Think about it a bit, Josh.
You wrote this paragraph,
You cannot deny that we are not on track to stem emissions before 2.0C, indeed, you, being the big expert you are, won't even touch it when I ask you what you think. You "won't speculate." It's not speculation to look at emissions, count how long we have until we guarantee ourselves 2.0C, and then determine what level of phaseout is necessary to get us there. Indeed, the status quo lives by the mantra "reduce some now, do the rest later." But reports that look at this strategy determine that it simply isn't enough."
Actually that is exactly what it would be - speculation. First, no matter your degree of conviction on the matter, the timeline for temperature increase is not as clear as you make it out to be. Second, the pace of our response is tied to human systems and a whole host of concerns that the humans in those systems are prey to. It isn't some kit that you put together in your garage, it is a restructuring of the entire way civilization functions.
You can argue with me all day and all night about it and your opinion isn't going to make some magic change in human behavior suddenly materialize. It doesn't matter that you are so scared you're wetting your pants about 2C; it isn't going to alter the pace of change by one minute.
Trying to shift the discussion from the human sphere and what actions are possible to the consequences you fear is nothing more than a dishonest diversion from the topic. I suspect it is diversion you feel compelled to make because you know I'm correct.
You also wrote,
"All of the corporations in the world could be 100% zero emissions for in-house CO2 utilization (Wal-Mart could buy all clean energy, for instance; coal power companies could have solar panels powering the lights inside the power plant, etc), and it would simply not make a dent in all of the consumer-related CO2 that is emitted."
This, together with your headline "If consumers do not take the brunt of the costs, then nothing will be achieved" shows that serious gaps exist in your knowledge of how the economics of the problem are shaped and how they will or will not be able to help.
Let's define costs. To me, that has two related but distinct meanings - one is a monetary burden, the other is a non-monetary burden.
Since ultimately all monetary costs are laid on the backs of consumers, it is an obvious truism that they will pay for the power they receive from noncarbon sources - and that payment will, as always, include the costs of construction.
What you are referring to is a bit ambiguous. It could either be money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay or it could be costs such as lack of services, degradation in lifestyle etc. In other words, you are saying that the onerous part of dealing with climate change belongs to the consumer.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It isn't correct to say that the consumer will have to pay money in excess of what they would otherwise have to pay. The current dependence on declining fossil fuel supplies coupled with the emergence of China and India as energy consumers and competitors for finite fossil fuel resources means that the energy security outlook for consumers is bleak.
There is very little doubt that over the course of however long the transition to renewables takes, energy sources that do not require constant inputs of fuel will act as a stabilizing influence on energy prices. The reason is simple - the costs are virtually all front loaded. You know from day one what the costs of the energy produced will be for the next several decades - it isn't subject to competition based on limited resources. If competition for the output puts upward pressure on the price the power, it is cheaper to build more renewable generation than to get into a bidding war.
So from the consumer perspective what they should see is continued service at rates comparable to today's rates. They will support the transition financially but it will not be a lump sum, it will be a redirecting of the funds they currently spend for energy from one set of energy sources to a different set of energy sources - from one set of actors on the energy stage to a different set of actors. All the consumer will see is the end result.
I can't think of a non-financial burden related to consumers that would be of any significance. There are some lifestyle changes that we could expect will probably happen, but there is little reason to think these would be considered a burden. Most non-financial burdens are associated with the present system and will be largely eliminated through the transition to renewables.
Read this carefully because it's the crux of the entire problem: the group that will suffer the "brunt of the costs" isn't the consumer, it is the owners of fossil fuel resources and the industries that will disappear when they are replaced.
The idea that the costs will fall to the consumer is a lie spread by this group to encourage the public to oppose action on climate change.
******************************
Page 2
Let me summarize your beliefs as I see them and put them in context.
You believe the problem of climate change is real, of human origin, and urgent.
I agree.
You believe that action - strong action - should have taken place decades ago and that we are now on the cusp of being too late.
I agree.
You believe that the survival of not only human civilization is at stake, but perhaps even the survival of the species.
I agree.
You believe that the above justifies any measures necessary to effect change in the most rapid manner possible.
I agree.
Now here is where we disagree.
You believe there is some way to immediately impose your list of priorities on the rest of the country; that there is some mechanism by which it is possible to make everyone abandon their priorities and adopt yours.
I disagree.
You believe that the government has the authority to act on the scale that would allay your fears without having public support.
I disagree.
When we discuss whether the profit motive or massive direct government action is best, we are really talking about these two points - what is possible.
If we had strong public support, either method would solve the problem. In the case of strong public support, I'd advocate for an approach where there was a massive public works effort that was dedicated to the goal of eliminating at least 75% of fossil fuel use within 15 years. In that time we'd be able to harness the profit motive to improve on the basic framework and infrastructure laid down by government.
But we don't have that support and those who have ownership of property that is destined to be worthless are trying their hardest to make sure we never have the avenue of direct government action available to use. They are largely succeeding.
What does that leave?
We have to fight them. That option involves creating a competing class of property owners that will fight the fossil fuel interests in their own, economic arena.
That's what Diamond and many others are working to make happen. I don't know if it will be soon enough, but I know with virtual certainty that it is the only game in town that stands any chance at all of working.
*******************************
Page 3
Finally, you wrote this bit of nonsense,
"Hansen is correct that 2.0C is upon us unless we make dramatic moves today. Saying he is not is ignorance and stupidity.
I didn't say he isn't correct about the pace of warming; what I wrote is that it doesn't matter that he might be correct. We are dealing with humans, not with the physics of climate change.
Please stop using that kind of poor logic. You're better than that; it is an example of letting your pride overpower your ethics.
Of course I could be wrong on that pride thing; it could be that you're just an internet centered alarmist that has no true grip on the issues you are opining about and no real interest in learning. Yes, it's possible that instead of just getting carried away, you could be 30% zeal, 30% bombast, 30% panic and 10% knowledge. But hey, even then if you'd change that ratio you'd accomplish a lot more than you would by being one of those who run around like a chicken with its head cut off.
But I'd rather believe you just got carried away and that you'll curb such impulses in the future.