 |
| Image via climatechangesocialchange |
This week we have a lot of links on controversy. It seems the rhetoric is getting hotter than, well, the weather...if not the climate.
First up, The Economist asks, "Are economists erring on climate change?", which was, in part, a reaction to David Roberts' attack on economists in Grist.
Next, as House Republicans take EPA Chief Lisa Jackson to task, as reported in the New York Times, she responds in this Los Angeles Times story.
While a new report by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts and CERES would seem to confirm EPA's position that their power plant rules will spur job creation, the left think tank Center for American Progress tries to make The Business Case for EPA Rulemaking.
Meanwhile, engineers in the UK urge government to act now to "climate-proof" infrastructure, while climate deniers (I refuse to call them skeptics...) are unpersuaded by extra-warm 2010.
My colleague from The Energy Collective's Advisory Board, Mark Gunther, sat down with NRG’s David Crane and got some straight talk about energy, and Tyler Hamilton of the Clean Break blog acknowledged Canadian VC Chrysalix Energy as one of most active global cleantech investors in 2010: Canadian Cleantech.
And, finally, Eric Wesoff of Greentech Media pits Bloom Energy vs.Cogeneration and finds that cogeneration can achieve better CO2 reductions than the much-hyped Bloom Box: Lost its bloom?
Have a great weekend everyone!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sKt0djO9IvWjUvDwyq8W0d_E_aFsRNCdhjxbTbN_bTH3nYW_d3UbLQlYv6j0OvG1sfMuJe4520HJlH_9fkxcdNNHSGaQAhWzKpR_jtCUMF9aBBC3nYYLr6jYiYohzgZndnbjP5ODsAWZhdravwBrI=s0-d)