Y'all know that we're not going to do shit about climate change, right?

[XemaSab]

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I don't know, nations that have already been directly affected

have been pretty proactive. I mean, plastic bags are not used in Mexico City anymore, for example.

[Coyotl]

17. Y'all know that we've done a lot about climate change, right?

Really, think about it!

[roguevalley]

70. it will take several of these and the drowning of coasts to really make it clear.

also, methane plumes. SHIVER!

[pscot]

24. Whoa! That'll save the planet!

Now if we can just talk the Chinese out of burning all that coal...

[AverageJoe90]

64. One bright spot is.....

I don't think China will be around in its current state much longer. That bubble of theirs is bound to burst at some point and when it does, the Chinese elite can kiss their prosperity good-bye: barring a miracle, they'll go straight down to Third World status before you can say loolapalooza.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. You laugh, check the carbon footprint

Of bags produced for 20 million people.

Of course there are also the newer fleet, smog checks that put Califrnia to shame and yes, educating people. You laugh, but check the carbon footprint used to produce them.

[NoOneMan]

87. What counts is the aggregate carbon footprint of mankind

When these trends in atmospheric GHGs change, its progress

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. So taking steps to reduce it does not matter

Oy once again.

[NoOneMan]

97. Not if it doesn't reduce anything

See summary explanation on post #94.

These sanctimonious acts are energy shell games; the energy will still be used by the system somewhere else.

In fact, in the case of the cloth bag vs the petro-derived bag, you may be using *more* energy with the replacement. If the materials and energy needed to create the cloth bag were unused surplus (its materials being less versatile than oil), then we have a tangible increase in production in that sector, but an intangible savings as far as the oil is concerned. Oil, being very versatile and in high demand, will quickly have its surplus exploited in another manner. The entire action may in fact net 0 carbon savings (oil consumption remains constant) and actually increase overall production when it comes to making the fabric bag.

But at the end of the day, there is a nice little number to sum up how sick our system is, and it says we are losing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. But it has this is what is so silly

Some nations are pissed at the US, China and India, chiefly...they are on target for Kyoto.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps total output has to do with three nations chiefly? Some nations, believe it or not, were and still are on target for Kyoto.

Nope, I think you are just full of excuses.

[NoOneMan]

114. The cited action has simply freed up more oil resources for growth to be used elsewhere

So its net effect is at least zero, and potentially worse.

I am not full of excuses whatsoever. Instead of focusing on these symbolic steps that aren't doing anything, I am trying to look at the system overall and what really needs to be done to fix this problem (and that comes down to the reduction of work/production/consumption, bottom line).

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. You of course are familiar with the national effort to reduce

Carbon emissions which were like passed by Congress. We are not even close to that in the US. We are still arguing if it's even real.

Believe what you want, but Mexico, yes, lowly backwards Mexico, is way ahead of the United States on this.

[joshcryer]

95. Mexico should be aplauded. But they're one of two countries on the planet...

...that have binding CO2 emission reduction legislation. (The UK is the other country.)

Two. Entire planet. And they did that before Rio+20. Odds are they retract that legislation once they realize no one else is playing along.

Climate change is already affecting Mexico and their steps to mitigate it are probably too late. As it stands now they are experiencing the worst drought in 71 years. And the models predict it is only going to get worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. And that isthe reason politically they cannot retract it

The Yaqui have lost their ancestral lands, not to flood, to drought.

[joshcryer]

140. It depends on how successful they are.

If other countries in Latin America grow faster because they're using fossil fuel programs then Mexico will be falling behind and it will not be politically expedient to keep falling behind. Of course, I think you should be able to have a sustainable program without falling behind, but it requires a focus on self-sufficiency and avoiding outside economic forces. Sadly globalization makes this a very difficult task, imo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Mexico is agresively looking at green energy

So it is possible. Time will tell.

[Zalatix]

81. Coffee spew!!! I mean, no plastic bags is a small step forward and every step counts, but yeah.

China's last 5 year increase in coal consumption outweighs Mexico City's ban on plastic bags by a trillion to 1.

[NoOneMan]

27. Plastic bags?

Have you checked Greenland's ice sheets lately?

Why don't we cite the number of Prius sales as proof people are doing something proactive?

How do we really know anything is "proactive" until we see atmospheric carbon tangibly drop? These feel-goody half-measures are easily dilluted, lost or adjusted for in the complex system we are dealing with. The only thing that has had a reasonable, quanitative effect on emissions seems to be the accidental recession; something everyone and their dog is screaming about "fixing".

We have an objective way to measure progress on this issue, so I can't say anyone is making progress until those scientific metrics begin to change.

[hatrack]

36. Correct - there is one number that really matters . . .

. . . and until it begins to drop, there will exist no substantive evidence that we are "dealing with" climate change.

Or, as Harvey Keitel once memorably said, "Well, let's not start sucking each others' dicks just yet."

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Yes, plastic bags

You realize how much energy is used in producing them?

[NoOneMan]

80. Do you realize how complex our system is?

If the process of replacing these plastic bags with another type created energy savings (that we do not know, as fabric bags need to be manufactured, brought to market, bought (with energy derived currency) and even washed (they tend to accumulate pathogens FYI)), we have no guaranteed way to know that translated into a measurable reduction in emissions or if it was absorbed by the system at large. Did this sudden, supposed surplus of energy lower the cost of production, thereby making some other energy dependent sector of the economy grow faster? Based on all past history of the human race, do we tend to exploit surplus to fuel growth or curtail growth to an arbitrary finite allowance, irregardless of the amount of energy available in the system?

We could push numbers and theories all day--talking about everything from plastic bags to lightbulbs--but basically, the polar melts is accelerating, the oceans are growing acidic, atmospheric carbon is increasing, and the crisis grows more dire.

I wouldn't even call these little pieces of "progress" half-measures until we can quantitatively prove, with science, that we are making real progress. And as of now, all signs point to "not a bit".

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Yes, but I expected this

I mean the cloth bags, will indeed consume more energy than the hundreds of disposable bags you currently use.

Funny, bags for 20 million and gong back to old ways...has indeed reduced energy consumption...so has smog checks that put California to shame...I could go on.

Is it a cure all? Nope...is is the only solution, nope...but changing how we package food stuffs is actually part of it. For the record, I expect buts, not real change, not for another ten years and a few more storms.

What I expect is buts, we need to change, but, but, but don't bother me with actual change.

[NoOneMan]

85. Im not sure you completely get it regarding bag example

In an infinite growth driven world, any energy savings in one sector (presuming there is any) creates exploitable surplus that can be used in another. Energy is the driver and ultimate throttler of all economic activity--surplus available energy is therefore only a temporary state.

Actual change cannot really be accomplished unless we examine what causes civilization to be an infinite growth institution, and we are willing to change that. Packaging, light bulb changing, etc, will simply free up resources for another industry to mindlessly use.

Im in the mindset that there can only be one real solution, contrary to the green cornicopiasts, and that involves managed decline and an actual aggregate reduction in work done (thereby reducing consumption of energy and emissions). In fact, the most effective climate action we have seen in the last decade has been a big, nasty recession. Decline (simplification of a complex system) doesn't have to be nasty IMO if done properly, and it can make us a much more sustainable and resilient species.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. No, the one who does not get it is you

For the record, we change or collapse.

[NoOneMan]

88. Do you disagree about the inevitable exploitation of surplus energy to fuel infinite growth?

"we change or collapse"

I couldn't agree more on this point, but I disagree with the actual change required probably.

I don't think we need sanctimonious "green" acts that we can pat each other on the back over, while we wait in line for the greener iPhone 6.

We need to transition to a simpler, less complex system with more built in resilience, utilitizing a fraction of the energy of our current society. We need to strive to abandon the notion of surplus (thereby debt that drives perpetual growth), and instead, embrace the idea of sustainability & cooperation. It will take a complete social shift globally to undo 6000 years of ingrained idiocy. It will take organized collapse to avoid a forced one.

More likely, we will continue to push the limits until the next drought wipes out near half of us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. But cloth bags consume more energy than plastic

Oy

[NoOneMan]

94. Who knows really at the end of the day...

You have to grow em, harvest them, weave em, ship them, wash them, and don't forget, BUY THEM (requiring debt notes you accumulated while commanding dirty energy).

The conventional HDPE bag had the lowest environmental impacts of the lightweight bags in eight of the nine impact categories. The bag performed well because it was the lightest bag considered. The lifecycle impact of the bag was dictated by raw material extraction and bag production, with the use of Chinese grid electricity significantly affecting the acidification and ecotoxicity of the bag.

http://www.biodeg.org/files/uploaded/Carrier_Bags_Report_EA.pdf

Here is what I have a better idea about: all work done in our finite economy uses energy. The amount of work will almost certainly be equal to the potential work that can be done with all available energy; any energy surplus will therefore result in more work. Until we can, decouple work output from energy supply, thereby reducing work, we cannot reduce energy usage (and emissions).

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. You go ahead, you are comparing a country doing something about it

With one not. I am betting you are all big talk and not really doing anything.

I mean, that evil cloth bag I have reused it over 1000 times at least...that plastic bag once, twice maybe.

See how it works? That evil cotton bag will be used thousands of times more... Do the freaking math.

[NoOneMan]

115. Im not comparing any country to anything

If you have a problem with the authors of the study, write them an angry letter on super-duper recycled paper.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Tell you what, I will get rid of my cotton bags

and also of all my cups and plates and dishes, and start using paper and plastic like everywhere. That way I can increase my foot print and contribute far batter to this insanity.

You misread the study.

Yes it takes more energy to produce the bag, but in the overall it consumes less, since it is a product that will be REUSED thousands of times... saving you from the need to produce more plastic bags. We really are truly not in the same page here.

You are thinking ONLY at the production point.

You forget the reuse part.

Yes, all the changes that will be needed will be inconvenient. And yes, I hope my city one of these days, or even my state. follows Mexico City's lead, and yes, like down there, from people like you, there will be howling.

[NoOneMan]

121. Do you know how many times the average person uses and washes their cloth bags?

Good for you on your 1000, but you really do not have a clue if the average person uses their bag 150-400 times, nor do you know how much energy they use washing them to remove the e coli.

The point goes back to what I originally said: the system is complex and you cannot look at sanctimonious half-measures to draw conclusions about human progress.

Free-ed up oil resources with bags doesn't guarantee that you've created a permanent reduction in oil consumption across the globe (it would make oil cheaper, and subsequently, growth cheaper). Using cloth bags doesn't even guarantee less plastic bags will be made (as they become even cheaper and will be sold to other marketplaces with less resources).

We have complex systems. You have brought up a very clear example of how something that looks neat and trendy *should* help the earth but really doesn't have any measurable scientific metric that proves that it does. All metrics we have prove the situation becomes worse, year after year, despite the number of Prius cars sold.

[joshcryer]

76. The problem is how mind boggling climate change is as an issue.

40 billion tons of CO2 a year. An arctic whose sea ice is going to melt in 5 years or so (it may last 10 but that'll be that, ocean churning will be the end of arctic sea ice). Exponential growth in Greenland ice melt. An antarctic that is losing 100 billion tons minimum of land ice (300 billion tons on the high end) every single year and rising.

The charts, all the data, shows an exponential trend. It is simply inconceivable.

We are going to have massive droughts in the coming years, storms are going to become increasingly disastrous, the response will be to deplete our aquifers faster to feed the people, it is an enormous problem.

We've passed the tipping point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. I know, why many nations have pointed fingers at China, the US and India.

But unlike most here you knew that.

[joshcryer]

92. China, the US, and India are the worst, but when Latin America sides with the US...

...you know shit is just a disaster.

Rio+20 was the last chance we had to actually start making substantial moves towards mitigating the effects of climate change.

When Latin America jumped on board with the US?

Catastrophe is the only outcome we will face.

Let's just hope the geoengineering in 20 years isn't idiotic taking us into an ice age.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. What amazes me is that nations that have already been hit hard

Mexico, are well on way to meet Kyoto goals...they did not jump with the US...but countres that have not, did.

Human nature I s'pose.

[joshcryer]

96. Sadly Mexico accounts for 1.6% of emissions. They plan to reduce 30% in 8 years.

That is an incredible, awesome goal, but that means the planet will enjoy a reduction of .48%.

Rio+20 means that other Latin American states will continue to increase their emissions by likely far more than that.

As far as the planet is concerned Mexico's efforts are not going to do anything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. But it might prove as leadership

That is my hope.

After two or three more Sandys Americans might finally start to get it, by the way

[joshcryer]

139. They did it before Rio+20 and it didn't lead other Latin American countries.

The rest of Latin America basically scoffed at the idea of emission reductions. Sustainability was thrown out the window. Mexico, being in the top 20 of emission countries (and the largest in Latin America) was trying to lead.

I think that, yeah, two or three more Sandy's America will get it, but drought will be the real driving force. The grain belt is about to become the dust belt. The Ogallala Aquifer is likely to be depleted by 2030, especially if drought conditions continue, it could come much earlier than that.

The capitalist elites have already decided that nothing should be done preemptively about climate change and they are going to resort to geoengineering, imo. Ride this one out and turn the skies white.

[Zalatix]

82. And then there's the acidification of the oceans. Wait'll THOSE chickens come home to roost.

[NoOneMan]

89. In less than two decades, the salmon may stop running

Rising river temperatures (hurting incubation rates) and these changing oceans may decimate runs. A species in my local river was brought to its knees this year from the drought alone.

No salmon means less nitrogen & nutrients in surrounding forest systems, which means less carbon capture in pacific northwest. Another feedback loop.

It also means less food for me when your industrial farming system goes haywire from impending drought.

[CTyankee]

2. No.

We are.

You have no sense of history.

[deutsey]

3. Probably not...but climate change is sure as shit going to do something about us

[Bolo Boffin]

26. +1. n/t

[2on2u]

4. Germany is pretty big on solar energy and the windmills keep going up hither and yon. n/t

[NoOneMan]

23. Solar is a joke

Im not sure what the potential yield is in wind energy globally, but it will take a massive energy investment (burning of oil and coal) before we can harvest and stably store a significant amount, and carbon savings may be many decades off.

As far as solar--aside from the energy trap regarding initial investment--we just do not get enough aggregate energy from the sun to do a fraction of the work we do each day. It took billions of years to capture and store up this energy that we burn through...its staggering when you do the math.

Of course, there is also the crazy, insane idea of "doing" less and maybe shrinking instead of growing, but out come the pitchforks if a politician would mention that.

[2on2u]

28. It won't remain a joke, that's what some people believe

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/magnolia-solar-takes-major-step-120000741.html

WOBURN, MA and ALBANY, NY--(Marketwire -07/24/12)- Magnolia Solar Corporation (MGLT) ("Magnolia Solar&quot announced today that its wholly owned subsidiary Magnolia Solar, Inc. has demonstrated high quality 3-inch growth of nanostructured antireflection (AR) coatings on glass for solar cell applications. Previously, Magnolia Solar has been able to grow the AR coatings up to 1 inch in diameter. This new development takes the company closer to commercial viability in the existing solar power market. For example, most silicon solar cells and many high efficiency thin film solar cells produced today measure 4 inches. The ability to produce coatings at this size and larger is expected to be a major step toward market acceptance of this technology that can be used to increase the efficiency of presently available solar technologies.

The company's nanostructured AR coating allows for maximum solar energy absorption for the complete solar spectrum covering UV, Visible and Infrared part of the solar energy. This approach allows for better than 95 percent of the sun energy absorption and minimizes the reflection losses to less than approximately 5 percent. We believe this is a significant improvement over what is commercially available today.

At normal sunlight incidence during peak sunlight hours, the reflection losses at the glass-air interface have been reduced from approximately 4% to less than 1%. At large angles of incidence during morning and late afternoon hours, the reflection losses have been reduced from over 25% to less than 5%. We believe that the nanostructured coating developed by Magnolia for photovoltaic applications can significantly improve the performance of solar cells at all relevant wavelengths and incident angles by reducing reflection losses.

[Turborama]

35. Utter Nonsense!

Consider the solar energy potential of one square mile of land. A square mile is 640 acres. One square mile of sunshine has the potential of providing (640 acres x 7.26 megawatt-hours) 4,646 megawatt-hours per day of electricity using existing CSP technology at 30% efficiency.

Ten thousand square miles is a plot of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide. Multiply 640 acres by 10,000 square miles equals 6,400,000 acres. With a yield of 7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day per acre, a CSP system receiving 6,400,000 acres of sunshine would produce about 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.


Much more here...

A solar farm 100 miles long by 100 miles wide could produce enough electricity for America! : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x203056

[NoOneMan]

38. Quick questions:

1) How much energy (oil & coal) would it take to produce & maintain a solar farm 100 miles by 100 miles, in terms of materials, transit, battery storage, grid enhancement, etc?

2) How many years of operating this solar farm would it take to offset the initial upfront energy investment required and how does this timeline mesh with our current crisis (also would such additional emissions make our crisis worse and a solution more time critical?)

3) Clearly the example is a hypothetical, but how much carbon would be released in soil/biomass due to cultivating 100 square miles (much less if you used the desert I suppose).

4) How do we know that such a source of energy would not drastically lower the cost of production, thereby fueling growth (which requires additional energy) to the point that more consumption of energy continues to pose risks to the climate? In otherwords, wouldn't this lead further to the exponential growth that is the very root of this problem?

And random far off question:

5) If we figured out how to have infinite energy, how would we ensure that our infinite growth and scouring of finite materials would not eventually completely obliterate all natural systems?

FYI, I did mispeak about aggregate solar energy. Our ability to collect that at a high efficiency, convert it, store it, and transmit it do remain a challenge

[bananas]

107. The cost curves are beginning to cross

Renewables keep getting cheaper, non-renewables keep getting more expensive, the costs are beginning to cross over, so that renewables are becoming cheaper than non-renewables.

Right now wind is slightly more expensive than natural gas.

In some areas, it's already cheaper to install solar than pay peak-load prices for electricity from natural gas.

The best source of information on these issues is Joe Romm's blog Climate Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/

He gives an introduction to his blog here: http://thinkprogress.org/introduction-to-climate-progress-and-its-top-posts/
Read through that and you'll probably find the answers to your specific questions.
He also has a search feature on his blog.

Also, he gave an overview of what needs to be done here - the "full global warming solution": http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/10/207320/the-full-global-warming-solution-how-the-world-can-stabilize-at-350-to-450-ppm/

[NoOneMan]

116. Im not talking about running cost of energy, but investment in energy

It takes energy to create turbines and solar panels; IOW it takes the burning of fossil fuels to simply setup shop to collect green energy. This investment is in addition to the current level of oil usage, or otherwise, it will come from current supplies and create decades long declines in available energy (hampering economic growth by reducing per capita available energy). The investment has real world impacts in terms of economic activity and emissions.

For more, read: The Energy Trap

Its interesting. Green energy technology surely doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in a technological world created by burning a hundred years worth of outrageous levels of fossil fuels. If we wanted to look at the true EROI of green energy in the context of how society transitioned to the state in which it could develop it, green methods could take hundreds of years to become carbon neutral. This of course is irrelevant as long as a stabilization & reduction in global warming was reached somewhere along that time.

[panader0]

52. I could be wrong on this

but I thought I heard that the amount of solar radiation that hits the equator for ONE hour is enough energy to power humans for a year. The energy is there to be had. The trick is to capture it.

[NoOneMan]

57. Thats part of the "trick", correct

And I did mispeak. But there is more to it than capturing it. The complete trick involves burning a ton load of additional coal and oil to produce the energy & materials needed to construct the system required to capture it & utilize it, without further excaberating the immediate problem. It also involves waiting decades until this can all become carbon neutral, without dieing first. Then it finishes with figuring out how to fix whatever problems our new cheap-energy fueled growth creates past that point.

In fact, we do not even know if replacing our current dirty fuel usage will cut dirty fuel usage, or simply have it sit side by side with new energy production. The more energy we have is the more we grow, since the beginning of time. Moving to electric may make the undesirable dirties cheap and shunned, and therefore shipped to developing nations who use it to fuel their industrial revolutions.

[wtmusic]

5. Typical broccoli POV nt

[Skittles]

6. yup

[quinnox]

7. No, we probably aren't

We will just have to face the consequences of that decision. And hope it doesn't prove to be a fatal one. We should have started on this action years ago, but us humans as a collective, aren't the brightest things around.

[Richard D]

8. We have to

And I believe in his second term, Obama will make that much more of a priority. It's going to be a lot more costly to do nothing than to do something.

[GitRDun]

9. While we may not do much on emissions

insurance companies will force changes to where and how we build. When you can't get insurance unless....tends to focus the mind in my opinion.

[tularetom]

10. Depends on who you mean by "we"

If we is used in the broader sense to describe humanity, I believe "we" will do something.

However, if by "we" you mean Amurkins, you are absolutely correct.

[mike_c]

11. agreed....

Garrett Hardin was right.

[Selatius]

12. We'll worry about it until after the election. Environmental issues are a loser.

That's why both Mitt and Obama have avoided the topic altogether in the debates.

[cbayer]

13. I don't know about you, but I am already doing something about it.

Very, very small footprint and support of companies/products that are doing the right thing.

[AverageJoe90]

68. That kind of thing may actually do a lot more good than some might realize.

There are a really good number of "little guys" out there who are doing what they can to make a positive difference. How about planting urban gardens, for example? Or trees to replace lost forest.

And if hemp becomes legal again, somebody might be able to find a way to mass market hemp fuel as a replacement for regular gas, and that alone would help significantly with at least the ground pollution problem.

Hemp may just be one of those things that proves key to mitigating our climate change issue.

[Ellipsis]

14. Sure we will... as soon as we can make money of the concept.

[SomethingFishy]

16. Not just make money but make it instantly...

God forbid we have to invest in the future..

[lunatica]

15. yeah, just like we didn't do shit about getting to the Moon

Or landing a Rover on Mars, or ending slavery or getting the Civil Rights Act passed or Women and Blacks getting the vote, or the Dutch building dykes or the building of the Egyptian pyramids or all of those things.

Nothing ever changes.

[randome]

21. You're right, of course.

[AverageJoe90]

33. That much is true, Lunatica.

The worst case will only be inevitable if we give up. As Edmund Burke once said, "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing".....and I've taken that to heart.

[Tree-Hugger]

48. +1 nt

[Art_from_Ark]

49. The problem is, all of the accomplishments you mentioned

had tangible results that people could actually see or even enjoy. (Of course, the Egyptian pyramids were built with slave laborers who had no say in whether or not they actually wanted to build the thing to satisfy the ego of the Pharaoh, but that's another story). At any rate, it's a whole lot different than trying to get everyone to cut CO2 emissions by 5% over the next 30 years. And CO2 isn't the only culprit, either.

[lunatica]

100. Sure but challenges can be met and overcome

It takes will. And it takes laws and investment. And it takes a few experiences like Hurricane Sandy affecting millions of complacent Americans to make believers out of people.

[Art_from_Ark]

142. The problem with that is,

there have always been hurricanes, and some really bad ones, including Camille in 1969, the Galveston hurricane of 1900, the hurricane that sank the S.S. Central America in 1857, and the numerous unnamed hurricanes that sank Spanish treasure ships. One can say that the most economically damaging ones in the US have occurred in this decade, but then that may have been in large part due to overdevelopment of hurricane regions in the past few years.

And the culprit is not just greenhouse gases-- what we are experiencing has much to do with deforestation, rampant destruction of ecosystems, and overurbanization that is occurring all over the world. Unless those problems are addressed, simply reducing CO2 emissions over several decades will likely have little, if any effect in stopping climate change.

[NoOneMan]

51. Your examples are of advancement and progress

But our problem is due to advancement and progress (and the energy it takes to accomplish these things). Even in terms of social reforms you mention, they led to a greater distribution, and thereby, usage of energy among the population at large.


Modern humans are stuck in this mode of thinking that we can "fix" anything since we have produced monumentous feats, not realizing it is production at the very core of the problem. Pointing the the last 6000 years of mindless growth towards infinity is no way to prove we can solve this.

[lunatica]

99. Surely you and a handful of people aren't the only ones

who know what you're talking about. Much progress can be done in renewable and sustainable energy.

My point is that we are not only resilient, but innovative and visionary with the right leadership.

[pscot]

103. Unless we change the model

we're not going to change the outcome. Tweaking the system here or there while depending on endless growth to sustain our society won't save us. The problems have metastasized; they permeate the the body politic, The cure is going to be long, slow and extremely painful. If we survive it, nothing will be the same afterwards. Our way of living can't be sustained. We're going to change or die.

[NoOneMan]

119. Absolutely

"Tweaking" is simply adding complexity according to the pattern that humans have followed for many thousand years. Check out Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies

[The2ndWheel]

106. Did someone say we weren't resilient, innovative, and visionary?

If humans increasingly doing more, and being able to do more, is part of the equation to our environmental issues, increasing our ability to do more(which is the only thing that sustainable energy can possibly be about, or else why make a collective investment in it...if we wanted to do less, we could just do less, no massive investment required), no matter what energy we use, isn't going to do much to alleviate the situation.

The interstate highway system. One of many examples you could add to the list you mentioned in terms of being a boon for human progress. It's also one of the worst things we've ever done environmentally.

[NoOneMan]

120. Maybe we are

Civilization has systematically assimilated or destroyed all cultures that did not agree with them during the last 6000 years and brainwashed (or forced through debt) its population to adhere to its mantra (a lot of hyperbole there). Why would it surprise you that the citizens of the industrial world, by and large, cannot conceptualize existence without seeing it through the lens that civilization has forced upon them since birth?

Sure, much "progress" can be done in sustainable energy, but always remember that progress requires energy, and energy requires fuel, and the best fuels we have now are coal and energy. When we call for progress--as of right now--we are calling for the burning of coal and oil.

And even if this new energy can be unlocked, we have no idea if the old energy will be shunned (perhaps it will be cheaper and sold elsewhere). All we know is that we have more energy, and whenever we've had more net energy, we've had more industrial and population growth. That is a fact. And with more growth, we will have more complexity and more problems of another nature.

[marions ghost]

18. I think we are way behind in dealing with it

so whether we can get ahead of it is questionable. Sea water rise began abruptly in 1987.

It will take a concerted effort from the US and China. We have to lead the way.

With the oil barons and vulture capitalists in control, I don't know if that will happen.

If we don't do something on a major scale, immediately--we are in bad serious trouble.

[TransitJohn]

19. Not until it's profitable. eom

n/t

[joshcryer]

74. It will always be profitable as long as external carbon costs aren't subsidized...

...or as long as it's in the ground.

[Honeycombe8]

20. We have already done some things. Not much, but more than a Repub would do.

First and foremost, the largest miles per gallon required increase in history (54.5 mpg by 2025).

Setting aside millions more of natural land for preservation.

Credits to encourage the use of alternative fuel sources, like solar and electrical autos (this is what got hybrids started).

Cash for clunkers, to get the worst offenders off the streets.

I'm sure there are other things, but that's what I know off the top of my head.

Proposal for 80% of electricity required to come from clean energy sources.

[Champion Jack]

22. The big question would be ,is it too late?

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Not as long as it's politically expedient to bloviate about "clean coal"...

for votes in West Virginia and Pennsylvania and Kentucky, and as long as it's more politically expedient to say "we're going to expand drilling for oil and natural gas" than "we need to reduce our petroleum dependence and cut greenhouse gas emissions". Because people are stupid and selfish and shortsighted and "I want a bigger house but can't afford one closer to work" trumps "but it's a 35 mile drive one way", and because American urban planning and home construction for the past half century has been such as to create cities that are unlivable without dependence on cars, and houses that are unlivable without central a/c and heating. So yeah, in other words, not any time soon. Start telling people they have to sacrifice and change the way they live? Not going to happen, people just won't until it's too late.

[AverageJoe90]

32. Too late? We don't know that, and it'll really only be inevitable if we give up hope.

Just remember, the Civil Rights Movement wasn't built by hopelessness. Neither were labor unions, or the Patriot militias of the Revolutionary War, and also true for the environmentalist movement.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. Too late.

Arctic sea ice is predicted to be gone in the summer as soon as 2013. That much more open ocean leads to greater absorption of solar heat (ice is reflective, remember, because it's white), and greater warming still. All the credible science says we're probably kind of fucked. Short of, I don't know, detonating nukes in Pacific volcanos to trigger a massive planetary ash shroud, or something.

[Politicub]

40. Well I guess we should just lay down and die, then.

But...
Oh no not I. I will survive. As long as I know how to love I know I'll be alive.

I've got all my life to live, I've got all my love to give...

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. Didn't say that, but things are probably not going to get any better.

And this whole "but but SCIENCE WILL SAVE US" attitude is just, really, not very helpful; not when the scale and immediacy of the problem are not obvious and people aren't prepared to make the sacrifices required, and politicians lack the will to do anything.

Also, do you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion?

[NoOneMan]

47. We wont have the luxury of picking and choosing who makes it through the bottleneck

So you might as well stay here. It might be better odds than the lottery.

[AverageJoe90]

125. If a global bottleneck even occurs.........which may or may not occur.

[NoOneMan]

128. And extreme, population threatening climate change may or may not occur

Paired with fresh water shortages (from agricultural exploitation of glacial deposits) and economic instability (excaberated by more expensive energy production), I don't think the outlook is entirely rosy, especially considering the complex food supply system that we depend upon.

But hey, maybe I am just a "doomer".

[AverageJoe90]

132. Not necessarily a "Doomer" in my view.

These are all real problems that we could face at some point. Some places already are, in fact.

[AverageJoe90]

53. Who's predicted 2013?

Most of the credible scientific evidence I've seen says that this happening as early as 2016-17 is definitely possible at this rate. But anything much earlier than that, We'd have a better chance dying of a heart attack than Arctic ice being completely gone by 2013. Not really impossible, but highly unlikely.

The earliest prediction I've heard lately is from Peter Wadhams and his worst-case prediction is 2015.

[Spider Jerusalem]

55. Okay, 2015.

And a difference of two years matters little, really. Still the same problem. And still the same lack of action. At this point the only thing that would arrest climate change would be going carbon-neutral; that's not going to happen. Given the scale of the problem and the changes required to meet it, two years from now might as well be tomorrow.

[XemaSab]

56. This hits closer to 2014 than 2015.

[NoOneMan]

58. Sweet. And I was getting worried

2015. Time is on our side.

[marions ghost]

41. Scientists do worry that it may be too late

not that we shouldn't try...in fact, we MUST try.

Look, the Civil Rights movement is a social issue--we are talking about Nature here--global systems. No comparison can be made. Nature is affecting us way beyond any nice human "environmental movements" dontcha think? We're not talking how many plastic bottles can be made into a fleece jacket.

It's pretty big arrogance to think we can reverse global systems & effects without a HUGE global commitment. And so far the US is completely negligent and obstructionist.

"End Climate Silence" the guy said on his pathetic sign in VA today. It makes ya want to cry. This is ALL we've got as a public voice for action on this????

Get real--we're way behind.

[TheKentuckian]

60. I feel ya but this is a horse of a different color, to an extent.

Social justice movements aren't bumping heads with the physical laws of the universe.

In this game there is a such thing as too late and real world impacts well outside the personal and even human consideration and scale.
As of today, there are no other worlds to live on that is something that can't be punted down the line forever and the more punting that is done the bigger the problem becomes and there is a point were physics wins.

Social justice isn't a science and math problem and is completely isolated in impact to humans. Solved by pure volition. Hell, other than labor and fair pay it usually has little to no actual cost and those things tend to be peanuts in the big picture.

[AverageJoe90]

62. Here's the issue I have, though:

In this game, there are tipping points and such, yes. But virtually none of the credible scientific evidence says that it's too late for us to do anything to make things better(or even that there is such a point for the most part), nor does it say certain other things some people(in general, not just this site) claim it does.

What the research and the physics do tell us, though, is that the more action is taken, and the sooner it's done, the (relatively) better off we'll be, and vice versa; if we do too little, we may indeed be unable to avoid catastrophe. But again, it does NOT say that we will, or even can for that matter, reach a point where even the best actions do absolutely nothing.

[joshcryer]

72. Natural gas is the real issue and it's embraced by environmentalists.

Natural gas is touted as being "better than coal" but when emission analysis are done it's really not the case.

[adigal]

29. You are right, people are fighting over gas in NJ and Staten Island right now

The irony makes me weep.

[NoOneMan]

30. I have more faith that a virulent flu strain will do something about

Or a nuke. Or a drought causing worldwide famine. etc. You get the point.

Humans do tend to excel at can-down-the-road-kicking.

[AverageJoe90]

31. We don't know yet.

Sadly, I think most of us, myself included, can concede that the worst-case scenario of 'Business as Usual' of 5-7*C warming(with feedbacks such as methane in play, but without negatives, however) by 2100 is indeed possible.

But there are people working together to make our hopes a reality, at least as much as possible; people like Peter Sinclair and Pacala & Sokolow, amongst many others: Even some people in the DU community are part of the direct effort: our very own A Geek Named Bob is just one of them.

[marions ghost]

46. Voices crying in the wind...

A Geek Named Bob sure has his work cut out for him. I know he's doing all HE can--I don't think many people are listening.
That takes leadership from the top, leadership that consults the top scientists and thinkers of our time.

There is no political will to come to terms with this --unless we can "fire up" some of these elected officials.

[AverageJoe90]

69. We've got to least keep trying.

Remember the efforts of those who fought for Civil Rights, Labor Unions, and even our nation's independence. We owe it to future generations, and people like A Geek Named Bob, and many others, are helping to make a better future possible.

[marions ghost]

102. We have no choice but to keep trying

the alternative is to die in our own nest. We are slightly smarter than bands of chimpanzees who just exploit their environment and move on. We have no place to move on to (& neither do the chimps anymore).

This isn't just a matter of activists fighting for a cause, a social or political change. The revolution needed in our way of living is so profound that it MUST be fully addressed by our leaders. We can hardly even imagine how different the world must be for us to survive long term. The best minds must be on top of the solutions and all the resources we put into "wars" must be diverted to it. If the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" didn't make the concept simple enough, what can?

Given the quality of leadership I see, I'm not sure we're gonna make it.

[AverageJoe90]

122. Oh, we'll make it all right.

But our lives are going to be a hell of a lot tougher overall by the end of the century with 6*C warming, than with 2-3*C warming.

[marions ghost]

123. We may not make it

with good quality of life. Much suffering ahead. I don't see any political will to begin the process of dealing with it. We don't address long term solutions in this country. Exploitation, greed, corruption, selfishness rule. We don't have the right psychological makeup as a nation anymore, if we ever did. This is THE Number One issue of our times...and it's left up to a few people posting on message boards and holding up handmade signs to get any attention to it?????

As you can see, I'm not hopeful for sanity to prevail. Not anymore. Not in America.

[AverageJoe90]

127. Maybe, but....

Just remember, that right up until the mid 1950s, for example, there was NO political will to deal with the Civil Rights issue. It took some dedicated people to force this issue to the forefront, and the Establishment fought tooth and nail to keep Southern apartheid alive.

Support for the Labor Unions didn't take off until 'Muckrakers' like Upton Sinclair shouted the truth from the rooftops, and made people learn the terrible truth about what was happening.


It may definitely take a while yet. But if we were able to achieve civil rights in the '50s, and Labor Unions a say in the pre-WWI era then we can definitely combat climate change.

[marions ghost]

130. I see these times as different

the anti-forces are much more powerful. Also those issues you cite were more debatable at the time. This problem is not open to opinion--it's a scientific fact. Don't mean to diminish what people accomplished then--it worked for the times (but in many ways we are still fighting those same battles--so it's not over and done).

We don't have time for any more debates on climate change. We don't have time to sell it through a lot of slo-mo grassroots networking. We need ACTION (yesterday). People can see the work that needs to be done after a devastating hurricane but they don't see the work that needs to be done to avert cascading environmental disasters that will result from just letting this ship hit the pier.

We don't have "awhile." Yes I am worried (I have connections to scientists (marine particularly) and I also reflect their worry). It's just very hard to get any REAL sweeping changes when you can't persuade on rational grounds, only on emotional. It's up to the leaders to lead with the data they are given. Let's just say that I have concrete personal evidence that not only do leaders not want to hear about it, they will actively discourage & thwart rational citizen/scientist input. It's discouraging. Part of it is that they don't understand the science.

Glad you're more hopeful. I try but there's not much that is hopeful out there.

[AverageJoe90]

134. Well.

The truth is, the "anti-forces", as you call them have actually LOST much of the concrete power they used to have before WWII. Otherwise, segregation would still be totally legal and the labor unions would have passed into history a long time ago. They are being pushed into a corner and desperately lashing out now, because they know that their time is running short.

It's just very hard to get any REAL sweeping changes when you can't persuade on rational grounds, only on emotional.

That may be true for some. But there are a lot more people out there who will be persuaded on rational grounds than some might think....I was one of them.

"Glad you're more hopeful. I try but there's not much that is hopeful out there."

Part of the reason why this is is because I just don't buy into far-out, crazy, and sometimes just plain irrational nonsense, such as the ever-popular 'Venus Syndrome' fears or "Humanity will go extinct!!!one!!one!!1!". The truth is, a major part of the problem we've been having is that this same stuff has really helped drown out the legitimate warnings & concerns put forth by people such as Peter Sinclair(our very own Greenman3610, btw!), the guys and Skeptical Science, and others; not intentionally so, but that's the effect that it's had, and in fact, I've even seen some deniers jump on this as an attempt to excuse & justify their (unfounded, irrational) beliefs about global warming being 'non-existent' in their view.

We've got a long way to go, but as I said, the powers that be have lost much of their concrete power over the past 60+ years and if we keep fighting, something WILL give eventually. Let's just hope it's sooner rather than later for our sakes.

[marions ghost]

136. I dont worry about deniers

--they'll always be behind the curve--it's the smarter people who suspect but don't want to face it and remain silent when they should lead--those I worry about.

I don't buy the analogies with successful social movements. We could be dragged backwards very easily.

This isn't about a fight for justice so much as a non-partisan, rational mandate for change. It takes wisdom and vision. I don't see those qualities being appreciated in politicians today.

[AverageJoe90]

137. If it weren't for exemplary guys like JFK and LBJ.....

Civil Rights might have just remained a dream in the South until the day this country would have likely fallen apart a la the Soviet Union.

It takes wisdom and vision. I don't see those qualities being appreciated in politicians today.

The majority of politicians in the '50s didn't really have a lot of wisdom either.

[NoOneMan]

129. Its not always all bad news

Devastating climate change will likely collapse the economy and give many people a chance to reset where we are (or the economy may even collapse before the climate is devastated, giving the climate a chance to heal). A generation or two may get a less complex life. They may be able to shift the entire human paradigm from a debt-base, growth driven world. We might have some of the most exciting times ahead of us, as we throw off the industrial and agricultural yoke and go back to the land (as hurt as it might be).

If you don't starve.

[marions ghost]

131. Not exciting to starve...

seems we could do better than just letting it hit the fan.

But you may be right.

[NoOneMan]

133. We could do much, much better

Imagine a world where governments invests not in production, but in setting up transition teams to work with every municipality. Imagine the government spending money not on "clean coal", but on planting a massive amount of trees to improve carbon capture for generations (fyi, FDR was a true visionary and caused the planting of 2 billion trees).

If we gave up the Star Trek dream of infinite industrial & technological growth, humans would have near infinite sustainability.

[AverageJoe90]

138. It certainly could turn out that way.

The only way it'll happen for sure is if we give up, though. Which is why we can't afford to stop fighting.

[RobertEarl]

37. I know you are wrong!!

We will build shitty seawalls around every coastal city.

[Politicub]

39. With an attitude like that, I doubt you will. I believe yes we can!

I don't see how people with such a defeatist attitude can crawl out of bed in the morning.

[spanone]

42. naaaaw, i'm a tad more optimistic

[Poll_Blind]

43. XemaSlab, sometimes a message like yours is so obviously true, it's infuriating.

And so +1 and a K&R for speaking the simple, though unpopular truth.

PB

[AverageJoe90]

54. It could be true, yes.

But that should make us want to do our part in doing our best to make sure that it doesn't come to pass, do you agree?

[Poll_Blind]

104. Of course. But I read XS's "we" as our government, not "us" individually.

BTW, the "we" also extends to most other nations, as well. I'm not trying to lay all the blame for this on the US govt. China, for instance. I doubt we can get them to do shit on that front at all.

PB

[AverageJoe90]

124. I do believe you, btw.

But the one good thing about this is that China's not likely to survive in its present form for too much longer. That bubble they've been building up is bound to explode one of these days, and when it does, I'm afraid the results will be catastrophic for them. The reason I do see a silver lining is because Chinese industry won't be able to keep polluting for much longer after a collapse.

[sendero]

45. I know...

... but I'm not sure how many others know.

Humans never solve problems until there is a clear imperative to do so.

While you might think there is, the right/corporate fuckers have sown enough doubt to ensure that nothing is done.

Plus, any real solution would require the cooperation of the developing countries like China, India, Brazil - and that is not going to happen, PERIOD.

Get used to erratic weather. It's coming, and there is really not jack shit you can do about it.

[Le Taz Hot]

50. Yep.

Too many campaign contributions from big oil at stake.

[Yul A]

59. Agreed

When our dogs start spontaneously combusting, we might start paying attention.

[BlueMan Votes]

61. I just hope that I live long enough to see some of the REALLY BIG shit starts happening

and stuff keeps happening even quicker than all the models have predicted...so i just might get lucky.

[AverageJoe90]

63. A good part of this could just be due to just plain bad luck, though.

Some people may scoff at this, but even though the models aren't perfect, there are those such as myself who cannot help but suspect that some of this extreme run of weather has been due to just plain crappy luck probability wise. I just don't think the models are quite as flawed as some may think.

I can of course, understand if some people may disagree, but this is something that is well, well, within the realm of possibility, much more than some may think or want to believe.

[BlueMan Votes]

66. I'm not really talking about weather models as far as things happening faster...

I was thinking more along the lines of sea ice and glacier melting.

maybe a HUGH chunk of the greenlad ice sheet will slide into the ocean all at once- enough to raise sea levels about a foot or so all at once would make for some good cnn broadcasts.

[AverageJoe90]

67. That, too.

Just so you know, B.M.V., I do very well realize there is a serious problem and that human activities are behind at least a good part, if not the absolute majority of that(and frankly, I am now leaning towards the latter). But also, I'm not at all willing to discount the possibility that we've just happened to beat the odds as far as predictions are concerned, at least in some cases, such as the Ice Sheet melting about a decade and a half ahead of schedule.

[joshcryer]

73. You already have.

This chart is before Katrina, Sandy, etc.

[BlueMan Votes]

105. i'm not talking about weather events.

there have always been hurricanes, and always will. I'm talking about the totally cataclysmic stuff- ocean level rise, or failure of the gulf stream circulator...stuff like that. it's GOING to happen- so it might as well happen in my lifetime.

[flvegan]

65. Let me know when you go vegan. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

71. Of course not. It would be terribly inconvenient to a lot of very rich families

and the industries they control. Even those that acknowledge the truth are not willing to have their ox gored just to save a bunch of poor, brown people.

[coalition_unwilling]

113. In a few short sentences, you have demystified the entire problem and its causes. No one

thus far in this thread has laid the blame at the feet of 'capitalism' but I will be the first. We must shift to a global economic system built around meeting people's need, not indulging their greed. Either we do that as a species or we perish as a species. It's really that simple.

[DevonRex]

75. LOL. nt

[Zorra]

84. Yes. So it is up to all of us to kick them to the curb so we can fix it.

[MrSlayer]

98. Nope. And there really isn't anything that CAN be done about it.

That horse left the barn a long time ago. Even if we (U.S.A.) do everything possible to lower carbon emissions and all that, you're never going to get China and India and other countries that now have industry to stop. It's too late. We've passed the point of no return. All that's left is to adapt. It's sad but that's the way it is.

[librechik]

117. sadly agree

the only comfort I can take is that there probably wasn't much we could have done about it anyway, even if we had jumped on that rainbow horse on day one. The ones in charge would have tripped that horse out of the gate, sure. But Mother Nature is difficult to tame. What kind of weather modification could we have pulled once the skies were full of crap? We could have cleaned things up a lot more, but the inevitable would still await us.

I'm not sure I believe that, but it does comfort me.

[HiPointDem]

101. I think it's pretty clear what "we" are going to do about it. "We" are going to use it as the excuse

to inflate more bubbles in food & energy, through idiocies like carbon trading, while telling the population that climate change is the reason for their continuing impoverishment & war around the globe.

[Uncle Joe]

108. It depends on whether the tipping points of sufficient human/societal awareness are reached before

the environmental tipping points arrive.

Thanks for the thread, XemaSab.

[Viking12]

126. Nothing? Really?

I guess that depends on who you vote for.

I'll stick with the guy that has been doing this:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/regulatory-initiatives.html