
the powerful moderate could set the stage for a blowout battle.
Will a heaping spoonful of nuclear power help Congress swallow a climate bill?
The Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats are wooing
wavering Democrats and Republicans to back a climate bill by dangling
federal tax incentives and new loan guarantees for nuclear power plant
construction, even though financial analysts warn that huge capital
needs and a history of cost overruns would constrain what many
lawmakers hope will be a "nuclear renaissance."
The president of the Maldives is desperate for the world to know how seriously his government takes the threat of climate change and rising sea levels to the survival of his country. He wants his ministers to know as well.
To this end, Mohamed Nasheed has organised an underwater cabinet meeting and told all his ministers to get in training for the sub-aqua session. Six metres beneath the surface, the ministers will ratify a treaty calling on other countries to cut greenhouse emissions.
The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Kyoto protocol.
The US team also urged other rich countries to join it in setting up a
new legal agreement which would, unlike Kyoto, force all countries to
reduce emissions.
A group of economists have come up with a simple formula for climate stabilization: Pay now, or pay a whole lot more later.
The
sound way to deal with the threats of climate change is to spend the
money now to rapidly convert the world to carbon-free energy, according
to a report that debunks claims that acting quickly will destroy the
world economy. 
For those of us who care desperately about the climate, President Obama's speech
on Tuesday-the first to the world body by this most admired of world
leaders-was a dud, a towering disappointment. Coming at the beginning
of what the UN has dubbed "climate week," the speech marked the
beginning of a three-month push towards the global climate conference
at Copenhagen.
The science of climate change is now clear, but the politics is very
muddy. Historically, the major polluters were the rich, industrialised
countries, so it made sense that they should pay the highest price. The
Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997, set binding targets for these
countries to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 per cent on
average against 1990 levels by 2012. But by 2007, America's
greenhouse-gas levels were 16 per cent higher than 1990 levels.
Diplomatic anxiety about the Copenhagen climate summit is reaching
fever pitch. UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon has issued an urgent warning that
the talks are stalled; UN development chief Helen Clark is already
engaged in damage control and lowering expectations. Ed Miliband, the
British climate change minister, is shuttling around the world to try
and oil the wheels ahead of next week's New York meeting. What's at the
root of the problem?
