Skip to main content

"First We Scream, Then We Act" by Nancy Steinmeyer (Cool Globes)"Those of us who spend our days trawling - and contributing to - the scientific literature on climate change are becoming increasingly gloomy about the future of human civilisation,'' said Liz Hanna, convener of the human health division at the Australian National University's climate change Adaption Network.  'We are well past the time of niceties, of avoiding the dire nature of what is unfolding, and politely trying not to scare the public. The unparalleled setting of new heat extremes is forcing the continual upwards trending of warming predictions for the future, and the time scale is contracting.''
For just a few items from the past week, join me after the fold:


This list is US dominated and isn't even complete for just the United States -- and yet this is not dominating the public discussion, "The Village" seems at best blase (with more concern over the Fiscal Cliff molehill than the Climate Cliff fissure), and the situation isn't being addressed (essentially in no country -- although some are better than others) with anything like the urgency required.  Should anyone wonder why those with the most extensive knowledge about climate change science are "gloomy" at the global inaction?

Last spring, President Obama commented that "those who have looked at the science of climate change are scared."

Several months ago, President Obama stated, in a press conference,

So what I’m going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several  months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with  scientists, engineers and elected officials to find out what can — what  more can we do to make short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then  working through an education process that I think is necessary,  a discussion, the conversation across the country about, you know, what  realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not  something we’re passing on to future generations that’s going to be very  expensive and very painful to deal with.
Last week, rumors surfaced that the WH was 'considering' a "bipartisan summit" on climate change.

Last night, amid consideration of Hurricane Sandy relief financing in the House, Republican after Republican trotted out global warming denier nonsense with scant regard for truth and disdain for truthful engagement in policy discussions.

While those most knowledgeable are becoming increasingly "scared" and"gloomy" (if not outright terrified) and  climate chaos devastation mounts around the globe,  Anti-Science Syndrome suffering Haters Of a Livable Economic System gloat in their power in the House of Representatives and we are treated to rumors about a "bipartisan summit".

Action is required ... we have long had an imperative for working to avert catastrophic impacts from climate change.  We are, in fact, already suffering what any reasoned person would view as catastrophes (Sandy, anyone ...?).  We have the potential for reducing future impacts and for averting human civilization's hurtling over the Catastrophic Climate Chaos Cliffif we begin to treat the situation with the urgency and seriousness required.

Rumors about bipartisan summits doesn't meet this necessity nor do they pass any sanity check about seriousness for engaging in the fight to protect humanity from Climate Disruption.

Is there any wonder that those concerned about Climate Change are driven to White House petition appeals for a declaration of war on Climate Change, Pray-Ins on the Climate Cliff outside the White House (with likely civil disobedience arrests), and the need for mass protests (such as the 2013 Presidents' Day #ForwardOnCLimate)?

Note:  Tom Joad and his Traveling Road Show's diary last night, Bad Policy: This Week in Climate Chaos, sparked me to write this.

Originally posted to Climate Change SOS on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM PST.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots, Climate Hawks, and Science Matters.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (186+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    luckydog, jfromga, Ree Zen, Timaeus, RunawayRose, tonyahky, fumie, zerelda, cumberland sibyl, Leftcandid, sfinx, asterkitty, Magnifico, leeleedee, marleycat, crankypatriot, chuckvw, blueoasis, davidkc, mookins, RLMiller, artisan, Paul Ferguson, maryabein, Pakalolo, Lady Libertine, JayDean, WisVoter, Rogneid, greycat, eeff, rubyclaire, subtropolis, homo neurotic, Sun Tzu, Statusquomustgo, gulfgal98, democracy is coming, cordgrass, dance you monster, the fan man, madmsf, ForestLake, jnhobbs, Dinclusin, LinSea, FutureNow, divineorder, rovertheoctopus, limpidglass, anodnhajo, blackjackal, Free Jazz at High Noon, CalLawyer817, outragedinSF, smiley7, dewtx, Renee, Rosaura, petulans, DWG, doroma, VTCC73, badger, figbash, Carol in San Antonio, Eric Blair, dRefractor, slowbutsure, AoT, RWood, Louisiana 1976, sdf, uciguy30, quill, Chaddiwicker, elziax, TiaRachel, Matt Z, BlueInARedState, radical simplicity, mofembot, offgrid, Thunder, Alice Venturi, sydneyluv, Lujane, WarrenS, DawnN, rat racer, profh, salamanderempress, beach babe in fl, One Pissed Off Liberal, mightymouse, dmhlt 66, DRo, pat bunny, Burned, skybluewater, northerntier, GDbot, NoMoreLies, Ocelopotamus, nicteis, yawnimawke, FarWestGirl, lotlizard, OLinda, praenomen, sagansong, Dreaming of Better Days, nomandates, John Crapper, Jim R, dear occupant, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Siri, 3goldens, Meteor Blades, where4art, willyr, tacet, chicagoblueohio, marina, Oaktown Girl, cai, sockpuppet, Simplify, PrometheusUnbound, mystery2me, Canis Aureus, rogeopa, Shockwave, LI Mike, qofdisks, KJG52, BachFan, No one gets out alive, Roger Fox, too many people, dewley notid, Oh Mary Oh, BYw, Independent Musings, jamess, Clytemnestra, thomask, SolarMom, cwsmoke, JekyllnHyde, Pescadero Bill, flitedocnm, pimutant, Dawgbro, chantedor, Lupin, Miss Jones, riverlover, radarlady, Steve Bloom, Calamity Jean, rapala, Ginny in CO, Sunspots, The Wizard, DuzT, jeanette0605, DSC on the Plateau, Cat Whisperer, ask, filkertom, aravir, citizen dan, condorcet, flowerfarmer, Eowyn9, collardgreens, DBunn, native, Robynhood too, RUNDOWN, Milly Watt, CA wildwoman, Robespierrette, splashy

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:34:28 AM PST

  •  I am not sure (40+ / 0-)

    how we can combat this lack of concern, especially after I read an article out of Australia off my news page.  The headlines read tht the climate scientists currently meeting in Hobart for the update to the IPCC report are saying one can't say that the current heat wave is attributatable to climate change, one season or even a series of unseasonable temperatures,  ,....   WTF??

    The scientists need to back up what they say with science, but at some point, some thirty years into the predictions of what will happen, almost each successive year becoming the new hottest year on record, and maybe it is time for the science community to grap the problem by the balls and stop temporizing.  The future of the predictions is now, there is more energy, is has been released by man, it is weirding the weather, and new records every year of highs with no new years of record lows is enough seasons to finally agree the future is now.  It is happening now.   No more backing down for the press and the politics.  If the people with the most information won't lead, how can we expect the politicians to go out on a limb?

  •  bipartisan summit (20+ / 0-)

    liberal democrat: we are in a crisis, and it needs to be dealt with now.

    republican: if god wants the earth to be warmer, his will be done.

    third way resolution: let's study it some more, do nothing, and pray.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:15:23 AM PST

  •  The smog is so bad in China that they didn't even (15+ / 0-)

    realize that a furniture factory had caught fire

    http://www.businessinsider.com/...

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:27:37 AM PST

  •  I like a fair amount of SciFi... (8+ / 0-)

    that is set in a future where the Earth is a lot warmer and civilization has gone to Hell.  That's all fiction, but more and more I think that the depictions of the planet in those books is going to be our reality in the future.

  •  not just science to public, but both together (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfromga, Dale, A Siegel

    anthropologist, philosopher, top intellectual in France, Bruno Latour says that the environmental crisis calls for a whole new understanding of our place in nature

    here is a talk from last year. A little hard to understand with his broken French. But lots of examples from science and the arts

    he has spent years doing science studies

    in his new book launch he asks us to participate with his effort. Book our later this year in a translation from Harvard Univ Press like most of his books.

    Here is a video on the env given at Science Gallery in Dublin Ireland. An enterprise to engage people in science.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Latour published a book in early 90's "We Have Never Been Modern" Been walking backwards deny the past. Effort is an anthropology of the modern

    Lecture Details
    A fifteen minute presentation of the ERC project called AIME which will be published in French in September 2012 and in English in March 2013.

    For a philosophy that is empirical and not simply empiricist, investigation offers the only way to ferret out its concepts and then put them to the test before proposing a version that can be submitted to critique by its peers. And yet, even though investigation as a genre benefits from a distinguished and intimidating prestige in philosophy, it is fairly unusual for an author to propose to carry out an investigation with the participation of his readers. This is nevertheless what I propose to do in publishing a book titled An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns, alongside a digital site that allows its visitors, who will have become co-investigators, to inspect its arguments and go on to suggest other fields to study, other proofs, other accounts. By means of this arrangement I invite my co-investigators to help me find the guiding thread of the experience by becoming attentive to several regimes of truth, which I call modes of existence, after the strange book by Étienne Souriau, recently republished, that features this phrase in its title.
    it has taken me a lot to time to get into his work

    but he addresses long term issues that I have grappled with, such as why people don't have voice in organizations. What a person does is subjective, while what I do is objective so I don't have to listen. The other dichotomy of facts vs values is one he covers. Values are what are left over science has dealt with the facts.

    here is the link from which the block quote came from and his 15 min video inviting people to participate with him.

    http://www.bruno-latour.fr/...

    •  One of Latour's most interesting articles (9+ / 0-)

      was one he did for Critical Inquiry in the early 2000s, entitled "Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?", where he looked at how his own work in science studies -- the attempt to apply cultural studies insights to scientific communities, to contextualize scientific practices as cultural practices -- dovetailed in disturbing ways with the efforts of climate change apologists to cast doubt on established scientific consensus.

      He noted that the procedures of cultural criticism tended to work by ripping the epistemological ground out from under established or received conventional wisdom, taking things that were assumed to simply be "natural" and showing them to be culturally constructed -- and therefore subject to critique. His own work tended to do this with scientific fields of inquiry, demonstrating that their own procedures worked to legitimize themselves through claims to objectivity.

      Latour was increasingly dismayed to see similar processes taken up by, say, Frank Luntz: if doubt can be cast upon the scientific objectivity of a practice, if scientific truth claims can simply be posited as one value system among others, then you can raise significant, debilitating doubts about what scientists are claiming. This approach was central to the pseudo-debates over "intelligent design," of course, but it played an especially damaging role in debates over climate change, to the degree that fewer people believe in the scientific veracity of climate change now than they did when figures like James Hansen first sought to sound the alarm over global warming.

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:33:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  letter by scientists - Obama reject pipeline (9+ / 0-)

    Climate Scientists to Obama: Heed the Planet's Warnings, Reject the Tar Sands Pipeline
    Letter issued Tuesday from 18 leading scientists urges Obama to show "climate convictions"

    http://www.commondreams.org/...

  •  Deficit +Climate Change= Carbon Tax. (5+ / 0-)

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 11:57:01 AM PST

    •  Median Income has stagnated/declined for over 12.. (0+ / 0-)

      ..years, and you want the working poor to shoulder a regressive tax?

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:43:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sigh ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, KJG52

        you are truly a broken record with a -- at best -- partially true framing.  It is tiresome to address this time after time for you to trot out this talking point again and again.

        Instead, you clearly prefer inaction so the problem is worse tomorrow.

        And, as MB so clearly puts it, "Delay is Denial."

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:00:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are two major problems in the USA today (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots

          (i) Income and wealth inequality, as bad as it's been since 1929, which continues to eviscerate the life force of the average American.

          (ii) Global climate change.

          A Siegel, I believe that (i) is far worse than (ii).

          In fact, I believe that every Dem lawmaker should ask him/herself the following as they vote on legislation.

          Will this increase or decrease income and wealth inequality.

          You want to accuse someone, one of the few Kossacks who has called for a graduated tax on wealth, of being a broken record?

          So be it.

          I imagine that the first Dems who called for an income tax decades ago were similarly described.

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

          by PatriciaVa on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:24:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you think that some Americans being (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Siegel, blueoasis, too many people

            slightly poorer right now is worse than billions dying down the road because we didn't act then you go right ahead.

            No one here disagrees with taxing the rich more, the problem is that you're putting your head in the sand in regards to the severity of global warming and misleading people with your quote from the head of the EPA about how we can't do it alone.

            Instead of dealing with the problem you blame China.

            •  Slightly Poorer? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sunspots

              The median American has seen his income stagnate or decrease over the last 12 years.

              Meanwhile, the average wage in many Asian nations has doubled over the same time frame.

              And how am I misleading anyone with respect to what the EPA director said?

              Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

              by PatriciaVa on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:23:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are completely misleading people (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                A Siegel, too many people

                because she in no way suggested that we should act, she only said that we couldn't do it on our own.

                The median American has seen his income stagnate or decrease over the last 12 years.

                Meanwhile, the average wage in many Asian nations has doubled over the same time frame.

                I'll start by noting that I don't support a carbon tax because it won't be effective and that I do support a graduated tax on wealth.  But unless you are going to actually talk about global warming then you aren't doing anything useful.  And don't tell me about stagnant income, I'm one of those people as well.  You can sit by and use economic populism as an excuse to do nothing on global warming, but you can bet that I'm not going to sit by an listen to your bullshit.
          •  As we work to address (1) (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jfromga, too many people

            (ii) just keeps getting worse and assures that (1) will always be worse into the future. Let's have equality in wealth as we launch ourselves over the climate cliff.

            Instead, the real approach is to work to assure that measures addressing (ii) also help on (i). Isn't that what Van Jones' book & green jobs work was about, for example?

            Combining a carbon tax with 1/3rd the money in rebates and perhaps 1/6th in massive EE/RE support for the lower half of the economic scale would help massively on both (ii) and (i).

            Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

            by A Siegel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:54:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why not combine it with a Wealth Tax? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sunspots

              If you were to conduct a nationwide, asking..

              The United States needs more revenue.  Two ways to get said revenue.

              (i) A carbon tax which will fall disproportionately on the working and middle-class.

              or

              (ii) A graduated tax on wealth, starting at 1% of net worth of households with net assets of at least 50M, to 8% annually for the likes of Buffet and Ellison.

              I guarantee you that the American people will choose (ii).

              As for carbon mitigation, I agree with the former EPA Chief, the same EPA Chief many of you have praised in the past.

              Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

              by PatriciaVa on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:21:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The one that thinks we need to reduce carbon (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                A Siegel

                You completely misrepresent what she's saying to the extent that I'd call it lying at this point.  We can't do it alone, but we need to act, which is what she said.  And as much as I agree that we need a graduated tax on wealth, that has nothing to do with the issue of global warming and you know it.

              •  Lisa Jackson (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                advocates action in the United States. She supported Cap & Trade.  She would, almost certainly, support a carbon fee (much more appropriate word than tax).

                She & Hilda Solis (for example) would also be supportive of efforts for environmental justice and paths for moving forward toward a clean energy economy with economic justice.

                Lisa Jackson would not, counter to what you imply (or state), advocate that the US do nothing until the PRC and India act.

                Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                by A Siegel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:29:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The problem with your repetition of this... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Siegel, Blicero

            ...mantra of yours about regressive eco-taxation is that you've had it explained to you innumerable times that there are a multitude of ways to soften the regressivity for the poor. But you ignore this.

            If you wish to dispute that regressivity can be softened, then let's argue it. But this tedious repetition of the same line DOES make you a broken record. And it makes you an ineffective advocate for your point of view.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:47:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  IF the regressivity is softened for the poor (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PatriciaVa

              which doesn't seem very likely, most days.  How many legislators are going to care?  I'd expect, "We can't afford it."  

              As for alternatives, our public transportation system is nonexistant in many areas, expensive enough to be a burden for many people when they can find it, poor people can't afford efficient cars or efficient heat in winter, etc.  They don't really have those options.  

              Just calling for a carbon tax is a bit like the chained-CPI idea [the poor can use something else], "help" for "responsible" defrauded former-homeowners, and inadequate insurance premium support.  Somehow it will be OK for the poor.  Those who are "responsible," anyway.  Sounds good, but observation says that doesn't often happen .

        •  It's all China's fault, dontcha know (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          too many people, squarewheel

          Us producing all our stuff there has nothing to do with nothing.

      •  how exactly do you think that climate change (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel, the fan man

        is going to help the 99%

        you think it's going to help ?

        big badda boom : GRB 090423

        by squarewheel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 10:25:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Clearly the answer is to stockpile guns (12+ / 0-)

    so when food supplies become scarce we can protect our stuff and shoot our neighbors.  Well, that's the right-wing answer to global warming, anyway.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:03:16 PM PST

  •  In other words (7+ / 0-)

    we aren't being nearly alarmist enough.  And we were just told that alarming messages are discounted because they conflict with "just world" beliefs.  Good luck with that crap.

    The "invisible hand" doesn't regulate the market - it wanks it. -- SantaFeMarie

    by Dinclusin on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:03:37 PM PST

  •  We really need to be calling "deniers" CTs... (8+ / 0-)

    I hate that we've spent untold amounts of energy just trying to set the record straight, parsing fact from fiction. But Mark Twain once said that lies travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its running shoes.

    The scientific theory and evidence of climate change is non-negotiable. You either accept this science or you don't. To not accept it qualifies you as a conspiracy theorist. Period. There's no confusion. And I've seen conspiracy theorists one by one, even some as ridiculous as to site Michael Mann studies as proof of this... even as the CTs only trot out the first sentence of the abstracts while the remainder of the abstracts go on to vindicate the science.

    Look, 2012 was the hottest La Nina year on record. That almost guarantees that 2012, plainly do to human activity, would have been the hottest year globally if not for the months of January and February which were hit by the tail end of the 2011-2012 La Nina conditions.

    And as a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event over the Northern Hemisphere continues to push out fatal, polar air into the mid-latitudes, I sense that once spring and summer arrive for the NH, 2013 is in the running to be the hottest year globally, no exceptions (unless La Nina reappears or some unexpected volcanic eruption occurs.)

    "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 Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:07:37 PM PST

  •  Rose colored glasses (13+ / 0-)
    And, for a positive note, research released showed the potential for serious climate mitigation action to avert 20-60% of the damage from BAU practices ... that is, we we find the social, economic, cultural, and political will to act seriously.
    We are going to blow by 2°C with what's already baked into the system.  Positive feedbacks will grow in an exponential way, not linear.  Just one point; most of the scientific papers on AGW have been severely conservative for good reasons, the main one being humans are moving into uncharted territory.  I can understand that.  Also, when DDT was a threat to the environment in the 60's it was shut down.  CFC's were banned in the 1980's with a very conservative Republican Administration, so why has it been so very hard to get consensus on AGW?  Is it because the leaders, the VSP already know that it's too late -- that the sh**'s gonna hit the fan -- so the "appointed few" are going to save themselves and screw everyone else?  Or do the VSP translate the projections and decide it won't be that bad, thus giving them and their Fossil Fuel Buddies a few more years to score big.
  •  Look, man, stop freakin' out (7+ / 0-)

    because the Free Market will provide the solution to this problem, and it will probably involve moving underground into vast corporate controlled "communities" where inhabitants will "live" and eat genetically modified mushroom paste, which can be turned into a surprising number of dishes, which taste like chicken.

  •  2013 Presidents Day (4+ / 0-)

    I'm 90% sure I will go.
    So is there away to meet you in DC
    Our meet any kossack that is there ?

    Thanks again for the work you do on our Global problem of Greenhouse Gases Pollution

    •  If you're going ... (0+ / 0-)

      send me a note privately.

      Unless business has me out of town (possible -- start-up might actually be starting up in earnest), I will be there.

      Would make sense to figure out a 'Big Orange' type meetup.

      Break -- if I recall correctly, you've done solar heating installs.  No?  Some questions came up recently.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:38:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Name names, kick butt. (4+ / 0-)

    Needed: Solid investigative reporting on the actual owners and majority shareholders of the world biggest banks and corporations who have funded and organized the mass misinformation campaigns that have undermined efforts to inform the public. Exactly who did this? And exactly how did they do it? We need to deconstruct and demystify this propaganda campaign and then broadcast that story, so people will be able to identify it when they see it, and have some immunity for this virulent social disease.

    Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. -Carl Sagan

    by howardfromUSA on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:31:33 PM PST

  •  still hoping for the environmentalist dictatorship (3+ / 0-)

    I don't see any way how a society based on infinite growth and the idea that no price is too high for freedom can do anything but hit the gas and drive full speed off the environmental cliff.

    We need some entity - police state, mass movement, aliens ... it really doesn't matter - with the power to do what is necessary to deal with the problem and far more importantly the will to use that power regardless of how many ignorant, selfish, and vested-interest people oppose it.

    Flat out stop all fossil fuel production and consumption, strictly ration the remaining energy (top priority goes to solar and wind turbine production), destroy all fossil fueled vehicles, destroy all the world's livestock (doesn't matter if you don't eat the meat if the cows are still farting and the forests are still getting cut down to make room for them), strictly ration the remaining food so everyone gets enough, worldwide one-child policy for the foreseeable future (the lower the population, the more everyone gets), paint every roof on the planet bright white, end concrete production, massive reforestation program, massive biochar production program (we still need to suck out the CO2 we've already emitted), and so on like that.

    If you resist, well ... let's just say that we achieve our goal that much faster.

    Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

    by Visceral on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:32:22 PM PST

    •  Though I'm opposed to any "dictatorship" (11+ / 0-)

      I am totally with you on the remedies that are needed. And like almost every problem we're facing in this world, global warming is a political one. Well, perhaps we're too late on the science side as the climate has been in a state of alteration for decades now, but the politics keep us

      The latest headache for me is an Alaska court ripping another one to humanity's demise:

      A U.S. court in Alaska has overturned a federal rule aimed at protecting polar bear habitat in the Arctic, handing a victory to the oil and natural-gas industry.

          The rule, established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is “valid in many respects,” but the agency didn’t follow all the legally required steps before adopting the regulation, U.S. District Court Judge Ralph R. Beistline wrote in the decision, which was dated Thursday and published Friday. …

          The government designated barrier islands, offshore sea-ice and “denning” areas, where female polar bears are known to make dens where they give birth to their young during winter months, as critical habitat. At the time of the designation, in November 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service said the areas were “essential for the conservation of the bear.”

      One thing is certain: there are many in our state, local, and federal levels of government working against the interests of everybody. You'd think it'd be counterintuitive, but this is, after all, an age when conspiracy theories rage on.

      "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 Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 12:42:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your plan would slay billions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rovertheoctopus, A Siegel

      modern agriculture depends on industrial chemical production and upon fossil fuels to fertilize, farm, and transport food to where it is needed. Your plan would cause the death of billions of people, in the name of saving lives.

      Doesn't seem like much of a plan. This stuff simply isn't that simple.

      •  But it's a (3+ / 0-)

        Great Leap Forward!!!

      •  I could argue that they're already dead (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        too many people, Sunspots

        Climate change is on track to kill billions with drought and extreme heat. Independently of climate change, peak oil will put an end to fossil-fueled civilization anyway.

        I could also argue that agriculture needs reform in and of itself.  Large-scale commercial agriculture needs a great deal of energy and hydrocarbon-based fertilizer and pesticides, but small-scale subsistence agriculture does not.  The usual excuse is that low-tech and labor-intensive organic practices won't work on real farms with 20,000 acres and a razor-thin profit margin in a good year; well, maybe the problem is the farm, and the fact that only 1% of the population grows food, not the technique.

        Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

        by Visceral on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:37:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You might be right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          A Siegel

          But then you'ere treading uncomfortably along the path blazed by the likes of LeMay, Wolfowicz, and Rumsfeld who tell us we must fight a war lest we later be forced to fight a war.

          But at least you understand your plan will slaughter billions of human beings. I've found most people who suggest a total shutdown of fossil fuel production have no idea that very production is what keeps so many people alive.

          But do me a favor. If your plan is ever enacted, please do not ask me to be one of the people who chooses who lives and who dies.

          •  Not true that fossil fuel is necessary for food (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Siegel

            in adequate amounts.  Even the UN has said that small scale, low tech production is much more efficient.

            •  Numbers say you have misunderstood something (0+ / 0-)

              This stuff can be measured. Industrialized farms deliver the most product per acre. Fossil fuels get this massive food output to cities. This does not happen w/o fossil fuels. If it were possible to flip a switch right now which shut off all fossil fuel production, the act of flipping that switch would kill billions of human beings.

              You owe it to yourself to get an accurate mental picture here.

              •  UN: agroecology can double food production (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                A Siegel

                The UN's data don't agree with you:  

                http://www.i-sis.org.uk/...

                •  Find me the arable land for 7,000,000 farms (0+ / 0-)

                  As expected you do not understand this article.

                  It deals with monculture - the overplanting of one or of very few different seed types. There are hundreds of strains of corn but a handful of these strains account for >90% of all corn gorwn.

                  This is different from suggesting tractors, combines, and modern fertilization do not make farm land more productive.

                  They do.

                  •  Doubling production/acre doubles total food (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    A Siegel

                    from the same amount of land.  You don't seem to be getting the point here.  The article says, "Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production."

                    Plus many farmers here are doing what you say is impossible.  What are you basing that claim on?

                    "Arable land" is also not only flat plowable land, over half of which has already washed away because of the way we've been using it - with fossil fuels and chemicals.  That concept, that land is only useful if it's plowed up, is a big part of the problem.  

                    Monsanto and oil are not the answer.  No soil left, no food, and "modern" methods are destroying our soil and groundwater.  

                    •  In sub-saharan Africa, where yeilds are miniscule! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      A Siegel

                      Good lord you need to learn how to process what you read. I've but glanced at that article and hace spotted two looming flaws in yout argumetns.

                      Yes, I will agree that in underdevelopend areas of the world full-scale farm industrialization will not work as well as it does in nations with modern infrastructure. E.g. a tractor does not help unless diesel fuel is available and cheap.

                      The point remains that one US acre produces much more than  one sub-saharan acre.

                      Between 1950 and 2000, during the so called "second agricultural revolution of modern times", U.S. agricultural productivity rose fast, especially due to the development of new technologies. For example, the average amount of milk produced per cow increased from 5,314 pounds to 18,201 pounds per year (+242%), the average yield of corn rose from 39 bushels to 153 bushels per acre (+292%), and each farmer in 2000 produced on average 12 times as much farm output per hour worked as a farmer did in 1950.[9]
                      That is a 12-fold increase in a mere 60 years. That does not happen without the cheap energy of fossil fuels.

                      If the entire world was reduced to sub-Sarharan farming, there would not be enough food to sustain the global population of 7,000,000. There is not enough farmland for all those people to farm for themselves, even if it wasn't impossible to move them to farms and teach them how to farm before they starved to death.

                      Do you understand that nothing happens in the universe w/o tan expenditure of energy? That includes growing food and just as critically, it means moving the food from farm to city.

                      •  The same productivity increase applies in the US (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        A Siegel

                        Intensive management can produce much more here than your preferred methods.  Why are you talking about the whole world doing sub-Saharan farming?  People farm locally.

                        You're ignoring that while volume per cow went up, quality of the milk went down [essentially watering the milk], costs per cow hugely exploded, and many many additional resources [externalities] are going into that output.

                        That corn is also much less nutritious than it used to be, it's destroying the farmland it's grown on, and there are also huge externalities going into it.

                        Energy can come from many sources.  It isn't only produced by oil.

                    •  Read the first item on the list (0+ / 0-)

                      Productivity improving technologies (historical)

                      1) Replacing human and animal power with water and wind power, steam, electricity and internal combustion and greatly increasing the use of energy

                      I swear to God, you are the only person I have ever encountered who has suggested human productivity has declined since the onset of the industrial revolution. This is Flat Earth stuff.

      •  "Modern agriculture" is already dooming itself (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel, Visceral

        Most of our topsoil is already gone, the structure and micro-organism balances necessary are destroyed in much of what's left, GE genes are in bacteria in animals' [and our?] guts, still churning out Bt toxins.

        All a result of depending on chemicals and fossil fuels, although clean agriculture actually can produce more, and definitely better, food.  

        Farmers in India are committing suicide in  large numbers because they tried "modern agriculture" and were ruined.

    •  Not quite so far ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      but, well, these are the sort of measures we are being driven to. Those most 'fearful' of government seem clueless that their efforts to forestall action on climate change are going to make (a) the damage more severe and (b) the eventual response to the situation more severe. Neither is good.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:40:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Klaatu and Gort are busy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, A Siegel

      we're just going to have to do this for ourselves and stop waiting for someone else to save us.  We don't have to turn into totalitarians thugs to do it either or we  won't be worth saving.  If we can't learn cooperation for the greater good, then  next great extinction needs to take us and the planet gets a clean slate to start over with.  Why is force always the answer to every problem for some people?

      •  I'm reminded of a passage from "The Dispossessed" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfromga, A Siegel, ybruti

        Between an alien, the protagonist and an anarchist, and the ambassador from an earth many years in the future that ended up like the commenter above suggests.

        He was silent, watching her, his light eyes steady.

        “My world, my Earth is a ruin. A planet spoiled by the human spedes. We multiplied and gobbled and fought until there was nothing left, and then we died. We controlled neither appetite nor violence; we did not adapt We destroyed ourselves. But we destroyed the world first. There are no forests left on my Earth. The air is grey, the sky is grey, it is always hot. It is habitable, it is still habitable, but not as this world is. This is a living world, a harmony. Mine is a discord. You Odonians chose a desert; we Terrans made a desert...We survive there, as you do. People are tough! There are nearly a half billion of us now. Once there were nine billion. You can see the old cities still everywhere. The bones and bricks go to dust, but the little pieces of plastic never do — they never adapt either. We failed as a species, as a social species. We are here now, dealing as equals with other human societies on other worlds, only because of the chanty of the Hainish. They came; they brought us help. They built ships and gave them to us, so we could leave our ruined world. They treat us gently, charitably, as the strong man treats the sick one. They are a very strange people, the Hainish; older than any of us; infinitely generous. They are altruists. They are moved by a guilt we don’t even understand, despite an our crimes. They are moved in all they do, I think, by the past. their endless past Well, we had saved what could be saved, and made a kind of life in the ruins, on Terra, in the only way it could be done: by total centralization. Total control over the use of every acre of land, every scrap of metal, every ounce of fuel. Total rationing, birth control, euthanasia, universal conscription into the labor force. The absolute regimentation of each life toward the goal of racial survival. We had achieved that much, when the Hainish came. They brought us ...a little more hope. Not very much. We have outlived it...We can only look at this splendid world, this vital society, this Urras, this Paradise, from the outside. We are capable only of admiring it, and maybe envying it a little. Not very much.”

        “Then Anarres, as you heard me speak of it — what would Anarres mean to you, Keng?”

        Nothing. Nothing, Shevek. We forfeited our chance for Anarres centuries ago, before it ever came into being.”

        Shevek got up and went over to the window, one of the long horizontal window slits of the tower. There was a niche in the wall below it, into which an archer would step up to look down and aim at assailants at the gate; if one did not take that step up one could see nothing from it but the sunwashed, slightly misty sky. Shevek stood below the window gazing out, the light filling his eyes.

        “You don’t understand what time is,” he said. “You say the past is gone, the future is not real, there is no change, no hope. You think Anarres is a future that cannot be reached, as your past cannot be changed. So there is nothing but the present, this Urras, the rich, real, stable present, the moment now. And you think that ia something which can be possessed! You envy it a little. You think it’s something you would like to have. But it is not real, you know. It is not stable, not solid — nothing is. Things change, change. You cannot have anything...And least of all can you have the present, unless you accept with it the past and the future. Not only the past but also the future, not only the future but also the past! Because they are real: only their reality makes the present real. You will not achieve or even understand Urras unless you accept the reality, the enduring reality, of Anarres. You are right, we are the key. But when you said that, you did not really believe it. You don’t believe in Anarres. You don’t believe in me, though I stand with you, in this room, in this moment ...My people were right, and I was wrong, in this: We cannot come to you. You will not let us. You do not believe in change, in chance, in evolution. You would destroy us rather than admit our reality, rather than admit that there is hope! We cannot come to you. We can only wait for you to come to us.”

        Keng sat with a startled and thoughtful, and perhaps slightly dazed, expression.

        “I don’t understand — I don’t understand.” she said at last “You are like somebody from our own past, the old idealists, the visionaries of freedom, and yet I don’t understand you, as if you were trying to tell me of future things; and yet, as you say, you are here, now! ...”

  •  I've been "increasingly gloomy" for years. (7+ / 0-)

    I have no optimism left at all on climate change. By the time the effects are so strong that real, meaningful action might actually be taken, it will already be too late.
     I was just listening to Bill Mckibben today and he pointed out that the amount of fossil fuels already in the "inventory" of global energy companies is 5 times the amount that scientists think we can afford to burn without crossing the 2 degree limit. 5 times. Does anyone really think that fuel won't eventually be used?
    I wish I had some reason to believe that real action might be taken in time, but there is far too much money and power standing in the way.

    •  There's also the pesky problem people like eating (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      For a site in which supply-side economics are routinely derided it is odd to see the notion advanced that people buy fossil fuels for little more reason than fossil fuel companies like selling it.

      People buy oil and coal because oil and coal are used to produce food, shelter, heating in winter, cooling in summer, creature comforts and beer. They buy oil and coal because these items are what we have on hand which provide energy in the massive amounts needed to keep 7 billion humans alive. People do not buy oil and coal because BP has identified X amount of petroleum reserves.

      Does the fossil fuel industry get in the way by spreading disinformation? Of course. But the day the better mousetrap is invented fossil fuels will be abandoned for the new game in town. Ask saddle-makers if you don't believe me.

      The problem with getting off fossil fuels is that there is as yet no other source that can deliver the same amount of reliable energy at the same "low" cost. But the day controlled fusion ever becomes viable is the day Dutch Shell stock drops by 99% - no matter how much they have identified in reserves.

      •  Not a coincidence: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DawnN
        The problem with getting off fossil fuels is that there is as yet no other source that can deliver the same amount of reliable energy at the same "low" cost.
      •  Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" (4+ / 0-)

        and then tell me about how if there were a better mousetrap it would be obvious to all and everyone would charge towards the new product.

        In actuality, the Electric Car was not killed, but merely delayed; but that's bad enough right now, given how little time there is to make such large changes.

        We could do far far better than we are doing and perhaps buy us enough time to figure this shit out. But instead we're doubling (and tripling) down on the very actions that are sending us over the cliff.

        Once civilization has been torn apart in water riots and food riots and a massive (80%) die-off has happened, there won't be the resources to find or invent the better mousetrap.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:16:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The "low cost" (7+ / 0-)

        is because we are misdefining "costs" by having so many real costs as 'externalities'.

        We can make fertilizer (ammonia) with electricity and water. Renewable systems are coming on line in the zone of competitive w/the prices which natural gas based fertilizer is sold.  We could, in 10 years -- if we chose, convert to renewable energy based ammonia fertilizer. That is only about 2% of total human emissions.  (That, of course, puts aside question of whether better agricultural practices would make this unnecessary.)

        And ...

        Market is mal-defined to give fossil fuels advantages in markets (like electricity) where they don't have a real advantage -- if we defied costs and benefits accurately.

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:50:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What about renewable natural gas (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          A Siegel

          from burning garbage and other waste? A friend wrote to me recently:

          One issue that doesn't get near enough media coverage--even among environmental organizations--is renewable natural gas.  Long story short, we can make fuel that can power electrical generation (or any other power need) from green waste and even from discarded plastic, tires, etc.   And this can be done very cleanly and in some cases actually sequester carbon.

          Biofuels that can be made from waste products (as opposed to crops grown to make biofuels) are as green as it can get because they make it possible to use less and less natural gas and coal.  If we can keep reusing (with the help of photosynthesis) the same old carbon over and over again, and even sequester some of the 400 ppm in the form of biochar, we don't have to take carbon out of geological formations (coal, oil, gas, natural gas, etc.), and we can gradually diminish that 400 ppm.

          The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. -- Judge Learned Hand, May 21, 1944

          by ybruti on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 06:29:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Elsewhere ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ybruti

            in all these comments I believe I commented about energy from waste. There are a range of waste-to-energy projects/paths out there, fuel from waste is one of those. Note that your friend's comment seems to be referring to liquid fuel from waste, rather than "renewable natural gas" -- note that both are possible and can (will) help in terms of energy into the system.

            Writ large, agree with your friend's comment -- although I feel like I do see many discussions of this, perhaps because it is a field which I 'follow'.

            Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

            by A Siegel on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:00:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  We don't have to MAKE fertilizer (0+ / 0-)

          ammonia is like a shot of meth.  It gives you a quick result but damages the soil.  Life needs a lot more than nitrogen.  

          An integrated system includes livestock - which rebuilds soil faster than any other alternative - and perennial woody crops to capture carbon.  For instance, hazelnuts for protein and oil, chestnuts for carbohydrates.  Even biochar isn't necessary; just bury unneeded wood prunings and cuttings and it not only puts carbon back in the soil, it holds moisture during droughts.

          Those systems can be just as productive short-term as "modern agriculture," better quality short- and long-term, and much MORE productive long-term.      

  •  Climate Change can't be true! (6+ / 0-)

    "Because the middle ages were warm."

    That's what I was told by a Climate Change denier who was trying to suck me into the gutter of his ignorance.

    All I can say to that is - I'm sure the 98% of climate scientists who have devoted their life to this topic and who believe climate change is influenced by human activities have taken a look at this already.  Please pass the ranch dressing.  Oy.

    "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

    by Rockydog on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:12:15 PM PST

  •  Are humans smarter than Yeast? (5+ / 0-)

    and answer is ever more obviously: No.

    The amount of carbon already in the atmosphere is good enbough for a 4-degree Celcius rise,  Burning all the remaining oil, coal, and tar sands should push us to 6-10 degrees C.

    We won't be venus with a 10-C rise, but absolutely no currently living food source will grow.

    Even if we stopped cold turkey, today.  Natural processes will likely take 30-40 million year sto return carbon levels to what they were in 1750.

    We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

    by ScrewySquirrel on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:37:49 PM PST

  •  biology teaches us that populations (7+ / 0-)

    that grow sufficiently large and dense will be thinned out.

    We are not really any different. Climate change and the consequent scarcity of food, water, and arable land will ensure this thinning, combined perhaps with a pandemic. There will be a population bottleneck: not everyone is going to make it.

    We're running up against the carrying capacity of the planet, and even if we sharply reduced each individual's resource footprint tomorrow, there would still be a bottleneck.

    It can't be avoided now, only mitigated somewhat. And even our ability to do that much is declining by the day.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:03:43 PM PST

  •  but, but, but we're having freezing temps in CA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, too many people

    (statewide) right now.  It can't be "warming".  /snark

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:31:14 PM PST

  •  113 comments, and not one which.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....addresses the primary roadblock to material action on CO2 mitigation, according to our former EPA Director.

    Jackson Confirms EPA Chart Showing No Effect on Climate Without China, India

    July 7, 2009

    Contact: Matt Dempsey matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov  (202)224-9797

    Jackson Confirms EPA Chart Showing No Effect on Climate Without China, India

    http://epw.senate.gov/...

    "I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels," Administrator Jackson said.  

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

    by PatriciaVa on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 02:41:41 PM PST

  •  Remember the Mayan Apocalypse? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, Calamity Jean

    Maybe it wasn't the end after all - it was the beginning of the end. That is, we're pretty near the point at which we either act, or go down the tubes.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:15:40 PM PST

  •  It was fun burning all that fossil fuel (5+ / 0-)

    But the fact is: It's too late to do anything.

    Oh.... we could reduce our population immediately by 75%; we could give up our energy rich lifestyle; we could go back to being simple farmers; we could level things between the rich and the poor.

    Sad to say, the chance of this actually happening is zero.

    Human animals, with the power of the industrial revolution and our winner-take-all capitalist growth model of perpetual human progress, are a cancer on the earth.  Billions, most  of us, will die; the earth will pass through a hot phase climate epoch, with a mass extinction event that has already begun; evolution will create new forms; and nature will not care.  

    Labor was the first price paid for all things. It was not by money, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased. - Adam Smith

    by boatwright on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:32:45 PM PST

  •  Society needs to take an evolutionary leap (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cumberland sibyl, A Siegel, jfromga

    Create instead of consume, cooperate instead of compete.

    I don't think we have it in us.

    It's a pity the 60's youth culture of the affluent western world didn't take tighter hold and flourish.

    The Aggressively Ignorant Caucus is getting aggressively ignorant again.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:39:54 PM PST

  •  also, continuing racism, sexism, violence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    all make me hopeless.

    i know there is always hope, and i hang onto it for my kids.  

    Ted Kennedy: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”

    by jlms qkw on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:58:54 PM PST

  •  Yup, it is over. And the saddest part? (4+ / 0-)

    The animals won't understand why they are suffering slow, lingering, deaths. If this was only going to affect selfish humans, I'd say, well, karma's a bitch. But the animals are going to go down the drain with us.

    They didn't deserve this.

  •  How does the Nature Climate Change paper... (0+ / 0-)

    ...with that famous word "could" differ from the Pacala and Socolow paper that used the same word, "could" in 2004?

    It doesn't.

    Not one bit.

    I'm am personally sick of "could."

    I'll look the paper up though, and down load.   How much do you want to bet that it's just a re-hash of Dennis Hayes 1978 book put out by the World Watch Institute?

    I quote an excerpt from page 5:

    Meeting five-sixths of the anticipated world energy budget in the year 2025 with solar technologies could involve using more than 70 billion square meters of solar collectors and 7.5 million megawatts of solar cells.   World hydroelectric capacity would be quadrupled, five million wind turbines would be constructed, and about 15 percent of the world's forests would be devoted to raising wood as an "energy crop".   Commitments of this magnitude are certainly possible over a 50 year period, but they are unquestionably ambitious.
    A substantial body of literature has documented the technical feasibility and social desirability of solar sources.   More jobs and less environmental deterioration- would be created per unit of energy than with any other source.  The security of the energy supply would be enhanced.   Individuals, neighborhoods, regions, and nations would become increasingly self reliant.   And this new energy system would be sustainable for as long as the earth remains habitable
    How exactly, did that 1978 "substantial body of literature" play out?

    One would think we're very close to the solar nirvana.

    Repeating these mantras over and over and over and over and over and over and over will have the same effect as saying 52,134 Hail Marys and 213,811 Our Fathers to end climate change.

    •  Huh ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indycam

      which/what "Nature Climate Change paper" are you referring to here?  

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:04:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whoops. I followed one of your links to the... (0+ / 0-)

        ...primary literature source, as is my habit, since I regard almost all of what is written by journalists on energy and science as being terrible hack jobs.

        Your link, from your text was this one, containing that magic word for the last 50 years of wishful thinking "could."

        Emissions limits could cut climate damage by two-thirds: study

        I've read so many of these clueless "studies" over the last decades - going back to Amory Lovins tripe in the 1970's - that if I ever require an effective emetic, I can print them and wall paper my house with them.

        I'll be sure to throw up regularly, or at least shit myself.

        The link to which the Reuters article refers, the primary source, is the Nature Climate Change reference which is here:   Nature Climate Change 3,4–6(2013).

        I generally read this journal since I keep time with this disaster.   I didn't however, pick this particular article up.   Of course, I'm not big on prayer, so I don't put much stock in this kind of neo-Pacala and neo-Socolow stuff.     These kinds of wishful thinking prayers didn't work with the bubonic plague, which was alsomostly addressed with ignorance, fear and superstition, much as climate change is being "addressed" with ignorance, fear and superstition.   Ignorance, fear and superstition didn't work then and it won't work now with the comparable disaster now with (at least in absolute numbers) the much worse disaster of climate change.

        You've been writing diaries here for about a decade, and of course Amory Lovins has been writing famously or infamously since 1976, and he trained Joe Romm to spew the same stuff as he did, and he's been at it for more than a decade.

        Did you happen to grab a hold of where 2012 came in on the historical ranking of annual increases in toxic dangerous fossil fuel waste concentrations in the planetary atmosphere as measured as Mauna Loa?

        It is the second worst in history, exceeded only by 1998, when Joe Romm was running the climate office.

        I'm sure it's only a coincidence that two of the world's largest economies shut all their nuclear plants in paroxyms of fear, ignorance and superstition, right?

        Which reminds me, speaking of fear, ignorance and superstition...

        If you happen to encounter Joe or Amory, please thank them on my behalf for all of their efforts to destroy the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy because their imagination about how the so called "waste" could kill someone someday helped to assure us all that 3.3 million people per year - half under the age of 5 - 9000 a day, 377 per hour, 6 to 7 eveery minute, one every 9 to 10 seconds could continue to die, um, continuously from dangerous fossil fuel and dangerous biofuel waste.

        Heckuva job.   They must be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very proud of their efforts.     Tell them for me to buy a great bottle of wine with all those Suncor "consulting" fees and toast their great success at "saving" the world from nuclear energy.

        Oh, and I'm sorry about not being explicit about where the paper came from.   I have a way of chasing things to their sources.

        In the old days I might have written a diary on that Nature Climate Change paper, but to be sure, it would have proved as useless as all the other diaries and web pages devoted to climate change in the last few decades, as the 2012 figures show.   So I'm certainly glad I didn't bother.

        Have a great week.   As always, it's been a pleasure to chat.

  •  There are simply too many people.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    who will go down in opposition or apathy to the real science of CC.  The destruction will be televised and to the last these opponents will attempt to blame "radical environmentalists" for the demise of the environment.

    "There wouldn't be as many forest fires if there weren't as many forests".

    Change will have to occur in spite of the opposition, not in conjunction.  It will never happen.  How many examples do we require?

  •  In 1992, 1700 scientists warned us (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:31:48 AM PST

  •  I might have an interesting perspective (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    I know (don't exactly work for) people who are very interested in Natural Gas prices.

    The only thing they wanted for Christmas was a COLD winter.

    Eventually hardly any of them will be able to afford to sustain bcuz not just commodity prices, but actual pipeline, delivery, etc companies make a lot less when it's 45 not 22.

    Last year was a wreck for ALL of them. If anyone they should want global cooling. We'll see. I see strange bedfellows.

  •  Can you say human environment check? (0+ / 0-)

    There are too many people and like rabits, we have put too much pressure on our environment.  The human population is due for a crash.  Not sure which of the 4 horsemen is going to do the checking, but they are coming for a visit.

    Any guesses what the toll will be when they get here?

  •  with the oil industry salivating about new Arctic (0+ / 0-)

    resources, easier to get to because the polar ice cap will soon be nonexistent for a few months every year, what hope?  Best recognize it will be 100,000 years (at best) before this is over, and 1 million years at worst.  As the primary emitters, we should have plans to give new homes to an awful lot of Indian Ocean and Pacific islanders and millions of Bangladeshis when the time comes.  But no, we're the Alfred E. Newman of the globe.
    The good news is, there would have been an Ice Age 50,000 years from now, and that's pretty much canceled thanks to us ;)

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, sdf, Renee, Lupin, JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, Marek, filkertom, teacherken, Timaeus, roonie, Trendar, native, badger, madmsf, RunawayRose, Shockwave, Pescadero Bill, tacet, OLinda, eeff, Rachael7, ask, mkfarkus, barath, evelette, Eric Blair, Miss Jones, figbash, pat bunny, Gruvkitty, TiaRachel, crankypatriot, DSC on the Plateau, Neighbor2, wordwraith, riverlover, outragedinSF, Oaktown Girl, zerelda, JayDean, Emmy, BoogieMama, rapala, marina, radarlady, 3goldens, qofdisks, subtropolis, Independent Musings, Alice Venturi, dewtx, Laurence Lewis, FutureNow, oregonj, Sun Tzu, The Grace Kelly, where4art, Burned, lotlizard, Ginny in CO, the fan man, mightymouse, xaxnar, Jim R, Paul Ferguson, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Milly Watt, Clytemnestra, tonyahky, AoT, The Wizard, Magnifico, mystery2me, luckydog, blueoasis, praenomen, Rosaura, boatsie, Dinclusin, democracy is coming, profh, Steve Bloom, Dreaming of Better Days, Statusquomustgo, bstotts, DBunn, One Pissed Off Liberal, FoundingFatherDAR, RWood, Cat Whisperer, offgrid, aravir, nicteis, FishOutofWater, DWG, artisan, Barry Allen, jnhobbs, rovertheoctopus, uciguy30, Don midwest, Roger Fox, limpidglass, cumberland sibyl, KJG52, VL Baker, jamess, Calamity Jean, Lujane, Ocelopotamus, dewley notid, mofembot, petulans, doppler effect, BYw, sagansong, 6079SmithW, dmhlt 66, sydneyluv, SolarMom, jlms qkw, squarewheel, Louisiana 1976, rubyclaire, divineorder, LinSea, cantelow, Carol in San Antonio, maryabein, dRefractor, elziax, Keith Pickering, jfromga, boatwright, Leftcandid, collardgreens, flitedocnm, mookins, cordgrass, gulfgal98, Lady Libertine, cai, DrTerwilliker, Oh Mary Oh, Pakalolo, slowbutsure, FarWestGirl, asterkitty, smiley7, marleycat, thomask, VTCC73, salamanderempress, blackjackal, Sunspots, too many people, RLMiller, DRo, SouthernLiberalinMD, No one gets out alive, DawnN, IowaBiologist, quill, Eowyn9, anodnhajo, cwsmoke, Siri, jayfisher, a2nite, doroma, ricklewsive, peptabysmal, Robynhood too, Canis Aureus, Dumas EagerSeton, Steve Canella, bisleybum, Chaddiwicker, ForestLake, nomandates, John Crapper, atana, argomd, idbecrazyif, Neapolitan, dear occupant, goodpractice, Ree Zen, northerntier, RUNDOWN, sfinx, CalLawyer817, richardvjohnson, CA wildwoman

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site