From the onset of his presidency, Donald Trump has made it clear that cheap, abundant domestic energy derived from fossil fuels would be the crucial factor in his total-mobilization approach to global engagement.
The word "emissions” is bland and means nothing to most people. Maybe a cruder choice can embarrass them into realizing the urgency of the global environmental crisis.
“The problem ... involves a fundamental failure of markets: Those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay,” a British economist explains.
Shareholder intervention helped produce the plan to cut the energy giant’s climate impact, but some say it falls short.
Studies show the untested technofix that would allow continued use of fossil fuels "could simultaneously benefit one region to the detriment of another.”
Some of the worst fears and dire predictions of opponents of the project may be coming true.
The country is the only major one in the world where damage to the climate is worsening as the population becomes poorer.
The Trump strategy of slapping penalties on alternative technologies and giving fossil fuels subsidies has a very limited shelf life.
Runaway environmental change can't be stopped without the financial industry getting on board.