Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

The Low-Hanging Climate Fruit

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Paul Kelly tries talking sense to the all-or-nothing crowd over at Bart's place. The usual suspects snarl and prance. The bloggy dialogue is set up by this op-ed in yesterday's NYT, which Kelly refers to as

a good example of effective science communication.

It would be interesting to hear from climate scientists if they agree. The argument the op-ed authors make is that current obstacles to curbing carbon dioxide need not prevent concrete action on climate change:

Other potent warming agents include three short-lived gases "” methane, some hydrofluorocarbons and lower atmospheric ozone "” and dark soot particles. The warming effect of these pollutants, which stay in the atmosphere for several days to about a decade, is already about 80 percent of the amount that carbon dioxide causes. The world could easily and quickly reduce these pollutants; the technology and regulatory systems needed to do so are already in place.

Here's what puzzles me: if this could be done so "easily and quickly," then why isn't it happening? What's standing in the way?

2 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In