Skip to main content

View Diary: White House Meeting on Arctic Media Blackout (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I severely disagree (7+ / 0-)

    if we took it upon ourselves in a full mobilization we could completely decarbonize in 10 years.

    •  don't believe everything you think (4+ / 0-)

      It's not going to happen.  

      But if fantasy makes you happy that one is as good as Middle Earth or Westeros . . .

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:58:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "If" is what New Minas said. (7+ / 0-)
        if we took it upon ourselves in a full mobilization we could completely decarbonize in 10 years.
        So she's right. We could do if we were united. We're not united.
        It's not going to happen
        .

        So you're right also.

        Anyways, we had Commies & Terrorists to fight the last 50 years. Our ultimate contribution to the world as its first unmatched global super-power...fiddling with bogeyman as the world came down around us.

        America's greatest political dynasty...the Kaan

        by catilinus on Wed May 01, 2013 at 02:55:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I seriously doubt (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rovertheoctopus, Roadbed Guy

          that we could "decarbonize" air transport in a decade (though we could, I suppose, do without it).  I also doubt that we could "decarbonize" surface transport in a decade (replacing the entire fleet and (with what?) the fuel infrastructure that supports it).

          We can easily imagine doing things that we can't actually do . . .

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:02:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  electric powered vehicles (0+ / 0-)

            and a massive public transportation infrastructure that is based on renewable energy would do it.

            The thing is, if we don't do it then our grandchildren will suffer and die within a global collapse of civilization.

            •  We'll need more than renewables to save us (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deward Hastings, Brooklyn Jim

              Let's also appreciate that we need a paradigm shift in our grasp of the "economy." This is more than policy, of course. That means a rapid transition away from the growth nonsense that perceives man-made currencies as a metric to assess the quality of the economy. That means shifting away from consumerism: smaller, denser metro areas that use less land area; resuable and recyclable consumerism; traveling shorter distances; eating locally; utilizing less water from unsustainable sources like aquifers.

              The fact of it being a political problem is hardly the lone factor. It's largely societal and economic, which, for all intents and purposes, drive policy for the most part. Getting even 60% of society to agree that global warming is a.) happening, b.) man-made, and c.) a mostly negative feedback to our civilization is one that has taken heaven and earth to arrange despite all evidence in support. I won't fathom all day the idea of this being "impossible" or "certain" that we'll "change", but realistically speaking, I'd just base our forecast on the current situation. The appreciation of a long-term scale that climate change occurs within is not a strong-suit of humanity. We're going to get intermittent "hottest year ever" reports and circumstantial evidence like droughts, hurricanes, flooding, and (maybe within a decade) significant famine or dislocation of people. But I know too many humans have far too short of a memory. The financial crisis of 2007-2009 being one recent instance. Global warming? Feh. I'm even less optimistic. Not to be a downer. It just is what it is.

              "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~Edward Abbey ////\\\\ "To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships." ~W.E.B. DuBois

              by rovertheoctopus on Wed May 01, 2013 at 07:52:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  easy to say (0+ / 0-)

              impossible to do.

              We do not have the capability to replace the entire fleet with not-even-designed-yet "electric powered vehicles", and we do not have the capability to provide the necessary energy from "renewable" sources.  India can barely keep the lights on as it is . . . where are they going to get the power to run electric cars and trucks?  Or the energy and resources to build them?  And Americans . . . give up the SUV for an electric golf cart?  Not likely . . .

              Even the fastest possible build-out of nuclear capacity would have a hard time covering both the needed growth and replacement of existing coal/gas/oil fired power plants . . . and we know how likely that is.

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:09:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Suburban car centric culture (0+ / 0-)

              Big box stores, etc. Its a heavy lift.

              .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:50:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Why, New Minas, do you think this? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreyHawk, WarrenS
    •  And that would produce little effect. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WarrenS

      As we've already passed the point of no return. We either need to develop technology to reflection sunlight away from earth, or technology to capture carbon from the air. That's it. We're reduced to a magic bullet or Venus.

      •  That is not true (0+ / 0-)

        it must not be true.  

        because the idea of reflecting sunlight with geoengineering is a self-defeating game.  We will have to halt CO2 emissions if we want to prevent a +8C scenario.

        •  Must not be true? (0+ / 0-)

          Well enjoy your convictions.

          But since every piece of data we get shows this is happening worse than we thought and at a faster pace, I think we've run out of options.

          •  no, it only means (0+ / 0-)

            that we have to work harder and faster, not that it is too late.  Now, when we get to 450 it will be far too late.  The only uncertainty right now is whether or not we can mitigate the levels to slow the thaw of the permafrost, and if there is a reasonable reforesting project that can increase CO2 removal.  A 10 year u.s. decarbonization strategy with a 20 year global decarbonization focus and a 100+ year biosphere recapture program will do it.  Otherwise I fear we will have a precipitous population collapse in 40 years.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site