The most effective individual steps to tackle climate change aren’t being discussed.

The most effective individual steps to tackle climate change aren't being discussed

This infographic shows climate choices. Credit: Seth Wynes/Kimberly Nicholas, Environmental Research Letters, 2017

Governments and schools are not communicating the most effective ways for individuals to reduce their carbon footprints, according to new research.

Published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the study from Lund University, found that the incremental changes advocated by governments may represent a missed opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beneath the levels needed to prevent 2°C of climate warming.

The four  that most substantially decrease an individual’s  are: eating a plant-based diet, avoiding , living car-free, and having smaller families.

The research analysed 39 peer reviewed papers, carbon calculators, and government reports to calculate the potential of a range of individual lifestyle choices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This comprehensive analysis identifies the actions individuals could take that will have the greatest impact on reducing their .

Read more at:

VIDEO: Climate Facts: Coral Reefs.

Climate change is making the world’s oceans warmer and more acidic. This is devastating coral reefs and the half a BILLION people who depend on them. Our latest Climate Facts video takes a look. #YEARSproject #ClimateFacts  Via Years of Living Dangerously


How climate change helped Lyme disease invade America.

When President Donald Trump announced last week that he was pulling the US out of the Paris climate accord, Yale epidemiology researcher Katharine Walter felt gutted. “[Global warming] is already happening,” she said, “and the effects are already here.”

Walter studies Lyme disease, the tick-borne illness that’s spreading frighteningly quickly in the Eastern and Midwestern US, due in part to climate change. Lyme cases have more than doubled since the 1990s, and the number of counties that are now deemed high-risk for Lyme has increased by more than 320 percent in the same period. 2017 is also shaping up to be a particularly bad year for Lyme.

“These effects of climate change will be felt globally, but also here in the US,” Walter said, “and here in New York, in Trump’s backyard.”

New York state is an epicenter for Lyme. More than 90 percent of cases in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and mid-Atlantic. And it’s why New York Sen. Chuck Schumer has been calling on the federal government to more aggressively tackle Lyme.

Now is the time to revisit Wall-E, perhaps the finest environmental film of the past decade.

Wall-E, a cautionary dystopian tale

A warning about unbridled consumption wrapped up in a children’s tale, Pixar’s film wasn’t intended as a political statement. But it’s powerful all the same.

Every weekend, we pick a movie you can stream that dovetails with current events. Old, new, blockbuster, arthouse: They’re all fair game. What you can count on is a weekend watch that sheds new light on the week that was. The movie of the week for June 3 to 9 is Wall-E (2008), which is available to stream on Netflix, or to digitally rent on Amazon, Vudu, YouTube, and Google Play.

When Pixar released Wall-E in 2008, it was described as an “environmentalist parable” so often that director Andrew Stanton felt the need to disavow the label.

“I don’t have a political bent or ecological message to push,” Stanton told New York magazine. “I don’t mind that it supports that kind of view — it’s certainly a good-citizen kind of way to be — but everything I wanted to do was based on the film’s love story, the last robot on Earth, the sentence that we first came up with in 1994.”

Whether or not Stanton “meant” it to be an environmental tale is irrelevant. Wall-E is the tale of a little robot left alone on earth to clean up after humans literally trashed the place, then took off for a comfy life in outer space, where their rapacious need for consumption has turned them into blobs who can’t stand and move on their own. (What happened to the poorer inhabitants of Earth is left out of the film, probably to make it suitable for children.)

Meanwhile, Wall-E pushes trash and compacts it into cubes, until a glowing orb of a robot named EVE shows up and brings him to the humans’ outer space home, along with an organism that suggests Earth may not be done quite yet.

And with the planet’s future — and the living conditions of its inhabitants — on everyone’s mind following President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States will be leaving the Paris agreement, Wall-E may be exactly the kind of movie we need to revisit.

Surprisingly enough, the film’s genius is probably due to Stanton’s assiduous efforts to stay “neutral.” There are no familiar slogans or symbols easily identified with a politicized notion of the environment anywhere in Wall-E. Instead, the film paints a pretty stunning picture of the deleterious effects of letting two things continue unchecked: a society’s insatiable need to consume (cheap products, entertainment, food, resources), and private industry’s drive for profit when it overtakes public good. (The ship on which the humans have escaped is wholly owned and operated by the same company — cheekily named “Buy n Large” — that ran Earth into the ground.)

Wall-E’s vision of the future is a cautionary dystopia wrapped up in a children’s tale, and a very funny and skillfully made one, too; the film’s first 40 minutes are virtually wordless, a masterpiece of modern silent filmmaking. Yet while we’re squealing over the cute robots, we can’t forget to imagine the world that gave rise to Wall-E’s trash-strewn wasteland and its more well-off humans’ disintegration into helpless, shapeless flesh globules who’ve lost the ability to create, think, or have real relationships. Futuristic science fiction is at its best when it makes us take a hard look at our own world.

Watch the trailer for Wall-E:

WALL•E paints a stunning picture of the deleterious effects of letting two things continue unchecked: a society’s insatiable need to consume (cheap products, entertainment, food, resources), and private industry’s drive for profit when it overtakes public good.


VIDEO: An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.

Former Vice President Al Gore continues his tireless fight, traveling around the world to train an army of activists and influence international climate policy. Cameras follow him behind the scenes — in moments both private and public, funny and poignant — as he pursues the inspirational idea that while the stakes have never been higher, the perils of climate change can be overcome with human ingenuity and passion.

The Weather Channel’s Response to Paris Climate Agreement Pullout.

Image may contain: one or more people and text

When it comes to hard-hitting political commentary, you probably don’t think about The Weather Channel. But check out how they covered President Trump pulling out of the Paris climate accord:

They have an article entitled: “So What Happens to Earth Now?”

And other articles follow:

“Still Don’t Care? Proof You Should”

“..and More Proof…”

“…and Even More Proof…”

“…Or the Imminent Collapse of a Key Ice Shelf…:”

“… Or Antarctica Turning Green…”

“… Or California’s Coast Disappearing into the Sea…”

A tip of the Stetson to The Weather Channel for intrepid reporting and analysis.

Dan Rather

Scientists published an entire study refuting Scott Pruitt on climate change.

In a sign of growing tensions between scientists and the Trump administration, researchers published a scientific paper Wednesday that was conceived and written as an explicit refutation to an assertion by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt about climate change.

The study, in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, sets up a direct test of a claim by Pruitt, made in written Senate comments following his confirmation hearing, that “over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming.”

After reviewing temperature trends contained in three satellite data sets going back to 1979, the paper concludes that the data sets show a global warming trend — and that Pruitt was incorrect.