Syndicate content

I want to ride my bicycle

Flore de Préneuf's picture


"Bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride it where I like
..."

Earlier today, I was stuck in a herd of slow-moving, smoke-belching traffic (also known as the Beltway in Washington D.C.), when I heard an uplifting feature about electric bikes on the radio. Electric bikes are apparently all the rage at this year’s ongoing bike show in Taipei.

The WDR 2010 described in its chapter on innovation how the electric bike market took off in China over the last 10 years as a result of “technological improvements, faster urbanization, higher gasoline prices, and increases in purchasing power.” Not surprising, in the Kingdom of the Bicycle. But will e-bikes sway car addicts elsewhere?

On today’s “Science Friday” radio show, callers shared their enthusiasm for Do-It-Yourself mitigation. There are now dozens of kits out there to help retrofit ordinary bicycles -- so you can chug up a hill without a sweat. A brother and sister team, 59 and 61, are setting off on Earth Day on an electric bike tour of the United States to show that older people are never too old to pedal.

Adding climate finance to our promises

Kseniya Lvovsky's picture
Photo © istockphoto.com

Here is the sad truth: Presently, the resources available for developing countries to address the impacts of climate change cover 5% of estimated needs by 2020.

One of the challenges is to mobilize the resources needed without dipping into the same basket of current official development assistance (ODA). Another challenge is to measure and monitor what is 'new and additional' from the complex web of sources and channels.

More than a technical exercise, it is a useful tool to build trust and accountability with developing countries to show that assistance is being delivered in line with promises made. 

Let clean technology "stand on the shoulders of giants"

Marianne Fay's picture

Green growth has been in the news lately with much talk about greening the fiscal stimulus for a triple bottom line. Yet there are worries and the question remains as to whether green growth means slower growth with resources diverted to cleaning up the growth process. And what would happen to countries who unilaterally decide to impose domestic environmental regulations and/or a carbon price?. Will this lead to jobs moving abroad—to poorer or less-green countries that would become pollution havens? 

  Photo © iStockphoto.com

Unfortunately much of the green growth discussion has been of the proselytizing or the scare-mongering kind, with not enough analysis of the potential trade-offs between greening and growing, and not enough thought devoted to ways of minimizing these trade-offs.
 
In this context, a new paper by Philippe Aghion, Daron Acemoglu and two Harvard graduate students,  on “The Environment and Directed Technical Change” (pdf) is a much needed contribution. It also makes for a fascinating read: do not let the large number of equations scare you off! As in all of Aghion’s work, the key insights of the papers are fully captured in crisp writing in the first few pages of the paper.

In his presentation at the World Bank on March 8, Aghion explained the motivation of the paper: most economic models looking at the trade-offs between acting aggressively or not on climate change assume technical change is exogenous—i.e., does not respond to changes in energy prices (for example through a carbon tax) nor to environmental regulation (like a cap on emissions). This results in green growth being slower than dirty growth, at least if the negative impacts of climate change are small, and/or results in the need for permanent subsidies.  

Why so few carbon projects in Africa?

Isabel Hagbrink's picture
In Ethiopia, Humbo mountain is thriving after early regeneration efforts. Photo © World Vision

What are the obstacles to implementing carbon projects in Africa?

This was the question underlying many of the discussions at the Africa Carbon Forum, which took place in Nairobi, Kenya on March 3-5, 2010.

Over 1,000 participants attended the conference to discuss obstacles such as lack of financing, lack of experience and technical skill, land titling and monitoring challenges, and the complexity of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) rules. These hurdles have to date resulted in low numbers of African carbon projects: only 2% of CDM projects registered by the UNFCCC are in Africa.

On melting glaciers and science as a contact sport

Flore de Préneuf's picture

This week we were inspired by Skeptical Science.com,  a site for people who are "skeptical about global warming skepticism." On February 10, Skeptical Science put some of its best scientific rebuttals to arguments commonly used by climate change deniers in a handy cheat-sheet format that you can consult from your i-Phone. Leo Hickman, over at The Guardian / Environment blog, wrote about the tempest this tactical app immediately roused in the opposing camp.
 

On Wednesday we asked Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC, to answer simple questions about the facts: Are the glaciers melting faster in the past? Do we know why? What about the sun? And why are climate change debates so heated anyway?!

 Click below for his answers. 

Michael MacCracken on 'melting glaciers' from World Bank on Vimeo.

Michael MacCracken on 'science as a contact sport' from World Bank on Vimeo.

Is the scientific evidence of human-induced climate change unequivocal?

Robert Watson's picture

    Photo ©  Himalayan Trails/flickr
Last December, a very large majority of the scientific community and most politicians would have agreed that the scientific evidence of human-induced climate change was unequivocal and that the only question was whether the world’s political leaders could agree in Copenhagen to meaningful legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 

But, as we now know, the negotiations only produced an aspirational target—to limit the global mean surface temperature to no more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels—and an accord that does not bind any country to reduce their emissions. 

Since then, the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report has been criticized for errors or imprecise wording.

  • For example, the statements that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 or earlier (IPCC admitted that this was an error and not evidence-based);
  • that agricultural production in some North African countries would decrease by up to 50% by 2020 (the synthesis report did not contain the nuances and more detailed discussion in the underlying chapter);
  • and that over half of the Netherlands was below sea level rather than a quarter (this was largely a definitional issue – the Netherlands Dutch Ministry of transport uses the figure 60% - below high water level during storms). 

These inaccuracies, coupled with the controversy surrounding illegally hacked e-mails and temperature data from the University of East Anglia (UEA), have provided climate skeptics and some media with ammunition to undermine public confidence in the conclusions of the IPCC and climate science in general.

To that ghost, I say Rest in Peace

Rachel Ilana Block's picture


Yesterday’s New York Times op-ed piece by Al Gore is well worth a read.  It’s one of those pieces where I found myself nodding along to the computer screen.  Gore helpfully cuts through to the heart of the supposed controversies about the climate science and within the climate science community. 

Photo © iStockphoto.com

His arguments echo what I heard at a recent seminar here at the Bank on the role and functioning of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the overblown reaction to mistakes that are real but which in no way alter the overwhelming majority of existing scientific findings about climate change.

During that seminar Kristie Ebi, Executive Director of the IPCC Technical Support Unit for Working Group ll (which authors the volume addressing physical and social impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation) for the next round of assessments coming out in 2013, carefully explained the extensive review process applied by the IPCC. 

Pages