Expert analysis of how scientific findings about climate are incorporated into public policy (The Guardian). The three authors of this article are professors who have studied and written extensively on the subject, including a new book just published. I think many prominent climate scientists who do field research and publish journal reports would agree with every word. “For political leaders and business people, we think it is important for you to know that it is extremely unlikely that scientists are exaggerating the threat of the climate crisis. It is far more likely that things are worse than scientists have said.” Solid new findings that corroborate this view appear almost every week and have commonly been recorded in these letters.
cialis usa buy To people who definitely are at present working with this, it can be clearly associated with perfectly logical. Bad practices:- Unhealthy practices can acquisition de viagra incur numerous health issues, peculiarly when it relates to sexual health. Hence neither men nor their female levitra generika partner are completely satisfied. These suppliers offer potent and high quality jellies to ensure customers that they get the real bulk viagra uk then only you can get the real benefits and enjoy the returned manhood.
–Naomi Oreskes followed up this story with some thoughts of her own, also published in The Guardian, in the form of an interview.
—–
Another expert opinion piece explores the relationship between what Americans are saying and what they are doing, and why there is a disconnect (The Hill). The three authors teach and do research in behavioral science. I think their ideas make good sense.
–Along these same lines, Amy Harder wrote a story today for Axios about how hard it has been for her to reduce her own carbon footprint. Amy is a reporter who covers energy and climate change, is well-committed and does good work.
—–
The US is formally withdrawing from Paris Agreement but will continue to influence future talks (Climate Home News). Today’s action take effect one day after the next presidential election. “Of course, all of this could be quickly overturned if a Democrat won next year’s US election. With climate change the strongest it has ever been on the election agenda, every Democratic hopeful has pledged to re-join the Paris accord. A process, which could take as little as 30 days.” The Democrats should look at this as an opportunity but cannot get too far ahead of what Americans actually “feel” about the situation, since so many people can easily be frightened by cleverly-stated propaganda from the other side.
—–
An important technological breakthrough means better and cheaper batteries may soon be on the way (Wiley). A new type of high-performance cathode would allow the replacement of lithium anodes with sodium or other metals. “…next-generation batteries are expected to provide higher energy densities, better capacities, and the usage of cheaper, safer, and more environmentally benign materials…..They found excellent electrochemical performances for the non-lithium ions. The sodium battery could be operated at high voltages up to 3.5 volts and maintained a capacity of more than 100 milliampere hours per gram even after 50,000 cycles, and the corresponding magnesium and aluminum batteries were close behind these competitive values, reported the authors.” All the sources of this information appear to have high credibility.
Carl