Some 1.4 million gallons of oil spilled in U.S. rail accidents in 2013 — more than over the previous four decades combined. A record 141 of these accidents occurred in 2014. What will it take to pull the brakes on this recklessness?
Richly rewarding failure is absurd. Yet it’s business as usual for King Coal as companies large and small hurtle toward bankruptcy. Without profits, the industry will eventually collapse. And that’s good environmental news.
Almost two weeks before a “bomb train” carrying 3 million gallons of oil exploded in West Virginia, a House Republican who should have been demanding safety upgrades for oil tankers was blocking them instead.
Green energy won’t hit critical mass until conventional wisdom stops dismissing the prospect of wind, solar, and other options supplanting fossil fuels as some kind of joke.
There are energy policies that benefit society as a whole and those that benefit the very few – the Kochs and their ilk. Guess which kind the GOP supports? If you want to know why, follow the money.
For years, conservatives used “wedge issues” to split moderates from progressives. It's time to promote some progressive wedge issues and our best opportunities for both publicity and passage are in states, cities and counties.
Senate Republicans also voted against disclosing any money they are getting from oil and other companies involved in the Keystone project. The media has largely ignored these votes.
It is becoming increasingly unacceptable, even among Republicans, to defend the "hoax" line. We are moving toward a climate debate over how to solve the problem, not whether there is a problem.
There are many good arguments against the $8-billion pipeline on environmental and labor grounds. Here’s another reason why the pipeline shouldn’t be built: It’s a waste of money.
Republicans have announced that their first order of business in the new Congress will be to try to force the Keystone Pipeline through. This prioritizing shows that they understand who paid their way to the dance.
A fascinating graphic presentation from Bloomberg shows how America has nearly achieved energy independence and broken our addiction to oil. It's not because oil got too expensive.
Neither the natural gas boom that is crowding out coal, nor the worldwide push for lower emissions is going away. The world is moving and Kentucky is standing still, because McConnell is keeping Kentucky stagnant.
They got burned on gay marriage. Now Republicans risk getting burned on climate. Just as there were signs in 2004 that Republicans were on the wrong side of history, so are there today.
Imagine: The year 2034, late October. America is no longer dependent on coal and foreign oil, and the economy is nearing full-employment. Coincidence? Or the result of a sustained and major investment in clean energy?
It's important to know we can save the planet without much, if any, net cost. It's also important to know we can save the planet and create millions of jobs, if we are willing to pay for it.
The People's Climate March appears on track to be largest climate march in history, and possibly the most consequential, if it can pressure the U.N. to forge a real agreement to collectively cut our greenhouse gas emissions.
It would be a grave mistake, for the planet and for ourselves, to overlook Sunday's Flood Wall Street rally, which will target the role of global capitalism in our environmental crisis.
In her powerful new book, "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate," Naomi Klein finds that humanity has no choice but to ditch its fossil fuel-driven global economy for a local model powered by renewable energy.
If you want to know how bad the climate crisis is, and what you can do about it, check out “Carbon”; the first in a series of short films aimed at exploring crucial issues related to the climate crisis.
With so many homeowners and businesses making greener energy choices, private utilities see the writing on the wall. They're trying to coax lawmakers into rigging the rules against increasingly competitive new energy alternatives.
The world is going solar. It’s the only option we have if we want to save the human race from a climate disaster. So, let’s start treating it like that, by investing in a secure energy future for America, and the rest of the world.
There is nothing controversial about the work of climatologist Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center. Here are six things he’d like you to understand about the scientific consensus on global warming.
This week, the President announced plans to cut carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030. In addition to fighting global warming, this plan will protect millions of people from harmful pollution, and could create a ton of new American jobs.
With the EPA out strong with a creative rule designed to avoid negative economic impact, and with sharp prebuttals against attacks about lost jobs and higher bills, Republicans may want to take heed before overplaying their hand.
Republicans in the House of Representatives are not only denying climate science – they're actually blocking the Pentagon from taking any action on it. Once again, House Republicans have gone too far.
House Speaker John Boehner once questioned the credibility of groups that "come out and criticize an agreement they've never seen." So you have to wonder about those groups prematurely attacking EPA's climate rules.
Once Obama proposes his climate regulations, we won't be debating the science. We will be debating whether prices will spike or jobs will be lost. And a party can lose it all over that. Ask Australia's Labor Party.
As a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of the pseudo-scientific climate change arguments and asked some scientists — widely-published, working climatologists — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading.
As progressives gather in Washington on May 22 for the New Populism Conference, to shape and organize around a populist agenda, it's worth discussing if and how populism can be harnessed to save the planet.
Four years ago, Joe Manchin got elected to the U.S. Senate after pinning to a tree the House "cap and trade" bill, and shooting it. Today, he is suggesting legislation to protect the climate and help coal ... just like the bill he shot.
Power plants generate 41 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly half come from just 100 plants, and all but two of those use coal. Addressing those plans would do a lot to address our climate crisis.
This past Sunday was the fourth anniversary of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil isn't gone. The environment isn't restored. Residents' lives aren't back to so-called “normal.” Yet, BP claims that they fixed the Gulf.
This week, government officials and climate scientists from all over the world are meeting in Berlin, Germany, to finalize a U.N. study on climate change and its solutions. A draft of the study has released, and it's pretty stunning.
Climate science denial is limited to the far right. So why it is so hard for politicians to take action on global warming? Because the political middle doesn't think the climate crisis is imminent.
It’s time for America to leave the 19th century behind, and keep the lights on. We're still using the model of giant, centralized power stations to distribute electricity over long distances. This is bad for a number of reasons.
When Sen. Ted Cruz wanted to talk to the nation about health care, he read "Green Eggs and Ham." When 30 senators seized the Senate floor last night for an all-night talk-a-thon about climate change, they delivered the facts.
West Virginia is dealing with another coal-related toxic spill, and people are finding out the hard way about the real dangers of fossil fuels. This is the third coal-related spill in a single month. How much more evidence do we need ?
"Climate change is a fact," said President Obama at the State of the Union. While that was directly lobbed at climate deniers, it was also implicitly aimed at those environmentalists who have been critical of his support for natural gas.
"60 Minutes" suggests that Obama's clean energy investments are a taxpayer waste, yet ignores how we've massively increased our clean energy capacity in just five years.
Why would the ALEC network of right-wing state lobbyists want to kill off incentives for using solar energy? Could it be the heavy investment in fossil fuels by one of ALEC's chief funders, the Koch brothers?