A Roadmap for a Secure, Low-Carbon Energy Economy

Proposes a set of policies to address both energy security and climate change, including investing in better infrastructure, energy efficiency, and clean-energy jobs; reforming incentives to promote green technology; and forming a natural gas strategy

Scientific Assessment of Climate Change and Its Effects in Maine

Climate change has already made its presence known in Maine, from shorter winters and warmer summers with ocean heat waves, to stronger storms, new species showing up in our backyards and the Gulf of Maine, aquatic algal blooms, acidic ocean waters that affect shellfish, and new pests and diseases that harm our iconic forests and fisheries. The health of Maine people is also being affected by climate change, from high heat index days driving increased emergency room visits to the ravages of Lyme and other vector-borne diseases. And our economy is feeling the effects, too — with farmers trying to adapt to longer growing seasons but dealing with severe storms and late frosts, aquaculturists already adapting to a more acidic ocean, and winter sports like skiing and snowmobiling being impacted by our shrinking winter season. This is the first report from the Maine Climate Council’s Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, produced by more than 50 scientists from around the State representing Scientific and Technical Subcommittee members, other co-authors, and contributors. This report is part of the 2020 Maine Climate Action Plan. The report summarizes how climate change has already impacted Maine and how it might continue affecting our State in the future

Climate Policy Considering the Options: Climate Targets for All Countries

Abstract: This paper assesses five options for targets that could be taken by all countries to meet the ultimate objective of the Climate Change Convention: fixed, binding targets; dynamic targets; nonbinding targets; sectoral targets; policies and measures. Each is evaluated according to criteria of environmental effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, contribution to economic growth and sustainable development, and equity. While fixed, binding targets continue to be viable for industrialised countries, they do not seem suitable for many developing countries in the near future. Dynamic targets could alleviate developing countries' concerns about constraining their development as well as broader concerns about possible introduction of "hot air" in a world trading regime; they could also be considered for some or all industrialised countries. Non-binding targets could be politically appealing to developing countries, alleviate fears about development and/or hot air, but might only allow conditional participation in emissions trading by developing countries. Sectoral targets could offer a pragmatic first step -although their cost-effectiveness might be questioned. Finally, targets based on commitments to implement specific policies and measures might drive mitigation action and be part of negotiated packages including financial and technological cooperation. All these options may coexist in the future

Climate Data: Insights and Observations

Focuses mainly on the 25 countries with the largest greenhouse gas emissions to examine variations in carbon intensity, vulnerability to adverse climate impacts, and capacity to address climate change. Provides policy relevant observations

A Comparison of Complications and Reoperations Between Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Primary Arthrodesis Following Lisfranc Injury.

There is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding optimal treatment methods for Lisfranc injuries, and recent literature has emphasized the need to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA). The purpose of the current study is to compare reoperation and complication rates between ORIF and PA following Lisfranc injury in a private, outpatient, orthopaedic practice. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing operative intervention for Lisfranc injury between January 2009 and September 2015. A total of 196 patients met the inclusion criteria (130 ORIF, 66 PA), with a mean follow-up of 61.3 and 81.7 weeks, respectively. The ORIF group had a higher reoperation rate than the PA group, due to hardware removal. When hardware removals were excluded, the reoperation rate was similar. Postsurgical complications were compared between the 2 groups with no significant difference. In conclusion, ORIF and PA had similar complication rates. When hardware removals were excluded, the reoperation rates were similar, although hardware removals were more common in the ORIF group compared with the PA group