What we're reading IV

Photo by Rick Payette
Oct 2013
18

Part four of our regular round-up of things we've enjoyed reading.

“The innovations that are happening in other parts of the world are not always apparent to ministers of finance”

The World Bank discusses how to help emerging economies on to the path to green growth.

“Give them a few green inches and next thing you know you’ll have gone the whole green mile”

Green advocate Jonathan Porritt is puzzled by right wing politicians' hostility to ideas for green growth.

“Not something that can be done with low-energy lightbulbs”

Myles Allen argues in the The Conversation that carbon capture is now unavoidable if anyone is serious about mitigating climate change

“An urgent policy response is required”

The Global CCS Institute reports that the number of carbon capture and storage projects is declining – The Guardian.

“We will have to remain vigilant… to prevent that all the talk about 'embedding' and 'integrating' … remains empty rhetoric”

European Research Council President Helga Nowotny discusses how to achieve real multidisciplinary integration in research programmes on societal challenges.

“How does one know which questions to ask when the scientific method has been turned on its head?”

Jennifer Ouellete in Wired on why big data may call for new mathematics.

“The circumventing of the nitrogen cycle allowed Homo sapiens to reproduce at an unprecedented pace”

Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker on recent books about population growth – or decline.

“Some things are so big you don’t see them, or you don’t want to think about them, or you almost can’t think about them”

Rebecca Solnit contemplates climate change.

“The result of a complicated dance of geology and biology”

Carl Zimmer explains the latest work on origins of Earth's oxygenated atmosphere, for the New York Times.

“Just thinking about climate geoengineering offers a first step towards ‘earth systems geoengineering’”

Colin McInnes looks forward to taking charge of the planet.

“We are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years”

Matt Ridley argues that climate change and energy policies ignore economists’ consensus on the costs and benefits.

“For every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, the negative impacts outweigh the benefits by about $33”

Chris Hope suggests the economic consensus differs from Ridley’s reading.

Comments