2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe fundamental problem with fracking other than
poisoning our freshwater systems and potentially creating earthquakes is in fact making the price of gasoline cheaper.
If fossil fuels are cheaper this creates an adverse condition for developing and utilizing sustainable energy sources.
Only three months in, and 2016 will almost certainly be the hottest year on record.
April 19, 2016
By Tom Randall
The Earth is warming so fast that it's surprising even the climate scientists who predicted this was coming.
Last month was the hottest March in 137 years of record keeping, according to data released Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It's the 11th consecutive month to set a new record, and it puts 2016 on course to set a third straight annual record.
Now, it might seem premature to talk about setting a new yearly record after just three months of data, but these months have been such an extreme departure from the norm that Gavin Schmidt, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has already made the call.
"I estimate 99 percent chance of an annual record in 2016," Schmidt wrote on Twitter last week, after NASA released its own record climate readings. A month agofollowing the release of February's dataSchmidt wrote, simply, "Wow."
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-04-19/earth-s-temperature-just-shattered-the-thermometer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141420536
Edit to add Fracking and the burning of natural gas also releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere as well.
For anyone to claim they believe in fighting against anthropological climate change by developing sustainable energy sources while also promoting fracking is the absolute zenith of being disingenuous.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)more drought, more floods, more poverty, acceleration of species extinction and more warfare as a result of fighting over reduced resources vote for Hillary.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)a lot more expensive which could lead to large losses of affordable housing.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)and not caring what direction she wants to drive the nation.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)No nukes, certainly.
So.... no power whatsoever?
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)sources will take their place, however Hillary would prefer to play Russian Roulette and keep us addicted to the game.
Sustainable energy sources that don't contribute to the destruction of human society are the greatest power of all.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)faster under Bernie than Hillary.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)We'll need to get those fossil fuels from somewhere, and I'm assuming you'd prefer to use the cleanest energy available. So, no coal. Petroleum is also filthy. Natural gas is the most efficient in terms of production and energy yield, lowest carbon emissions, no waste, and incredible abundance. Or... what?
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)releasing massive amounts of methane; which is an even greater heat trapping gas than carbon dioxide.
There is nothing clean about it.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)If we stop fracking (for both gas and oil), we start importing 50% of our energy again, and energy prices will at least double.
Do I have this right? This is the plan?
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)replace our addiction to environmental and societal destroying fossil fuels.
Breaking an addiction is rarely easy but prolonging it serves no good purpose and can lead to an early death.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I will say that if I were the Energy Czar for this country, highly regulated and monitored fracking of natural gas and petroleum would be my centerpiece. No deep well injection of waste with no exceptions (earthquakes in OK drop back to baseline). Coal continues to fizzle out. Nuclear remains on the back burner until they figure out the waste issue.
Transitioning to renewables is the second pillar of the plan. Fewer subsidies, but not zero.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)fracking only serves to prolong our and the rest of the world's addiction to fossil fuels.
When fuel prices were higher more efficient cars were being developed as gas prices dropped SUVs started coming back into vogue, the same thing happened in 70s with the oil embargo as more people started driving smaller cars when gas prices dropped we went back to larger automobiles.
polly7
(20,582 posts)And, this: The fossil fuel industry will be phased out, solar, wind, geothermal and other sustainable energy sources will take their place, however Hillary would prefer to play Russian Roulette and keep us addicted to the game.
Sustainable energy sources that don't contribute to the destruction of human society are the greatest power of all.
Hopefully, much sooner than later. This planet cannot wait.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)There is no reason for resistance to it any more, and whomever is elected needs to push this through. Period. We can't pander to people or play games any more.
There are many options for bio and for waste burning to create power. There will never be an end to manure and waste in this country.
There are probably many more methods of generating power that I'm not even thinking of.
Every bus, car and train (and ships) should have solar built into it.
Our planet is dying.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If they don't extract it, they won't profit from it.
For the price of the Second Iraq War, we could have built a 100-percent renewable national energy grid.
Thank you for an outstanding OP, Uncle Joe.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Onlooker
(5,636 posts)It's up to local communities, it must not affect groundwater, and the fracking chemicals must be divulged.
But the reason Obama (and Hilary) are for fracking have little to do with climate change, and a lot to do with energy independence. One of the reasons our economy has recovered so nicely compared with the rest of the western world is that fracking has allowed us to keep energy costs down.
There are trade-offs in everything.
What I don't get about Bernie is that he's against everything including nuclear energy. Most climate scientists favor nuclear energy as a short term clean energy solution while better alternatives are being developed. Bernie, rather than supporting the scientists, support the environmentalists. I don't see how Bernie's climate change plans actually get implemented. How does he take away so many sources of energy without having things to replace it with? Most renewable energy sources are still being developed and are still quite expensive.
reddread
(6,896 posts)warmest year ever already
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Consider Bernie wants to fuck up international trade, I doubt he's going to get a lot of buy in from the international community. It's a lot more complicated than Bernie's simple prescriptions, but hey simple gets votes -- Reagan understood that, and so does Bernie. Maybe it's the wisdom that comes with age?
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)the development of sustainable energy sources.
"Energy Independence" means nothing if we destroy the environment in the process.
If you're a heroin addict and the price of heroin goes down is that a good thing?
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)That bill invested billions in the development of sustainable energy sources. There is a lot going on in the US in this regard thanks to Obama and the Democrats. It's because the economy is improving that people are able to invest in alternative energy sources. My sister installed solar panels on her house a couple years ago. The cost was $40k, but with various government incentives, the cost fell to $11k, and if they generates excess energy, the electric company buys it back from him. But, thanks to Obama there is a lot going on with sustainable energy.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Energy infrastructure[edit]
Total: $21.5 billion[48][49]
$6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear weapons production sites)[50]
$4.5 billion for the Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability to modernize the nation's electrical grid and smart grid.
$4.5 billion to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings (GSA)
$3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration for power transmission system upgrades.
$3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration for power transmission system upgrades.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment[edit]
Loans and investments into green energy technology are a significant part of the final bill
Total: $27.2 billion
$6 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies loan guarantees
$5 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes
$3.4 billion for carbon capture and low emission coal research
$3.2 billion toward Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants.[51]
$3.1 billion for the State Energy Program to help states invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy
$2 billion for manufacturing of advanced car battery (traction) systems and components.
$800 million for biofuel research, development, and demonstration projects.
$602 million to support the use of energy efficient technologies in building and in industry
$500 million for training of green-collar workers (by the Department of Labor)
$400 million for the Geothermal Technologies Program
$400 million for electric vehicle technologies
$300 million for energy efficient appliance rebates
$300 million for state and local governments to purchase energy efficient vehicles
$300 million to acquire electric vehicles for the federal vehicle fleet (GSA)
$250 million to increase energy efficiency in low-income housing
$204 million in funding for research and testing facilities at national laboratories
$190 million in funding for wind, hydro, and other renewable energy projects
$115 million to develop and deploy solar power technologies
$110 million for the development of high efficiency vehicles
$42 million in support of new deployments of fuel cell technologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
The war with Iraq by comparison has cost our nation to the tune of closing in on 2 Trillion dollars.
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study
The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.
The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war's death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.
The report, the work of about 30 academics and experts, was published in advance of the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.
It was also an update of a 2011 report the Watson Institute produced ahead of the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks that assessed the cost in dollars and lives from the resulting wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
(snip)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
When I spoke of the "Marshall Plan" in regards to sustainable energy strictly speaking from what was invested in post WWII Europe that would be over 130 billion in today's dollars and personally we should exceed that as the stakes are even greater.
The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Western Europe, in which the United States gave $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of March 2016) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II. The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.[1] The Marshall Plan required a lessening of interstate barriers, a dropping of many regulations, and encouraged an increase in productivity, labour union membership, as well as the adoption of modern business procedures.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)... and like it or not Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have at least some connection with critical players just about everywhere. I'm not sure Bernie will be as effective at negotiating with dictators and despots as will Hillary. But, whatever negotiation takes place, if you think that free trade won't figure in, I think you're wrong. Bernie's plans are simple, but I don't think they are realistic. No country is going to support our efforts on global warming if we're also doing what we can to close off our markets. There are no easy solutions.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)negotiating skills with dictators, despots nor democratically elected leaders.
Other nations have their own self-evident vital interests in regards to the issue of cooperating on the global warming climate change issue, indeed a fair number of them are ahead of us.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)She did not attempt to generate glory for herself, and basically worked to heal some of the anger created during the Bush years. She largely calmed things down and earned the US a lot of good will. I think she did a really good job, and was not narcissistic about it. I also think if Gore was president, he would probably have a fairly similar approach to that of Hillary and Obama -- negotiate on a variety of matters with the world to secure gains in climate change. I don't think Bernie has anything to negotiate with considering his stands on free trade, American involvement overseas, and protecting American jobs first. I just think it's an awfully complicated situation.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)I don't view Libya nor Honduras as "calming things down" or creating "good will."
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Whatever Obama and Hillary's geopolitical calculations were around that issue remain to be discovered, but I suppose when Bernie voted to topple Saddam in 1999, voted for war appropriations in 2001, and so much supported the Kosovo war that he had protesters arrested, he too had his geopolitical calculations.
At any rate, after the primary season, I hope you involve yourself in helping the Hondurans, lest it appear that you are simply exploiting them for political ends.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)he wasn't going to abandon funding them.
There is nothing "sudden" about my concern for overthrowing democratically elected leaders whether it be in Honduras or anywhere else.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts) the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here.
Henry Kissinger to Augusto Pinochet, June 8, 1976
Henry Kissinger, realpolitiker nonpareil, never gave a damn about human rights. Cut out the political science lectures, he once scrawled on a cable from the US Ambassador to Chile reporting on atrocities. Now, his proclivity for getting into bed with the most vicious of violators is exposed in a recently declassified secret memorandum of a private conversation with Gen. Augusto Pinochet that took place in Santiago, Chile, in June 1976.
The release of the memcon (first obtained by journalist Lucy Komisar) could not come at a worse time for Kissinger. With Pinochet still under house arrest in England for crimes against humanity, the transcript reveals Kissingers expressions of friendship, sympathetic understanding and wishes for success to Pinochet at the height of his repression, when many of those crimestorture, disappearances, international terrorismwere being committed. The document also shows that Pinochet raised the name of former Chilean Ambassador to the United States Orlando Letelier twice, accusing him of giving false information to Congress. In response, Kissinger said nothing, forgoing the opportunity to defend free speech and dissent in the United Statescomments that might have deterred the car-bomb assassination of Letelier and his associate Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC, three months later.
(snip)
In Years of Renewal, Kissinger concludes his section on Chile by implying that his moral persuasion worked: Within Chile, human rights abuses subsided, especially after Pinochet disbanded the counterterrorist intelligence agency responsible for most of them in 1978. He conveniently omits all reference to the most heinous act of international terrorism ever to take place in the US capital, the Letelier-Moffitt murderscommitted by Chiles terrorist secret police on Kissingers watch.
Perhaps the Chileans thought that Washington would overlook this atrocity, as Kissinger appeared to do with the thousands of other barbarous acts. At the end of his meeting with Pinochet, Kissinger concludes with an Orwellian complimentgiving the general credit for advancing the cause of human rights. I want to see our relations and friendship improve, Kissinger says in a passage not found in the memoir: We want to help, not undermine you. You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende. Otherwise Chile would have followed Cuba. Then there would have been no human rights.
http://www.thenation.com/article/kissinger-and-pinochet/
Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a United States-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973 that overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward.[6][7][8] Pinochet had been promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the Army by Allende on 23 August 1973, having been its General Chief of Staff since early 1972.[9] In December 1974, the ruling military junta appointed Pinochet President of Chile by joint decree, although without the support of one of the coup's instigators, Air Force General Gustavo Leigh.[10]
From the start of the new military government harsh measures were implemented.[11] During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured.[12][13][14] As of 2011, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,065
(snip)
Pinochet's 17-year rule was given a legal framework through a controversial 1980 plebiscite, which approved a new Constitution drafted by a government-appointed commission. In a 1988 plebiscite 56% voted against Pinochet's continuing as president, which led to democratic elections for the Presidency and Congress. After stepping down in 1990, Pinochet continued to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army until 10 March 1998, when he retired and became a senator-for-life in accordance with his 1980 Constitution. However, Pinochet was arrested under an international arrest warrant on a visit to London on 10 October 1998 in connection with numerous human rights violations. Following a legal battle he was released on grounds of ill-health, and returned to Chile in March 2000. In 2004, Chilean Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia ruled that Pinochet was medically fit to stand trial and placed him under house arrest.[9] By the time of his death on 10 December 2006, about 300 criminal charges were still pending against him in Chile for numerous human rights violations during his 17-year rule, and tax evasion and embezzlement during and after his rule;[19] he was accused of having corruptly amassed at least US$28 million.[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)... he was considered effective. One can respect effective people. I think Bernie respects Jim Inhofe, the leading climate denier in the Senate, for instance.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Bernie just stated that Inhofe was personally likable but he didn't agree with his stance on the issues.
Kissinger was an effective war criminal.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)athena
(4,187 posts) To the extent our leaders have cared about climate change, theyve fixed on CO2. Partly as a result, coal-fired power plants have begun to close across the country. Theyve been replaced mostly with ones that burn natural gas, which is primarily composed of methane. Because burning natural gas releases significantly less carbon dioxide than burning coal, CO2 emissions have begun to trend slowly downward, allowing politicians to take a bow. But this new Harvard data, which comes on the heels of other aerial surveys showing big methane leakage, suggests that our new natural-gas infrastructure has been bleeding methane into the atmosphere in record quantities. And molecule for molecule, this unburned methane is much, much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
(snip)
The Obama administration, to its credit, seems to be waking up to the problem. Over the winter, the EPA began to revise its methane calculations, and in early March, the United States reached an agreement with Canada to begin the arduous task of stanching some of the leaks from all that new gas infrastructure. But none of this gets to the core problem, which is the rapid spread of fracking. Carbon dioxide is driving the great warming of the planet, but CO2 isnt doing it alone. Its time to take methane seriously.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)It's a hard line to accept. We all want our gas prices to go down and many of us can't afford a new electric car. So when prices go down, we are happy, even if it means it's not good for the cause. So we need to be diligent and fight for what is right, even at the cost of our gas prices going up.
This of course hits the poor the hardest. Something that Bernie should work on is a cheaper electric car model with tax incentives or even for those too poor to pay income taxes, some kind of monetary incentive to buy an electric car.
I'd love to have a Tesla, but even the new cheaper version is so far beyond my means...I'll never have one.
Good topic Joe.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)to sustainable energy sources, including subsidizing efficient vehicles, I believe it would go a long way in a positive direction.
Thank you, passiveporcupine.