Skip to main content

I have often wondered where would be a good place for my young son to go one day to ride out catastrophic climate-changed earth. It is sounding more and more like there's nowhere to go that is best suited to survive the coming catastrophe.

If climate change continues on its current trajectory, the report concluded, Midwesterners could see deadly heat-and-humidity pairings (which meteorologists call "wet-bulb temperature") two days every year by later this century.

"It will be functionally impossible to be outside, including for things like construction work and farming, as well as recreation," said climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University.

[snip]

The Southeast is expected to be hit with an additional 17 to 52 extremely hot days per year by mid-century and an additional 48 to 130 days by 2100. That could prove deadly for thousands: "Risky Business" projects an additional 15 to 21 deaths per 100,000 people every year from the heat, or 11,000 to 36,000 additional deaths at current population levels.

http://www.reuters.com/...

Thanks "conservatives" for "conserving" Koch brother profits instead of your kids futures.

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

  •  Sec skins. (24+ / 0-)

    Second skins and living in domes.  Artificial plant and soil and animal smells.

    Smells like...progress.

    I know.  Probably in bad taste to joke about it.  

    "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." (Artemus Ward)

    by Silencio on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 05:24:25 PM PDT

    •  all now life safety critical. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote, blue muon, mrashby9

      the batteries die, or something leaks, and it's like being
      undersea or in space.

    •  Bad taste? It's not even a joke! (15+ / 0-)

      People will be walking around in suits 100 times more sophisticated than the Mercury astronauts' flight gear.
      Frank Herbert's Dune will be regarded as prediction rather than fantasy.
      I'm no alarmist, and I don't think we'll see an entire planet of desert in less than 100 years.
      But thanks for adding to the chorus.

      •  That was what I was thinking... (10+ / 0-)

        Everyone going outside will have to wear a still suit to condense their sweat, body fluids to recover the water loss.

        "Death is the winner in any war." - Nightwish/Imaginareum/Song of myself.

        by doingbusinessas on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:22:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Animals (other than pets) and plants don't have (7+ / 0-)

          that option. Remember when the West Nile epidemic took out a lot of songbirds? Yeah, like that but worse.
          David Brin described the possible dystopic situation to a "T" in one of his novels, even down to folks wearing a device like Google Glass.
           

          This comment is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.

          by blue muon on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:49:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know the reference... (0+ / 0-)

            David Brin and "a 'T' in one of his novels"...?  Is there an easy way to summarize that?  Or should I use The Google?  

            "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." (Artemus Ward)

            by Silencio on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The reference sounds like (0+ / 0-)

              Brin's novel, "Earth", although I don't remember the Google glass part.

              •  It is there (4+ / 0-)

                He has people with glasses that record everything they see in that novel. I haven't read the book since the Bush the Elder administration, but Brin is a competent scientist and "hard" science fiction writer (I say "competent" like I'm in a position to judge, but these days "competence" is high praise to me...). At the time he wrote the book he described it as "the most optomistic" future he could imagine. I should really check out his online presence, because I'd bet he's commented on "how he did" in that novel as time has passed...

          •  YEP! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War4Sale, jqb

            PLEASE PASS THIS ON. More people need to understand what is at stake here like you already do.

            We KNOW who caused this. We CAN still STOP THE DIRTY ENERGY, WAR PROFITEERING CLIMATE DESTROYING BASTARDS.

            The following quote from a peer reviewed book is of extreme importance to all Americans:

            Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

            "As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

            In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

            So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

            Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.

            This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless loss of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.

            If all this was just about power politics, I might not be that concerned. Humans, particularly the overly ambitious and aggressive ones, have always fought and schemed to control and fleece the population at large.

            But now we know the future of our biosphere is at stake. Now we know the entire edifice of dirty energy is a knife in the back of the biosphere that will destroy our species and many others.

            The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that is saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

            Mother nature will force it to do so.

            Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a switch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the consequent die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

            We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

            If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates) in 2017. But millions of people demanding a transition to 100% renewable Energy will give us a fighting chance to win the Climate Victory.

            You can help us leave dirty energy sources that are killing us behind. I started a petition on Care2: Demand Liberty From Fossil Fuels Through 100% Renewable Energy WWII Style Effort. I'm hoping that if enough people sign my petition, we can make a difference. Will you help me collect more by adding your name?

            Posters to download and print to publicize the petition:
            [img]http://www.createaforum.com/...[/img]
            [img]http://www.createaforum.com/...[/img]

            Here is the link to the petition:  http://www.care2.com/...

            For those who don't wish to bother signing or are concerned for your "privacy". Hello? Hello? This is the year 2014! By 2030  periods where the "Humid Heat Stroke Index" is so high that the human body can no longer maintain a normal core temperature will become common. Home Sap is on the short list for extinction!

            That is sorta more important than hiding from the NSA or the CIA now ISN'T IT? And I DO NOT see ANY of the home addresses or e-mail addresses anyway, Care2 does! So, if you CARE about future generations,  you  have ZERO excuse, unless you are a bought and paid for climate denying, war profiteering LOW LIFE GREEDBALL, for NOT signing.

            Accept the fact you are a NIHILSTIC DEATH CULT ACCESSORY to the HOMO SAP SUICIDE or sign here (and pass this on to everyone you care about to sign too!).
            http://www.care2.com/...

            Pass it on. The Planet you save may be your own.

        •  Pardon me, but let's get real here. (3+ / 0-)

          There are people in this country who can't afford more than one pair of shoes--and those they have to get from some local charity.  The economics of protecting individual humans from the effects of climate change, long-term, are simply impossible.  Who's going to pay for all those space-suits?

          Right now, in many parts of this nation (e.g. Arizona), people are forced to stay indoors, or in their air-conditioned cars (there's your space suit, and if you're too poor to own one, TS) during daylight hours.  I don't live there, but I was amused by a baseball broadcaster calling Giants-Diamondbacks game who observed that the poolside areas of hotels are absolutely deserted.  (BTW, you can pronounce that dee-zerted or desert-ted and get the meaning as a combination of the two.)

          Here in the Bay Area, I've noticed for a while now that I don't need to plan a trip to Mexico.  If I live long enough, Mexico will come to me--its people (many, and I'm grateful for that!) and its climate (for which I'm not grateful).

        •  One minute correction: (5+ / 0-)
          Everyone going outside will have to wear a still suit to condense their sweat, body fluids to recover the water loss.
          Change the word, "Everyone" to "The rich" and you're forecasting the future.

          When the projections come out of, "So-and-so many people will die," what the scientists delicately fail to mention is the fact that, probably, 94% of the dead will be poor.  And, these days, it seems to me that the numbers of the poor are growing.  

          The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men - - Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We must be the change we wish to see in the world - - Mohandas Gandhi

          by twocrows1023 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:42:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Like Dune? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Silencio

          Except we have no spice and no way off this rock, at least right now.

      •  More Venus than Dune (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jqb

        It won't be a planet of desert, but of steam bath.

      •  We have that weather already.... (0+ / 0-)

        The Gulf Coast already has that weather. We live in it. No suits required. Y'all Yankees just need to learn how to take siesta and not eat certain things in the heat. And we know several different ways to cool dwellings. Switch to efficient led lighting and live at night, like a big chunk of the world does already.

        You think in terms of the factory schedule imposed in the nineteenth century, factories that got us into this mess,but look farther back and people have lived in high heat and humidity always. Just on a different schedule amongst other things. Having lived with no air conditioning in South Louisisana, its doable. The Americas got settled, didn't they?

    •  Elon Musk thinks (4+ / 0-)

      that we should therefore move to Mars. Where, purely coincidentally, we would likewise have to wear spacesuits and live underground. But hey, it's entrepreneurial! And cool tech! Whereas walking around on Earth in spacesuits and living underground is soooo 20th Century.

      Musk's clubhouse chums and other assorted captains of industry no doubt love this prospect. Imagine what the price of your one-way ticket would be! Ka-ching!

      And you'll probably end up getting a center seat between two fat guys. Plus a tiny bag of peanuts.

      No person is free except in the freedom of other persons, and that man's only real freedom is to know and faithfully occupy his place -- a much humbler place than we have been taught to think -- in the order of creation. (Wendell Berry)

      by DocDawg on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:52:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I keep asking this... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrashby9, Silencio

        Musk and many others keep blathering about "humans on Mars"...

        BUT where are their boring plans for how to get sufficient infrastructure, construction machines, farm equipment, processing equipment, machines that MAKE machines, residential housing units and so on up there...

        NOTHING except crickets.

        Oh, yeah and "you can make it out of..." fill in the blanks.

        I want details, dammit.

        Ugh. --UB.

        The Republican Party is run by the KOCH BROTHERS.

        by unclebucky on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:14:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I suggest you take the crickets out of your ears (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gwennedd, Mislead, dcnblues, jqb

          I assume you and Doc Dawg have never heard of Tesla, right? The company that's making the electric car a real alternative, not just a symbolic "green" effort (y'know, like the "plug in hybrids" that switch to gas after a few miles, or the electrics that can barely make a round trip to work on a charge). And he's building the infrastructure to support them--he's said his plan is that the Tesla charging station network (offered free to all customers) will be powered by renewable energy. He's putting his money where his mouth is, owning one of the biggest solar panel installation companies in the country, and just last week announcing the acquisition and massive expansion of a solar panel manufacturing company right here in the USA. Like one gigawatt per year manufacturing capacity... to start, with future expansions planned.

          Yeah, he's said he hopes to die on Mars ("just not on impact"), but he's smart enough to know that colonizing another planet requires a healthy economy on this one, and that healthy economy's dependent on a healthy ecosystem.

          Maybe, just maybe, not all rich people are like the Koch brothers.

          •  Here you go...info on Elon Musk (0+ / 0-)

            A fo ben, bid bont. - Welsh proverb. ( translation: If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)

            by Gwennedd on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:20:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Who is "HE"? (0+ / 0-)

            You refer to a company building an electric car and over and over to a "he" who is building the infrastructure...but who is he? Nikola Tesla has been dead for over 80 years, so who are you referring to?

            •  The "he" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jqb

              would be Elon Musk, who would be selling thousands of those electrics if the Big Three hadn't slapped him with injunctions.

              •  Um, he -is- selling thousands of electric cars... (0+ / 0-)

                and the Big Three haven't slapped him with injunctions. The only real legal troubles they've had are against car dealerships in some states which have a legally protected status that prevents Tesla's "direct to consumers" sales model from being allowed. And Tesla has sold and shipped thousands of Roadsters and tens of thousands of Model S. Tesla's total EV sales should break 100k within a few years.

                The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                by Rei on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 06:32:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Reading trouble? (0+ / 0-)

              The comment thread is clearly and explicitly about Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors.

          •  Infrastructure... (0+ / 0-)

            Nearby there is a house foundation being built. I presume that in other places in this burb other foundations are being built. Also, there is at least one warehouse, factory or some kind of large building for residential or industrial. Also, there are streets, curbs, underground conduits and so on. Further, there are vertical structures, such as poles, towers and so on that have to be built.

            All of these things require MACHINES to make them. How do we get these machines on Mars? 3-D printers???

            Now, I am not denying the fact that this can be done. In fact the opposite. But I don't see anything but the "cars" and "caravan trailers", nothing of the destinations.

            The crickets still indicate that we don't see how infrastructure and infrastructure-making equipment will get there before, during and after a first-strike team arrives. The crickets also tell me that some redundancy plans are sadly lacking. The crickets tell me that a lot of sacrificial lives will be taken to make a point.

            I want to see how we will get there. Just as Eisenhower wanted his planners to tell him how a critical mass of invasion force would be gotten to the Normandy coasts.

            Now, let me suggest just one thing to scare you into my point of view and hence my suspicions. The Allied Invasion of France incorporated a pretty nifty item, the Mulberry Harbour System. They worked all right until a heck of a storm took them out. After the storm, several of them were shot to hell. A few could be repaired or rebuilt. The reason why was that the spare parts and repair teams were only across the English Channel. What if Musk is smart enough to deliver a Mulberry-type solution to something but not smart enough to deliver enough critical mass and redundancy to the colony and the whole thing goes in for lack of a proper spanner?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            Ugh. --UB.

            The Republican Party is run by the KOCH BROTHERS.

            by unclebucky on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:28:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  There are several people I would like to nominate (0+ / 0-)

        for the first ship. They can afford the tickets, too, but heck, I think we could pass the hat and pay their way...

        Babylon system is the vampire... ~Bob Marley

        by sfinx on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:56:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Musk is doing a million times more good and (0+ / 0-)

        fighting climate change than some troll attacking him at DK.

    •  We Can't let this Happen! (0+ / 0-)

      We KNOW who caused this. We CAN still STOP THE DIRTY ENERGY, WAR PROFITEERING CLIMATE DESTROYING BASTARDS.

      The following quote from a peer reviewed book is of extreme importance to all Americans:

      Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

      "As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

      In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

      So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

      Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.

      This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless loss of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.

      If all this was just about power politics, I might not be that concerned. Humans, particularly the overly ambitious and aggressive ones, have always fought and schemed to control and fleece the population at large.

      But now we know the future of our biosphere is at stake. Now we know the entire edifice of dirty energy is a knife in the back of the biosphere that will destroy our species and many others.

      The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that is saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

      Mother nature will force it to do so.

      Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a switch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the consequent die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

      We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

      If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates) in 2017. But millions of people demanding a transition to 100% renewable Energy will give us a fighting chance to win the Climate Victory.

      You can help us leave dirty energy sources that are killing us behind. I started a petition on Care2: Demand Liberty From Fossil Fuels Through 100% Renewable Energy WWII Style Effort. I'm hoping that if enough people sign my petition, we can make a difference. Will you help me collect more by adding your name?

      Posters to download and print to publicize the petition:
      [img]http://www.createaforum.com/...[/img]
      [img]http://www.createaforum.com/...[/img]

      Here is the link to the petition:  http://www.care2.com/...

      For those who don't wish to bother signing or are concerned for your "privacy". Hello? Hello? This is the year 2014! By 2030  periods where the "Humid Heat Stroke Index" is so high that the human body can no longer maintain a normal core temperature will become common. Home Sap is on the short list for extinction!

      That is sorta more important than hiding from the NSA or the CIA now ISN'T IT? And I DO NOT see ANY of the home addresses or e-mail addresses anyway, Care2 does! So, if you CARE about future generations,  you  have ZERO excuse, unless you are a bought and paid for climate denying, war profiteering LOW LIFE GREEDBALL, for NOT signing.

      Accept the fact you are a NIHILSTIC DEATH CULT ACCESSORY to the HOMO SAP SUICIDE or sign here (and pass this on to everyone you care about to sign too!).
      http://www.care2.com/...

      Pass it on. The Planet you save may be your own.

  •  Relax, Their Kids Will be Fine. (42+ / 0-)

    You think trillionaires (by then) can't afford air conditioning rated for Death Valley heat?

    Hell they'll be holding America's Cup trials under 10 mile wide air conditioned stadiums with random-variable fans for climate controlled sailing.

    We're not doing ourselves any favors by imagining they're going to wake up in a few years and see it presenting difficulties for their own kids.

    Because it won't.

    Ever.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 05:25:08 PM PDT

    •  i don't know (37+ / 0-)

      someone might have said something similar to that before the French revolution.... before shit got real for the aristocracy.

      but you're mostly right. nobody is better suited to ride it out than them.

      •  unless we make it impossible for them... (45+ / 0-)

        .... or at least difficult enough that they won't think they can buy their way out:

        1)  Progressive tax on earned income and on investment income.  Bring back the Nixon Era tax rates, and dare the Rs to dis Nixon.

        2)  Rationing electricity by need rather than by ability to pay.  Turning off electricity to someone who is going to die without it is homicide.  QED.

        3)  On "Heat Emergency" days, no usage of electricity for decorative or entertainment purposes, at all, because the electricity is needed for cooling in order to save lives.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:19:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or electronic pitchforks (6+ / 0-)

          and internet guillotines.

          Marx was an optimist.

          by psnyder on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:43:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  better yet, physical models of them. (9+ / 0-)

            Years ago during Occupy, I suggested this as a protest tactic:   "French Revolution re-enactment," with full-scale model mockups of guillotines, tumbrels (the wagons that brought the condemned), etc. etc., right down the middle of Wall Street.  (The tumbrels could be 100% real; the guillotines needed to have fake blades made of soft material such as cardboard faced with aluminum foil, to be very sure that they were not usable and thus not actual weapons or threats in any legal sense.)

            Here's the thing:  "speak softly and carry a big stick."  The purpose of the big stick is to make damn sure the other side knows you can whack them if you choose, so anything you do that's less than whacking them is being polite and civil, which encourages politeness and civility in return, or at least makes them take you seriously.  

            That's called "deterrent strength," and the key to it working is to not actually use the big stick: just "keep and bear" it, and then use diplomacy.  Or in the case of climate catastrophe and the threat of human extinction, use elections and lawsuits, legislation and journalistic exposés, etc. (and not to forget, peaceful civil disobedience actions that shut down "business as usual" in a careful and selective manner).

            There are only two evil Koch brothers.  There are millions of us.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:50:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Guillotine (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mrashby9

              stamps on cigs (instead of the $) on dollars bills etc.

              A subtle warning.

              If you want something other than the obvious to happen; you've got to do something other than the obvious. Douglas Adams

              by trillian on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:36:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I like that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek

              Here in Seattle the OWS folks re only concerned over whether or not the snacks  provided were healthy.  LOL

            •  You could do that with money too... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek

              ...something that everyone forgets.

              Thirty million people contributing a dollar a day would be ten billion a year. If all else fails, buy your government back.

              If you can't organize well enough to do that, then forget about organizing well enough to start any revolution worth its name.

              This is the landscape that we understand, -
              And till the principle of things takes root,
              How shall examples move us from our calm?

              (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

              by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:52:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Love your protest tactics, but........ (0+ / 0-)

              unfortunately for America, the vast majority of people are extraordinarily apathetic.  We are a society which operates under the "hide your head in the sand" and "if it doesn't affect me personally, then I don't give a sh*t" mantra.

              Changing things about climate catastrophe and human extinction via elections, lawsuits, legislation, etc., is an exercise in futility because politicians refuse to listen to their constituents, or scientists.  Doesn't matter what the public wants; they could not care less.  Hell, these a**holes in Congress can't even agree the sky is blue, let alone do anything meaningful for the common good.

              The kinds of things I wish would happen are the kinds of protests that occurred in Washington and college campuses across the country during the Vietnam war.  That got the politicians' attention, didn't it?  Even then, it still took years to get us out of Vietnam.

              I don't know what it's going to take to wake people up and see what's happening.  Americans have a nasty habit of electing -- and re-electing! -- politicians whose only interest is self-interest.  Even more frightening is voters routinely voting against their own best interests because they can't seem to differentiate the truth from fiction that spews from a politicians' mouth.

              The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

              by fedupwiththebs on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 05:58:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  G2 - how do you turn off the power (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, Gwennedd, Mikey

          to rich people with solar and storage who are off the grid?

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:02:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you imagine yourself to be one of those (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek, rhytonen

            "rich people"?

            G2 knows his stuff, just can't say it all here and now for your learned analysis.

            "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." - Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

            by ozsea1 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:13:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  oz - we are talking about decades in the future (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, ozsea1, Gwennedd

              when both solar and storage should be cheaper.

              Even now, while it is not at all economical, if you are wealthy and live in a sunny climate you can install enough solar and storage to live the high life, off the grid. When politicians start talking about rationing power, you will see sales of storage systems boom.

              "let's talk about that" uid 92953

              by VClib on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:17:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  which in turn will also lead to lower prices for.. (7+ / 0-)

                ... solar systems, so more people will install them, and eventually the utility will write off its coal plants and install solar farms and wind farms.  

                Elon Musk is planning for this right now, in discussions with Panasonic about battery packs and opening a battery manufacturing plant, etc.  That and building the next generation of rockets that could take us to Mars in a decade.

                We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:11:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  We're talking about decades in the future when (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                highacidity, G2geek, mrashby9, salmo

                human population will be peaking at around 9 - 10 billion people. Most of whom will be desperate to survive and migrating to places where they think they can. People desperately poor too for lack of stability in their lives. People with ready access to military grade weapons.

                All the while facing dwindling food sources.

                That's why people able to run air conditioning, people wearing special clothing, people with their lights on at night will be easy-to-spot prime targets.

                You can't just think of this as an issue of adaptation considering the collapse of the systems society relies on for stability, like food and water and habitable land. Land under growing pressures from a growing human population in a bad mood.

                We're already seeing the impact in places like the Amazon and Southeast Asia where deforestation is running rampant. The greater the human population the greater the desire to supply the demand. That's why conservation can't work while humanity continues to explode its numbers.

                All the while this population will continue to contribute more and more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

                Thinking about your comment, I can't help but picture sci-fi books and movies that depict a future where the 1% walls themselves off from the rest of humanity and live quite nicely thank you. Except that they're always on the verge of being overwhelmed by raging mobs of the desperate should their security fail. And it always does in the end.

                Many sci-fi writers over the decades have done a pretty good job of predicting what the future might hold and usually it involved scientific marvels. But it seems to me I've noticed a definite trend towards the dystopian lately.

                I'm just saying.


                "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

                by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:11:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Raging mobs of the desperate? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek, mrashby9

                  AKA bullet sponges, I suppose.

                  My father was in the area of the last cavalry charge of the First World War, Lord Strathcona's Horse at Morreuil Wood, 30th March 1918. 150 cavalrymen attacked. At the end, only fifty-one of the men and four of the horses were alive. The enemy retreated, so by World War I standards it was a great success. But my father was raised on a farm, and sixty years later those dead horses were the only things that he still got openly upset about.

                  Just saying -- if you charge a machine gun, you get dead awfully quickly. The raging mobs of the desperate would soon turn into the desperately quiet heaps of the dead. Hell, you can't even pull that sort of stunt off in a video game without cheating. Good luck on doing it in real life.

                  Desperation does not make you bulletproof.

                  This is the landscape that we understand, -
                  And till the principle of things takes root,
                  How shall examples move us from our calm?

                  (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

                  by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:03:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not bulletproof, no, but . . . (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    G2geek, mrashby9

                    highly motivated. And after awhile it likely wouldn't be simple mobs but sophisticated terrorists, who if they couldn't take over these sealed environments would sabotage them.

                    I suspect it won't get to that point. Either we'll finally wise up and do what has to be done (though that becomes more challenging with every year we delay) or the system will collapse before the 1% can get those refuges built.

                    As for all those machine guns, who's going to manufacture them and their ammunition? How will they be kept out of the hands of the 99%? (Don't say gun control; there is no way anything so draconian as a law keeping guns out of the hands of all but the most favored will pass, or could be enforced if it did.) If things reached the point of furious, hungry commoners storming the high-tech castles of the rich, there'd be a lot of shooting, and a lot of dying, on both sides. Just ask anyone who's studied French history.

                •  Saw this comment elsewhere recently (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek, mrashby9

                  If you're under 60, Sci-Fi didn't promise you moon bases and flying cars.  It promised  Cyberpunk dystopia.  

                  Wou're welcome.

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

                  by ScrewySquirrel on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:41:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  don't worry, we won't reach any 9 billion. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mrashby9, Gwennedd

                  Maybe 8.5 billion before the dieoff starts.

                  Agreed, overpopulation is one of the two root causes, the other being overconsumption.

                  Bill Gates could save the world by paying for development and distribution of an effective male contraceptive.  Compound it with viagra, which is going generic shortly, and it will overcome all religious opposition.

                  At some point we have to overcome the pseudoscientific bullshit that "economic growth" is possible on a finite planet.  That necessarily means steady-state economics, which also means a tendency toward far more harsh competition than exists today, and a corresponding need for regulation of externalized costs.

                  As for dystopia, fiction won't be able to keep up with reality.

                  The question is whether humanity has what it takes to avert its own extinction "by whatever means are necessary."

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 01:47:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  thanks, but VClib is also a subject matter expert (8+ / 0-)

              ... in other areas, and in fact s/he's right: "what happens when the rich install off-grid solar?" is an important question.

              And the answer as far as I can see is, by reducing demand for grid power, they contribute to the utilities' faster replacement of obsolete large coal plants with more flexible non-carbon energy sources.  Which in turn gives the poor folks "solar at the end of a wire."  

              Humans can be like frogs sitting around a pond.  All the frogs look at each other and ask "Is the water nice today?  Who wants to jump in first?"  For a while the frogs are all sitting there speculating about the water, and then eventually one of them jumps in and says "the water's great today!"  Then all of his pals jump in quickly thereafter, and they all have a good swim.  But somebody had to jump in first.  It doesn't matter who it was, as long as the result is that all the frogs end up in the pond.

              We got the future back. Uh-oh.

              by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  good for them; solar is part of the solution. (6+ / 0-)

            Clearly we shouldn't expect people who are using off-grid solar to turn off their power as a symbolic gesture.

            What we want is more people with off-grid solar, but ideally connected to the grid so spot excesses and spot shortages can be sold & bought respectively.  

            Not only that, but when people buy into various technology solutions, the observable fact is that doing so also causes them to become more committed to the issue.  Today someone buys a hybrid car, tomorrow they discover that it's an excellent car and it's saving them decent money.  The next day they're installing solar; and the day after that, they're telling their neighbor that the solar system is also saving them serious dough... and then the neighbor installs solar... and then the other neighbor down the block...

            Solutions spread through buy-in and emulation and all the usual social dynamics through which anything else spreads.

            The end-point goal here is to replace coal-fired generating capacity with anything non-carbon, so "whatever it takes" to get there is good.

            The rich folks all install solar with batteries, and power demand goes down so coal plants become uneconomical to operate or replace at the end of their life cycles.  Then the utilities replace obsolete coal with renewables and micro-nukes, and lo & behold the poor folks have clean energy too, it's just at the other end of a wire.

            For all of which reasons, I think humanity has a decent chance of ducking the bullet.  

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:01:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do most power companies allow solar with storage (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, mrashby9

              to be connected to the grid? Our local co-op does not so when we hooked up to the grid after being off-grid for 13 years, they would not allow us to sell back the excess and still keep our batteries. We kept the battery bank so we do not sell back.

              I have been told that in Huntsville, AL (which would be TVA like us but with a different local power co-op) one can keep the batteries and still sell back.

              Our local co-op insisted on a separate panel for the grid and a switch that kept the solar produced energy from going back up the wires if we switched to grid power. They would not accept that the inverter has such a switch to keep it from back-flowing so we bought the $350 switch.

              As I understand what happens here is that you sell all your solar to the power company and buy all your electricity from the power company so it is not even selling back your excess, you sell all. Is that the same way in most places? (Our local co-op was very unhappy in having to let us keep our batteries even with the restrictions they put on it - I suppose because they just don't like solar or anything new and green.)

              You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

              by sewaneepat on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:31:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is their screwed up, obsolete (6+ / 0-)

                pricing models. They roll a lot of their amortized grid construction costs into their per-kilowatt-hour price for power. So when you buy fewer kilowatt hours from them, thanks to your battery, you're not helping them pay off the grid that they had to build that you're connected to.

                Electric bills need to be broken down to their basics.

                Want a grid connection? Fine, pay a monthly fee for amortized construction costs and maintanence. It should have absolutely nothing to do with how many kWh you consume. They might perhaps bias the fee by how much "strain" you put on your grid connection in a typical month, but that's it - no generation costs rolled into the picture.

                Want to buy power from the grid? Fine, pay for the generation cost, totally disjoint from the grid construction costs, at whatever the current spot price for power is for power delivered to your immediate neighborhood.

                Want to sell power to the grid? Fine, sell the power, again disjoint from the grid, at whatever the current spot price is in your neighborhood.

                Want to buy power when it's cheap, store it in your batteries, and sell it when it's expensive? By all means, go ahead; it's nobody else's damned business.

                If you wanted to differentiate between "clean" and "dirty" power on pricing, personally I think that's not a good idea because it complicates the issue, but you can do that too. People who want to sell clean power that they generate themselves should only be able to get preferential rates based on the amount that they generate in excess of their personal consumption (that could require an extra meter, but is eminently doable).

                We need new pricing schemes to adapt to the new realities we're facing due to these energy transitions. And I really think spot pricing will be important  - utilities use it at the industrial scale, but not yet at the residential scale. It'll make a huge difference for home solar generators, who typically sell the most power during midday in the summer when air conditioning needs shoot spot prices on electricity way up. They'll only be importing electricity at night, when spot prices are very low. Also, the additional incentive for people to install batteries in their home (the ability to buy and sell when its economical) not only mean that their home has a battery backup, but they stabilize the grid as a whole at the same time, and will pay for a large chunk of their purchase price.

                Plus, if you're communicating your current spot prices (and especially price forecasts) to the home meter, anything networked with the meter (we're getting full-on smart grid here) can make intelligent decisions about its operation. Your refrigerator, for example, may pre-cool an extra cold reservoir at night when prices are low, but when it sees a price spike, shut off its compressor and make use of whatever it's already cooled. You'll never experience the "everyone's air conditioning comes on at the same time" problem because air conditioners will naturally stagger themselves based on spot pricing ("I need to start cooling the house again within the next 15 minutes or it'll start getting uncomfortable, but prices just went through the roof, I'll wait five minutes for the prices to come back down"). Electric cars in particular hold huge opportunity, whether you're talking solely about charging or about power export as well. You just need to tell your car when you need it charged by, and it can buy low/sell high at any point during that time period in order to meet your demands.

                The whole grid will be far more stable, grid operators will still get the money needed to pay for their operations, and all of the personal incentives will be aligned with mass deployment of distributed, green power.

                The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                by Rei on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:24:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Very well thought out! (4+ / 0-)

                  I take it you, too, use solar?

                  My system has always been, and always will be, stand alone, but I can see the potential benefits to both utility and consumer of grid connectivity for those who live close to a power line.

                  My solution to the supply/demand problem is to wash clothes and use large power tools on sunny days. On the rare occasions there is surplus beyond this, the energy is used to equalize the lead-acid batteries. Which carry me through times of energy deficits. There is no surplus to sell back to a hypothetical grid, just a change in habit patterns. Like taking a shower in the evening, when the water is hottest, rather than in the morning when it has cooled down all night.

                  But I suppose these are too great of sacrifices for most people to make merely to save humanity.

                  •  well-thought-out to the wrong conclusions. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ypochris

                    Dangerously wrong conclusions.

                    See my comment below, in reply to the comment you replied to.

                    We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                    by G2geek on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:01:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  All good points. (0+ / 0-)

                      Al these factors need to be taken into account. I feel there is potential for the grid, even if I have no use for it with my system. In the end, the central generation model does appear to be obsolete, so we should be planning on having the primary purpose of the grid be to feed energy from numerous small systems to industrial users, who should pay both for the grid that supplies them and the electricity that is supplied.

                •  no, no a thousand times, no. (0+ / 0-)

                  What you've just described is a perfect setup for a perfect storm of grid instability, positive feedbacks, and high vulnerability to cyberattack.

                  NO spot pricing.  That creates feedbacks leading to wild fluctuations as various players attempt to game the system.  Spot pricing of electricity does to the grid what microsecond trading does to the stock market.  It is a formula for disaster caused entirely by interactions between imperfect software.

                  NO "internet of things."  It's the "Insanely Dangerous Internet Of Things" (acronym intentional).  Cybersecurity people are screaming bloody murder about this.  One of these days I'm going to publish a story on the subject.  

                  Solution:  Regulated prices and home automation that is NOT connected to the internet.  Regulate the prices in accord with time-of-day or other empirical factors that mesh with generating capacity.  Stable markets, not unstable markets.  Stable infrastructure, not unstable infrastructure.  

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:00:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm all for your solution G2, but only if the p... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ypochris

                    I'm all for your solution G2, but only if the power company cannot cap purchase price at, say, 14 cents p/kwh to buy my solar, but effectively charge me 21 to 43 cents based on what it arbitrarily calls on- or off-peak prices. The current model with huge surcharges, tariffs, taxes, and other markups rolled into my price to purchase but absolutely no ability to negotiate for my own pricing of clean energy is outrageous. Solar sell backs, which are generally flat rate payouts not on- or off-peak rated, save the same energy company from buying bloated Koch oil fueled peak time plant kilowatts, but their gluttony and greed requires that they never acknowledge the benefits of buying cheap solar from consumers at peak time. Instead they've claimed that the "selfish solar" community is getting away without pitching in for transmission lines? It's laughable at best, downright fraudulent at worst.

                  •  Spot pricing of electricity already exists. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ypochris

                    For industrial entities and other power producers. Just not residential users.

                     So what exactly are you picturing? Some little residential user with a 80A lead to their house is going to draw or feed back so much power as to manipulate pricing for the whole state? Yeah, good luck with that. Just ignoring the fact that you don't even have to have that fast of a price rate change to begin with.

                    If people are going to manipulate power markets, they're going to do it the at industrial, distribution and production levels. Not at the house down the street.

                    Cybersecurity people are screaming bloody murder about this.
                    Given that I've actually fixed security bugs before, I think I'm qualified to talk about this.
                    Stable infrastructure, not unstable infrastructure.  
                    Unstable infrastructure is what we have right now because all systems operate in the dark from each other and generation and consumption are handled piecemeal, fluctuating wildly over the course of a day.

                    The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

                    by Rei on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:28:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Local laws and tarriffs (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sewaneepat, Gwennedd

                ...govern that. When I researched this in Minnesota, we were a net-metering state and so long as the system self-disconnected in the event of a power failure storage could be connected to the grid. In some cases the utility may say "no" but if you go through the laws and codes (and are willing to go to court) you probably could force a "yes."

                But I, for one, do not buy in to the "survivalist" model in any form, "rich holdout", "paranoid right-winger", or "liberal separatist." Batteries "wear out." Inverters fail. Solar cells will get damaged over some period of time. If our civilization collapses, unless you manufacture all these things yourself, that game will end too.

                The people who survive will be the people who actually buld new communities and work together for the common good. All achievements of any importance in human history come from people in mostly cooperating communities. Our real power lies in our cooperation. Sure, I buy in to the Darwinian struggle, but it isn't the last two loners battling that decide the winner. It will be the last loner against the last group of cooperatng families, and I know who I would put my money on there.

                I would expect the small group of people farming together and keeping a library to last much longer than the last guy plaing X-Box in his solar bunker.

                •  and/both (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Gwennedd

                  Civic action AND cooperation AND preparedness.

                  Neighborhood watch is an example.

                  If you're concerned about the common good in relation to infrastructure, you should be up in arms about what's being done to the telephone network, details on request.

                  But don't let the RWNJs capture the term "survivalism" to mean nuts in bunkers trying to eat their ammo for dinner after civilization goes down the toilet.  That's just caving in and letting the Opposition capture the territory.

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:06:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I would assume that it means no use (0+ / 0-)

            of grid power, not power generated on site. Of course, if you wanted to be an asshole about you could use paint. Either way, if they aren't drawing from the grid then they aren't using electricity that could have been used to save someone else from the heat.

            Worse comes to worse various appliances could be controlled by the grid so that the extra electricity created by the rich folks goes back onto the grid. That would be a pretty far leap politically, but if people are regularly dying from heat then it would become feasible.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:32:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "how do you turn off the power..?" (0+ / 0-)

            RPG.

        •  Electricity will not matter ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tobendaro, forgore, G2geek

          By then, clean water and the dwindling supply will do us in, or we will wage war over it.

          “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

          by RUNDOWN on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:12:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We all have plenty of clean water (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek, Gwennedd

            falling on our roofs. Catchment is common in some parts of the world. Not everyone has piped water. People figure it out once they have to. I've seen (and used) effective catchment systems even in the desert. The trick is conservation and lots of storage capacity.

            The water wars are indeed coming (and have been fought for many years in some areas), but it is irrigation, not domestic, water that is the problem. Much of the world's food supply is grown in arid regions using fossil water. We rely on large amounts of cheap water to maintain our supply of cheap food. Our fossil water is nearly depleted, and surface supplies pretty well maxed out. Hunger, not thirst, will be the cause of the water wars.

            •  Rain Isn't (0+ / 0-)

              all that clean.  The folks I know, who use water catchment, have a series of filters it runs through before they use it.  If push comes to shove, filtration could be skipped, I suppose.  The ones with the strongest immune systems would handle it---the others, maybe not.  And I live in a pretty unpolluted area.  What about acid rain?

              Enjoying the Age of Aquarius so far?

              by sendtheasteroid on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:18:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Effective biological and mechanical filtration (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Gwennedd, Fox Ringo, sendtheasteroid

                can be achieved simply by running the water through a bucket of graded sand on which a layer of algae is growing. Mixing in copper pellets enhances the anti-microbial effect. We built a number of these for a community in Honduras, primarily for schools and churches. But at its most basic, contaminated water can be made safe to drink with two gourds and some river sand.

                Even sunshine (UV) can be used to kill biological contaminants. In Haiti after the earthquake, we promoted sunning water for a week on the roof in two liter soft drink bottles to kill cholera, a method proven to be effective even with murky river water.

                Acid rain is not an issue for drinking, but there are other airborne contaminants that are problematic, and rain does condense around a nucleus of an airborne particle. But if sand doesn't filter it out, it is going to be in your aquifers, too, and of course surface water.

                Much of the contamination in rainwater catchment systems comes from the materials used for your roof and storage tank, or blows on the roof and accumulates in the gutters. In addition to choosing food-safe materials, allowing the system to flush a while before storing the water is very helpful, as is keeping the gutters clean.

                Of course, if you bring in the relatively small amount of water used for actual human consumption from a clean source, and only use catchment for cleaning and bathing, these issues become moot. But often rainwater is the purest source around.

                •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ypochris

                  I appreciate the knowledgeable comment.  I, obviously, don't know the ins and outs of catchment and purification systems---we're on county water.  I certainly knew about the contamination from surfaces the water runs down before collection, but I had assumed that acid rain wouldn't be good drinking water.  The other airborne contaminants weren't a surprise since I came into a dock in NYC WAY back in 1961, and it was actually raining drops containing a greasy substance.  

                  I've always been interested in easily constructed water purification devices, so you gave me some valuable info there. Does it matter what kind of algae is grown on the sand base?  

                  I did know that sunlight can purify water, but I didn't know how long it had to be exposed.  Can't sunlight also accelerate bacterial or fungal growth, though?  This is an interesting thread---thanks again.

                  Enjoying the Age of Aquarius so far?

                  by sendtheasteroid on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:35:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The algae will introduce itself. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sendtheasteroid

                    It doesn't seem to matter what kinds they are. The sand alone is a serviceable filter, but tests show it works considerably better once a layer of green is visible. If you use something with smooth sides like a plastic bucket, it is important to roughen the sides or the water will find it easier to flow down the sides rather than through the sand.

                    Apparently a week on a sunny roof provides enough UV radiation to kill everything. Two weeks if it is overcast. I think  got that off of a WHO site, but it was a while ago so I'm not sure. But somewhere authoritative enough to convince the doctors in our group to recommend it. I didn't care for the "plastic" taste in the resulting water, but apparently glass blocks the UV.

                    Knowledge of simple water purification techniques is a lifesaver when disaster strikes, or in undeveloped areas.

                    •  Absolutely! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ypochris

                      I'm enjoying this conversation very much.  Had no idea that glass would inhibit UV action.  I don't like the plastic taste either, but I'd prefer it to dehydration.

                      Interesting about the algae forming naturally. That would definitely happen where I live---or mold, maybe.  Or moss---I've got it all in my yard!

                      So, YES, knowledge of water purification or distillation techniques can be a lifesaver----as you say after a disaster or in undeveloped areas.  Thanks for the info.

                      Enjoying the Age of Aquarius so far?

                      by sendtheasteroid on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 12:50:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Significant taxes, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sfinx, Agelbert

          say 90 - 95%, on all inheritances above $500K, and on gifts over $20K

          "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100, dissenting; opinion

          by HugoDog on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:41:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Definitely, Taxes are a HUGE part of the solution (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HugoDog

            The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100% Renewable Energy World

            http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...

            A 100% Transition to Renewable energy is beginning for the sake of democracy as well as energy demand and the need for a viable biosphere. I recently started a petition at Care2 for that very purpose. The staff at Care2 asked me why I felt so strongly about demanding a WWII style massive transition to 100% Renewable Energy. This is a summary of my answer:

            Dear Care2 Staff,
            I am writing to answer your question as to what motivated me to start my petition hoping that you too will sign the petition, as it concerns the health and welfare of all humans as well as the biosphere we depend on.

             I have discovered that we-the-people have been lied to and used for over a century by the fossil fuel interests for their profit while the biosphere has become, because of dirty fuels like fossil and nuclear, increasingly degraded.
            In my research I have discovered many unconscionable acts by the fossil fuel industry and associated chemical industries during he last century. These are not "conspiracy" theories. they are quite well documented but not generally mentioned in grade and high school history texts or the news media. This modus operandi of the war loving fossil fuel, and now nuclear power, dirty energy corporations continues to this day with slick propaganda campaigns to keep the public deluded about the 24/7 fleecing they receive at the hands of these energy corporations that have undue influence on government policies.

            I have written much, but just to give you the greatest evidence I have uncovered of the totally unnecessary reliance we have on dirty energy, let me quote from this peer reviewed book by Dilworth titled "Too Smart For Our Own Good". Notice the time period the book quote refers to. Then think about all the unnecessary hysteria disguised as prudent preservation of our "energy resources" for "national security" which conveniently (for the fossil fuel industry) is used as a justification for endless wars for oil and the accompanying human misery. Our energy "dependence" on oil, as well as scaremongering price shocks, are contrived, not real!

            Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
            "As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

            In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

            So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists.

            "

            Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.
            T
            his totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless loss of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.

            If all this was just about power politics, I might not be that concerned. Humans, particularly the overly ambitious and aggressive ones, have always fought and schemed to control and fleece the population at large.

            But now we know the future of our planet is at stake. Now we know the entire edifice of dirty energy is a knife in the back of the biosphere that will destroy our species and many others.

            THAT knowledge, once I became convinced of it, is what has spurred me to warn everyone out there that we must not let the wool be pulled over our eyes by bought and paid for politicians in the service of profit over planet predatory corporations. It is madness to think infinite growth of dirty energy economies can occur in a finite biosphere. In fact, it is easily labeled a form of delusional criminal insanity what has gripped our world today. The sensible and logical thing to work for is a steady state economy. But Wall Street is in too much denial to see this obvious truth.

            The intransigence of the fossil fuel industry in this matter is a given. They wish to avoid liability for the damage they have caused so they have, for several decades, (See the George C. Marshal Institute) launched a campaign of disinformation to claim there is NO climate threat whatsoever.

            Not only do they deny climate change, they scare monger people into thinking we are running out of oil! Well, hello? We are supposed to stop using it, aren't we? Now who do you suppose would want us to feel we were "running out" of something so we would VALUE it more? The truth is that oil is a liability, not an asset. But that is precisely what the propagandists work mightily to prevent the people form realizing. If somebody tells me we are running out of a something that , when you burn it, poisons the atmosphere, I'm rather pleased we are running out of it! But for some amazing reason, that obvious truth never makes the news either.

            The worsening weather will be the ONLY thing that will spur change and even then we already passed the point a couple of decades ago when bioremediation was going to be fairly straight forward.

            Dr. Hansen said oceanic inertia (acidification from CO2) is nearly 100 years. I had thought it was only about 30 years. That means we are experiencing NOW the effects of our generated pollutants (if you say the incubation inertia conservatively is half of 100 years) as of 1964!

            Consider all the pollutants that have poured in to the biosphere since then and you start to understand why brilliant people like Guy McPherson are so despondent.

            There is NO WAY we can stop the pollution/bad weather clock from CONTINUING to deteriorate for another 50 years (or 100 if Hansen is right) even if we STOPPED using all fossil fuels today.

            We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

            What can we do?

            Something similar to what we did with the Liberty Ship building effort in WWII but for a 100% transition to Renewable Energy.

            A total of 2,710 Liberty ships were built, with an expected lifespan of just five years. A little more than 2,400 made it through the war, and 835 of these entered the US cargo fleet. Many others entered Greek and Italian fleets. Many of these ships were destroyed by leftover mines, which had been forgotten or inadequately cleared. Two ships survive today, both operating as museum ships. They are still seaworthy, and one (the Jeremiah O'Brien) sailed from San Francisco to England in 1994.
            http://www.brighthubengineering.com/...

            Today, several countries have, as do we, a much greater industrial capacity. It is inaccurate to claim that we cannot produce sufficient renewable energy devices in a decade or so to replace the internal combustion engine everywhere in our civilization.

            The industrial capacity is there and is easily provable by asking some simple questions about the fossil fuel powered internal combustion engine status quo:
            How long do internal combustion engine powered machines last?

            How much energy does it require to mine the raw materials and manufacture the millions of engines wearing out and being replaced day in and day out?
            What happens if ALL THAT INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY is, instead, dedicated to manufacturing Renewable Energy machines?

            IOW, if there is a ten to twenty year turnover NOW in our present civilization involving manufacture and replacement of the internal combustion engines we use, why can't we retool and convert the entire internal combustion engine fossil fuel dependent civilization to a Renewable Energy Machine dependent civilization?

            1) The industrial capacity is certainly there to do it EASILY in two decades and maybe just ten years with a concerted push.

            2) Since Renewable Energy machines use LESS metal and do not require high temperature alloys, a cash for clunkers worldwide program could obtain more than enough metal raw material without ANY ADDITIONAL MINING (except for rare earth minerals - a drop in the bucket -- compared to all the mining presently done for metals to build the internal combustion engine) by just recycling the internal combustion engine parts into Renewable Energy machines.

            3) Just as in WWII, but on a worldwide scale, the recession/depression would end as millions of people were put to work on the colossal transition to Renewable Energy.
            It is TRUE that civilization will collapse and a huge die off will occur without fossil fuels IF, and ONLY IF, Renewable Energy does not replace fossil fuels. It is blatantly obvious that we need energy to run our civilization.
            It is ALSO TRUE that if we continue to burn fossil fuels in internal combustion engines, Homo sapiens will become extinct. This is not hyperbole. We ALREADY have baked in conditions, that take about three decades to fully develop, that have placed us in a climate like the one that existed over 3 million years ago.

            We DID NOT thrive in those conditions or multiply. This is a fact. We barely survived until a couple of hundred thousand years ago when the weather became friendlier and even then we didn't really start to populate the planet until about 10,000 years ago.

            The climate 3 million years ago was, basically, mostly lethal to Homo Sapiens.

            So, what happens, Care2, if my petition or some other effort does NOT succeed in getting our government (and several others too) to engage in a massive Transition to 100% Renewable energy NOW?

            What can we expect from the somewhat dismal prospects for Homo sapiens?

            1) Terrible weather and melted polar ice caps with an increase in average wind velocity in turn causing more beach erosion from gradually rising sea level and wave action. The oceans will become more difficult to traverse because of high wave action and more turbulent seas. The acidification will increase the dead zones and reduce aquatic life diversity. But you've heard all this before so I won't dwell on the biosphere problems that promise to do us in.

            2) As Renewable Energy devices continue to make inroads in fossil fuel profits, expect an engineered partial civilizational collapse in a large city to underline the "you are all going to die without fossil fuels" propaganda pushed to avoid liability for the increasingly "in your face" climate extremes.

            3) Less democracy and less freedom of expression from some governments and more democracy and freedom of expression from other governments in direct proportion to the percent penetration of Renewable energy machines in powering their countries (more Renewable Energy, more freedom) and an inverse proportion to the power of their "real politik" Fossil Fuel lobbies in countries. (more Fossil Fuel power, less freedom).

            The bottom line, as Guy McPherson says, is that NATURE BATS LAST. Nature has millions of "bats". Homo SAP has a putrid fascist parasite bleeding it to death and poisoning it at the same time (the fossil fuels and nuclear power industries)..

            A word about political power and real politik living in a fossil fuel fascist dystopia.

            It simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is. It DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in human affairs. The internal combustion engine and fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.

            Will a massive public outcry born of demands like the one I make in the petition make a difference?

            I think so. I know doing nothing is not optional for a caring human population. It is our thankless task to convince the powers that be that they are on a course for planetary suicide that can only be changed with a paradigm shift involving respect for all life, not just human life.

            If we change, if we act to leave dirty and centralized, political power concentrating energy behind, we will give future generations a chance to live in a Viable Biospshere AND a political democracy.

            If we don't, we will perish.

            Here's a link to the petition: http://www.care2.com/...

            Thank you and please pass it on for the good of future generations.

            Anthony G. Gelbert

        •  Why worry about electricity? (0+ / 0-)

          That we have an almost infinite renewable supply of, from the sun and the wind. It's heat that will be the problem.

          This is the landscape that we understand, -
          And till the principle of things takes root,
          How shall examples move us from our calm?

          (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

          by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:49:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Nixon Era tax rates?" (0+ / 0-)

          Nope.
          Eisenhower era.

        •  What Must Be Done (0+ / 0-)

          A 100% Transition to Renewable energy is beginning for the sake of democracy as well as energy demand and the need for a viable biosphere. I recently started a petition at Care2 for that very purpose. The staff at Care2 asked me why I felt so strongly about demanding a WWII style massive transition to 100% Renewable Energy. This is a summary of my answer:

          Dear Care2 Staff,
          I am writing to answer your question as to what motivated me to start my petition hoping that you too will sign the petition, as it concerns the health and welfare of all humans as well as the biosphere we depend on.

          I have discovered that we-the-people have been lied to and used for over a century by the fossil fuel interests for their profit while the biosphere has become, because of dirty fuels like fossil and nuclear, increasingly degraded.

          In my research I have discovered many unconscionable acts by the fossil fuel industry and associated chemical industries during he last century. These are not "conspiracy" theories. they are quite well documented but not generally mentioned in grade and high school history texts or the news media. This modus operandi of the war profiteering fossil fuel, and now nuclear power, dirty energy corporations continues to this day with slick propaganda campaigns to keep the public deluded about the 24/7 fleecing they receive at the hands of these energy corporations that have undue influence on government policies.

          I have written much, but just to give you the greatest evidence I have uncovered of the totally unnecessary reliance we have on dirty energy, let me quote from this peer reviewed book by Dilworth titled "Too Smart For Our Own Good".

          Notice the time period the book quote refers to. Then think about all the unnecessary hysteria disguised as prudent preservation of our "energy resources" for "national security" which conveniently (for the fossil fuel industry) is used as a justification for endless wars for oil and the accompanying human misery. Our energy "dependence" on oil, as well as scaremongering price shocks, are contrived, not real!

          Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

          "As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

          In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

          So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

          Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.

          This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless loss of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.

          If all this was just about power politics, I might not be that concerned. Humans, particularly the overly ambitious and aggressive ones, have always fought and schemed to control and fleece the population at large.

          But now we know the future of our planet is at stake. Now we know the entire edifice of dirty energy is a knife in the back of the biosphere that will destroy our species and many others.

          THAT knowledge, once I became convinced of it, is what has spurred me to warn everyone out there that we must not let the wool be pulled over our eyes by bought and paid for politicians in the service of profit over planet predatory corporations. It is madness to think infinite growth of dirty energy economies can occur in a finite biosphere. In fact, it is easily labeled a form of delusional criminal insanity what has gripped our world today. The sensible and logical thing to work for is a steady state economy. But Wall Street is in too much denial to see this obvious truth.

          The intransigence of the fossil fuel industry in this matter is a given. They wish to avoid liability for the damage they have caused so they have, for several decades, (See the George C. Marshal Institute) launched a campaign of disinformation to claim there is NO climate threat whatsoever.

          Not only do they deny climate change, they scare monger people into thinking we are running out of oil! Well, hello? We are supposed to stop using it, aren't we? Now who do you suppose would want us to feel we were "running out" of something so we would VALUE it more? The truth is that oil is a liability, not an asset. But that is precisely what the propagandists work mightily to prevent the people form realizing. If somebody tells me we are running out of a something that , when you burn it, poisons the atmosphere, I'm rather pleased we are running out of it! But for some amazing reason, that obvious truth never makes the news either.

          The worsening weather will be the ONLY thing that will spur change and even then we already passed the point a couple of decades ago when bioremediation was going to be fairly straight forward.

          Dr. Hansen said oceanic inertia (acidification from CO2) is nearly 100 years. I had thought it was only about 30 years. That means we are experiencing NOW the effects of our generated pollutants (if you say the incubation inertia conservatively is half of 100 years) as of 1964!

          Consider all the pollutants that have poured in to the biosphere since then and you start to understand why brilliant people like Guy McPherson are so despondent. There is NO WAY we can stop the pollution/bad weather clock from CONTINUING to deteriorate for another 50 years (or 100 if Hansen is right) even if we STOPPED using all fossil fuels today.

          We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

          What can we do? Something similar to what we did with the Liberty Ship building effort in WWII but for a 100% transition to Renewable Energy.

          A total of 2,710 Liberty ships were built, with an expected lifespan of just five years. A little more than 2,400 made it through the war, and 835 of these entered the US cargo fleet. Many others entered Greek and Italian fleets. Many of these ships were destroyed by leftover mines, which had been forgotten or inadequately cleared. Two ships survive today, both operating as museum ships. They are still seaworthy, and one (the Jeremiah O'Brien) sailed from San Francisco to England in 1994.
          http://www.brighthubengineering.com/...

          Today, several countries have, as do we, a much greater industrial capacity. It is inaccurate to claim that we cannot produce sufficient renewable energy devices in a decade or so to replace the internal combustion engine everywhere in our civilization.

          The industrial capacity is there and is easily provable by asking some simple questions about the fossil fuel powered internal combustion engine status quo:
          How long do internal combustion engine powered machines last?

          How much energy does it require to mine the raw materials and manufacture the millions of engines wearing out and being replaced day in and day out?

          What happens if ALL THAT INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY is, instead, dedicated to manufacturing Renewable Energy machines?

          IOW, if there is a ten to twenty year turnover NOW in our present civilization involving manufacture and replacement of the internal combustion engines we use, why can't we retool and convert the entire internal combustion engine fossil fuel dependent civilization to a Renewable Energy Machine dependent civilization?

          1) The industrial capacity is certainly there to do it EASILY in two decades and maybe just ten years with a concerted push.

          2) Since Renewable Energy machines use LESS metal and do not require high temperature alloys, a cash for clunkers worldwide program could obtain more than enough metal raw material without ANY ADDITIONAL MINING (except for rare earth minerals - a drop in the bucket -- compared to all the mining presently done for metals to build the internal combustion engine) by just recycling the internal combustion engine parts into Renewable Energy machines.

          3) Just as in WWII, but on a worldwide scale, the recession/depression would end as millions of people were put to work on the colossal transition to Renewable Energy.

          It is TRUE that civilization will collapse and a huge die off will occur without fossil fuels IF, and ONLY IF, Renewable Energy does not replace fossil fuels. It is blatantly obvious that we need energy to run our civilization.

          It is ALSO TRUE that if we continue to burn fossil fuels in internal combustion engines, Homo sapiens will become extinct. This is not hyperbole. We ALREADY have baked in conditions, that take about three decades to fully develop, that have placed us in a climate like the one that existed over 3 million years ago.

          We DID NOT thrive in those conditions or multiply. This is a fact. We barely survived until a couple of hundred thousand years ago when the weather became friendlier and even then we didn't really start to populate the planet until about 10,000 years ago.

          The climate 3 million years ago was, basically, mostly lethal to Homo Sapiens.

          So, what happens, Care2, if my petition or some other effort does NOT succeed in getting our government (and several others too) to engage in a massive Transition to 100% Renewable energy NOW?

          What can we expect from the somewhat dismal prospects for Homo sapiens?

          1) Terrible weather and melted polar ice caps with an increase in average wind velocity in turn causing more beach erosion from gradually rising sea level and wave action. The oceans will become more difficult to traverse because of high wave action and more turbulent seas. The acidification will increase the dead zones and reduce aquatic life diversity. But you've heard all this before so I won't dwell on the biosphere problems that promise to do us in.

          2) As Renewable Energy devices continue to make inroads in fossil fuel profits, expect an engineered partial civilizational collapse in a large city to underline the "you are all going to die without fossil fuels" propaganda pushed to avoid liability for the increasingly "in your face" climate extremes.

          3) Less democracy and less freedom of expression from some governments and more democracy and freedom of expression from other governments in direct proportion to the percent penetration of Renewable energy machines in powering their countries (more Renewable Energy, more freedom) and an inverse proportion to the power of their "real politik" Fossil Fuel lobbies in countries. (more Fossil Fuel power, less freedom).

          The bottom line, as Guy McPherson says, is that NATURE BATS LAST. Nature has millions of "bats". Homo SAP has a putrid fascist parasite bleeding it to death and poisoning it at the same time (the fossil fuels and nuclear power industries)..

          A word about political power and real politik living in a fossil fuel fascist dystopia.

          It simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is. It DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in human affairs. The internal combustion engine and fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.

          Will a massive public outcry born of demands like the one I make in the petition make a difference?

          I think so. I know doing nothing is not optional for a caring human population. It is our thankless task to convince the powers that be that they are on a course for planetary suicide that can only be changed with a paradigm shift involving respect for all life, not just human life.

          If we change, if we act to leave dirty and centralized, political power concentrating energy behind, we will give future generations a chance to live in a Viable Biospshere AND a political democracy.

          If we don't, we will perish.

          Here's a link to the petition: http://www.care2.com/...

          Thank you (and please pass it on to anyone who cares about our planet's future).

          Anthony G. Gelbert

      •  Wealth means nothing (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sendtheasteroid, sfinx, salmo

        If the most extreme kind of environmental collapse comes, wealth will mean nothing. There is no escape if the web of life is completely disrupted. The top of the food chain goes first... (Google "simpsons food chain" for my favorite image on this subject)

        We as a species would die out before everything is gone and things will come back. But we are talking Cambrian level extinction event.

        I am not sufficiently up on the science to have a real sense of the probabilities, but I think serious disruption of the present economy and society are highly probable at this point, even if extinction of our species is rather improbable. I simply cannot fathom our inaction.

        •  I Was Writing a Similar (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sfinx

          comment when Windows 8.1 did one of its inexplicable whammies and I ended up completely off Kos.  Thanks for saving me the time.  Money can't buy food that doesn't exist, unless the rich go big for their own hydroponic gardens.  And all this depends on the sun being able to get through the miasma.  Solar has its limits.  

          Enjoying the Age of Aquarius so far?

          by sendtheasteroid on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:22:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If that's what they're thinking (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfinx, Gwennedd

      They're kidding themselves.  The ruling elite of a society can generally stay in place through minor setbacks, even major depressions.  But to keep your status as an elite in place, you have to keep the society in place.  

      It's hard to see how modern society survives the coming ecological crises truly intact.  The water shortages, which will generate food shortages, may be an even worse threat than climate change.  The idea that elites will just skate through untouched is pretty silly.

      The Roman Empire is an example.  You can find patrician families, several of them, that retained wealth and power from the era of Caesar all the way down to the fall of the Empire.  Some of those families go back to the Punic Wars, 600 years or more of elite status.  They did their best to roll with the punches - quite a few can be found among the courtiers of Theoderic, the gifted Ostrogothic king who kept a vaguely Roman-like order alive in Italy for a few decades after the Western Empire fell.  But not one of those families can be traced into the Middle Ages.

  •  Geez, stuff like this (17+ / 0-)

    makes me glad that I'm not that young.  I do hate it for my kids, grandkids and everyone else that's still around.

  •  How will it be different than (5+ / 0-)

    Phoenix with 115 degree heat and 99% humidity during monsoon season?

    Will temperatures be 150?

    •  It won't. And please note the Reuters article (11+ / 0-)

      is talking about TWO DAYS PER YEAR.

      Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car, and his hat is made in China. © 2009 All Rights Reserved

      by oblomov on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 06:24:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not the weeks on end of the desert? (0+ / 0-)
        •  It's the "wet-bulb" effect on the human body's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          highacidity

          ability to cool down.

          It's the combination of humidity and temperature. When the combination is too high, the human body starts to overheat and stress. It's the heat stress that starts to kill off the weak.

          Phoenix has a relatively low humidity allowing sweat to evaporate which allows the human body to cool down.

          But what the future holds for Phoenix is probably something more akin to Death Valley where even though there's low humidity, the 130 degree temperatures are too extreme for extended exposure for all but the hardiest.

          Besides, Phoenix will begin to look like a ghost town well before that for lack of water. By the end of the century it will more closely resemble Mogadishu than modern Phoenix what with all the gun nuts turning into warlords and all stealing and pillaging for what they need to survive.


          "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

          by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:41:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Monsoon season (0+ / 0-)

            115 degrees with 99% humidity for weeks.

            It is survivable.

            •  in South/Southeast Asia, that was the idle season (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity

              People did as little as possible, wore as little as possible, ate little, poured water on themselves, fanned themselves or had someone fan them, and so on.

              Traditionally, ashrams were seasonal and predictably they met during the monsoon season because again, the heat, plus the humidity, plus the torrential rain (and the mud) meant nobody had any business being active.  

              Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

              by Visceral on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:59:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Survivable of course being a relative term. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity


              "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

              by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:19:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Well,... (0+ / 0-)

            ....you seem to be enjoying yourself.

            My term for it is apocalypto-onanism. Rather cheap, since it depends for tolerance on the fact that few people will ever call a gloom'n'doomer to account when s/he turns out to be wrong.

            This is the landscape that we understand, -
            And till the principle of things takes root,
            How shall examples move us from our calm?

            (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

            by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:08:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What wet bulb is (0+ / 0-)

            It is just what it says. The original tool for measuring humidity is called a Sling Psychrometer and it is a pair of thermometers on a handle that freely rotates, one bare to the the air, and the other in a "fabric sock" that is wet with water.

            You whip the thing around for a few minutes and read the "dry bulb" and "wet bulb" termperatures. The wet bulb will be cooler by the energy absorbed in evaporating water from the "wet bulb." The temperature of the "wet bulb" is called the "Dewpoint."

            I do not recall exactly how you calculate "relative humidity" from these two numbers. My dad had a sling psychrometer when I was a kid...

      •  true but... (25+ / 0-)

        first, scientists are almost always too conservative in their estimates. secondly, that time frame is nothing. what about 200 years from now? two days becomes 120 days per year by then and only a half a billion people surviving. or sooner:

        Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Britain, was quoted in The Scotsman  ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen conference saying the consequences were ‘‘terrifying’’.

        ‘‘For humanity it’s a matter of life or death ... we will not make all human beings extinct, as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think it’s extremely unlikely that we wouldn’t have mass death at 4 degrees.

        ‘‘If you have got a population of 9 billion by 2050 and you hit 4 degrees, 5 degrees or 6 degrees, you might have half a billion people surviving.’’

        http://www.smh.com.au/...

        •  makes Hitler look like an amateur, doesn't it? (9+ / 0-)

          And we wonder how the German people got suckered into voting for him as Chancellor?

          Wonder no more: look at your monthly usage of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline.  "Oooh, shiny consumer goods....!"

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:22:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  wasn't hitler appointed? (0+ / 0-)

            granted many people voted for and supported him, but i think he was appointed chancellor.

            •  No (0+ / 0-)

              But he rigged the election and later broke the Enabling Acts that were supposed to legitimize his rule, making all of his subsequent actions unauthorized and illegal.

              This is the landscape that we understand, -
              And till the principle of things takes root,
              How shall examples move us from our calm?

              (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

              by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:09:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  he was already chancellor during that period (0+ / 0-)

                hindenburg appointed him in 1933.

                sure he 'won' elections afterward, in the same manner that elections are won in dictatorships around the world.

                •  none the less, he had actual support... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... from a reasonable 2-digit percentage of the German people.  Probably the number who would have actually supported him had they known what was coming, would have been around 1 - 2% of the electorate, in other words the wacko crazy fringe.  But he got his (at minimum) mid 2-digit support by conning the people just like any other con artist.

                  And today the role of global con artist goes to the denialists, who are effectively seeking to commit the world to a Holocaust on a scale that makes the Nazis look like small stuff by comparison.

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 01:40:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  That's in the upper midwest. (11+ / 0-)

        I've seen a report that predicts more than 75 days a year above 95 in Florida. Add humidity and you're talking deadly weather.

        I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

        by Just Bob on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:23:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and no agriculture (11+ / 0-)

          These are not isolated events. "Crazy hot" doesn't end with "gee, i can't go outside".
          It means nobody can tend whatever crops can survive that level of stress.
          It means changes in the soil, insects, bacteria and all the rest that make our food growing work to feed us.
          It means encroachment of seawater into drying subterranean aquifers (like in Sacramento Valley).
          It means photosynthesis itself becomes compromised for longer and longer stretches.
          It means animal deaths which means yet more shock to the entire ecosystem and land based food chain.
          It means more toxic algae blooms in freshwater and dieoffs in the ocean.
          It means more hurricanes, and they will be stronger.
          It means a lot of things we do not yet know, but none of which will be good.
          money won't help. if anyone is pissed off that somehow the 1% are gonna wreck the planet and come out alive; sleep well. they're gonna share our fate.
          Nature bats last.

          Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

          by kamarvt on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:38:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agriculture will be underground. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kamarvt, Fox Ringo, Just Bob

            Forestiere Underground Gardens

            In Arizona, shade cloth goes up on the greenhouses on April 1st and often doesn't come down until October.

            Dug out greenhouses, bermed against the heat instead of the cold and shaded with overhead vines.

            Things are gonna get hinky.

            'How like fish we are: ready, nay, eager, to seize upon whatever new thing.......And how we rue our haste, finding the gilded morsel to contain a hook". ALDO LEOPOLD - A Sand County Almanac

            by flowerfarmer on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:26:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  oh, in Florida, you won't have to worry. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Just Bob

          The whole state will be underwater anyway.  Hope you can swim!

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

          by ScrewySquirrel on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:49:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Two days a year initially, (0+ / 0-)

        in the best parts of the country and best case scenario. But a hundred days a year by the end of the next century.

    •  Phoenix doesn't have to be 115 degrees Fahrenheit (13+ / 0-)

      before it becomes unlivable. It's nights could simply be 90-95 degrees which will eliminate any practical cool down that nighttime usually brings on.

      See what (already) happened in Europe with an estimated 35,000-70,000 deaths.

      The temperature went up to 105 in certain areas but did not go below 90 at night. The neglected elderly were the main casualties.

      A million Arcosantis.

      by Villabolo on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:16:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I worked on cars there (0+ / 0-)

        And did landscaping.

        I don't understand what you mean by unlivable.

        •  Even though we have air conditioning (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maryabein, highacidity

          It would only take an extended power outage for a heat wave to do what happened in Europe in 2003. The first victims were the most vulnerable - the elderly - but it could affect everyone. I remember seeing a video of a French woman with a baby bottle dripping water on a sickly infant when that heat wave struck.

          That would only have to happen once every couple of years before most people will want to pack up and move away if they can.

          A million Arcosantis.

          by Villabolo on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:35:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There isn't air conditioning out on the lawn (0+ / 0-)

            Or under the hood of the car that just came off the freeway.

            What do you mean by unlivable?

            •  Nor in any of the homes I had if I had a home (0+ / 0-)
            •  How hot were the nights? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity

              If they were to get to 95 degrees at night for several nights that would create a situation like Europe suffered if there were no air-conditioning available during part of the day. Not everyone can take that much heat day in and day out without some period of time spent cooling off.

              A million Arcosantis.

              by Villabolo on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:57:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Some never under a hundred (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban, wu ming

                I survived.

                •  You survived as a (presumably) healthy (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Villabolo, AoT, highacidity, flowerfarmer

                  young adult. Small children and the very old are usually considered the most vulnerable to heat.

                  "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

                  by dumpster on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:24:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                    •  So what happened during the European heat wave (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cai, highacidity

                      that I previously mentioned? The (mostly) elderly were dying in large numbers.

                      A million Arcosantis.

                      by Villabolo on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:56:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Livable within limits (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      highacidity, Villabolo

                      There's a technical name for this I forget, but there is a combination of too humid to sweat and outside air hotter than body temperature which is not simply miserable but is literally unsurvivable.

                      Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

                      by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:46:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Like Phoenix at 115 degrees and 99%? (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm trying to understand this. Yes it is difficult and miserable, but my neighbors with infants didn't have babies dropping like flies, and the elderly managed as well. Now I know I couldn't deal with it again, but my kidneys can no longer handle the load. So a small percentage would find it unlivable. But everyone else will adapt.

                        •  As I previously mentioned... (0+ / 0-)

                          and linked to an article, what happened in Europe in 2003 is a harbinger of what's to come in portions of the United States, especially in those areas already predisposed to be hot.

                          Here is what happened in France in that year:

                          A million Arcosantis.

                          by Villabolo on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:00:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  What if no air conditioning? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        highacidity

                        Not everyone has it.
                        Could you live sitting under a lawn sprinkler all day?
                        Could you afford it?
                        Would you have to depend on the kindness of neighbors?

                        Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

                        by Helpless on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:30:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  wet bulb temperatures (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        maryabein, highacidity, flowerfarmer

                        heat plus humidity to the point where anything that cools itself by some form of water evaporation can no longer cool down.  The way the science studies it,  the temperature at which cooling begins to fail is 95 degrees F, 35 Celcius, with 100% humidity.  Humidity to date rarely reaches 100% in most parts of the country for any sustained period.  And humidity rises and falls during the course of the day.  I believe the illustration on the effect on a human, is naked in front of a fan, you no longer evaporate sweat fast enough to  cool and your temperature continues rising.

                        In chicken farming, CAF,  misters, strong fans blowing water continuously are used to postpone life threatening heat in the summer, but a prolonged heatwave and millions of chicken can die.

                        For the Atlanta Olympics, because of high wet bulb temperatures in mid-summer, many strategies were devised scientifically to avoid heat stress.  Physically cooling down with misters and wiping off sweat rather than relying on evaporation which simply won't be happening can prolong the time before heat stress takes over.

                    •  Phoenix (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      maryabein, highacidity, Villabolo

                      if you look at the almanac information at a site such as Weather Underground usually has average temperatures approaching 115, but more likely not hitting much above 110 most days, overnights in the 80's and variable humidity which may reach times above 90, but generally averaging much less in July and August.

                      That may put the wet bulb temperature at the edge of livable most days.  That is now.   Add a few degrees temperature and a little more humidity, and there will be more deaths from heat stress among the elderly, children and out door workers.  Pushing the edges of survivability because we wouldn't respond to climate change isn't really a good thing.

                    •  Extreme heat events are livable for fewer people; (0+ / 0-)

                      that is, less livable. You seem to be implying that's a good thing.

                      "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

                      by dumpster on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:58:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Human bodies need to cool down at night (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gwennedd, maryabein, Ashaman, highacidity

              in order to be able to survive heat waves.  The elderly, the young, people in frail health, and people on certain medications are most vulnerable, but nobody can survive indefinitely without time to recover from the heat.

              Global warming-caused heat waves have higher nighttime temperatures.

              I read recently that Phoenix used to rarely have nighttime lows in the 80s; now the night when it doesn't dip below 90 is being expected any year.

              There are also predictions of simply unsurviveable outdoor temperatures (see David Roberts talk below), but those are centuries out.  Long before that, we will have serious problems feeding ourselves, or having enough water for drinking.  (If temperatures get high enough, photosynthesis shuts down.  And that's not in the unsurviveably hot territory; IIRC, that's around 95 degrees F.)

              © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

              by cai on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:33:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I misspoke; I meant nighttime lows above 100. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jfromga, highacidity

                This article claims that milestone has not yet been reached:

                “It’s been getting significantly hotter,” Harvey Bryan, senior sustainability scientist at ASU’s School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture told Phoenix Magazine. “It’s a magnitude now of about 12 degrees above our historical nighttime lows. It was very typical to have summer evenings of 78 degrees back in the 1950s. Today we rarely go below 90. I think we’re headed to conditions where we have 100 degrees as our maximum nighttime low.”

                © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

                by cai on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:39:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yet I'm alive... (0+ / 0-)

                  I'd go through three gallons of water a day. But survivable, even doing laborious tasks.

                  We need good information not scare tactics. Crap our media sucks.

                  •  an August week last year (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    highacidity, Fox Ringo

                    Historical Average Temperature for August 104/82

                    August 24

                    Temperature  101/81   Humidity    58/27 ave 43

                    August 25

                    Temperature  89/80   Humidity    63/41 ave 52

                    August 26

                    Temperature  100/77  Humidity    69/31 ave 50

                    August 27

                    Temperature  107/80   Humidity    74/19 ave 47

                    August 28

                    Temperature  107/83 Humidity    44/20 ave 32

                    August 29

                    Temperature  100/81   Humidity    67/33 ave 50

                    August 30

                    Temperature  101/81  Humidity   79/33 ave 56

                    Those are from the Almanac at Weather Underground.

                    Temperatures at times go above 115,  humidity sometimes approaches 100%.  But Phoenix doesn't hit 115 and 100% humidity all the time for months.  I looked at July, also monsoon season for a week,  the numbers were higher for temperatures last year than this week in August, with many days between 110 and 113, humidity was similar.

                    Those are also facts,  humidity added to heat is a killer.  

                      •  I looked at July (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        highacidity, Pescadero Bill

                        just didn't think to copy it down until I got to August.   And I specifically looked at the time period of monsoon.

                        Again, not even July is sustained temperatures of 115 with humidity at or approaching 100%.

                        July 15, Hi 110 max humidity 39
                        July 16,  Hi 104 max humidity 55
                        July 17,  hi  107 max humidity 59
                        July 18,  hi  108 max humidity 36
                        July 19,  hi  105 max humidity 65

                        Again, there is variability day to day and year to year, but it isn't 115 with 1005 humidity day in and day out.

                      •  where I live by comparison (3+ / 0-)

                        last year

                        July 15,  hi  84  max humidity 100
                        July 16,  hi  87 max humidity 93
                        July 17,  hi 91  max humidity 97
                        July 18,  hi  87 max humidity 90
                        July 19,  hi  89 max humidity 93

                        A day I remember as particularly brutal as I did work outside for several hours was July 4, 2012,  Hi temp 95, max humidity 96.  Every 45 minutes or so, I retreated to shade, rinsed down in cold water and spent fifteen minutes in front of a strong fan, dried off  and drank a quart of water.

                •  The heat index rises over paved areas (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cai

                  That might explain the 20 degree difference. The heat gets trapped in the concrete and asphalt.

      •  phoenix already gets that hot quite regularly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfromga, highacidity

        granted, i would take that as a sign that it should not exist as a site of human habitation, but it's there all the same.

  •  My prediction is that... (20+ / 0-)

    ...the US will incorporate Canada and turn the permafrost into the new bread basket.  China will take over Siberia.  Europe, the rest of Asia and Africa will struggle.  New Zealand and Australia will become the destination of those who can afford it.  Argentina and Chile will do well for a while.

    But before these things happen, there will be huge wars all over the globe, nuclear wars perhaps.  And billions (with a b) will perish of hunger, disease and war.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 05:41:47 PM PDT

    •  US has already done that, the Koch bros are (25+ / 0-)

      the main players in the tar sands. That's just one example.

      And PM Harper of Canada has already made business trips to the arctic. He was exuberant when he emerged from his helicopter near the north pole, all he could see were dollar signs. Climate change, he loves it, ships can get through to the arctic, permafrost melting and ready for drilling.

    •  why new zealand and australia? (6+ / 0-)

      aren't they broiling down there? water?

      i am curious what right parts of the world this climate scientist might have been referring to....

    •  Someone is coming to kill your kids. (6+ / 0-)

      What are you morally justified in doing about that?

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:22:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't have kids but if I did... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        ...I would consider all sorts of things.  What would you consider doing?

        Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

        by Shockwave on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:29:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  having deterrent strength. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shockwave, fugwb

          I don't have kids either, but many people close to me do.

          In light of scientists speaking openly about the very real threat of human extinction within 200 years, I've become interested in a strategy that can be called "speak softly but carry a big stick."

          If you have a big stick, and are morally justified in using it, what that gets you is the capacity to speak softly and be taken seriously.  Thereby deterring the badguy from killing your kids.

          There are three parts to the strategy:

          One, making clear the unequivocal moral justification for the big stick.

          Two, actually having the big stick.

          Three, speaking softly and getting results.

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:19:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is "the big stick" that could play the role? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek

            What do you propose?

            Perhaps an action that captures the imagination of the people non-violently?

            Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

            by Shockwave on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:24:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the atomic bomb: (13+ / 0-)

              Consumer boycott of Christmas spending.

              Consider what happens if everyone who believes that climate change is a serious threat, just doesn't buy anything at Christmas.  

              It doesn't take a numerical majority of the population.  Just something like 30 - 40%, which, per the polling data, we already have.  And it only takes doing this for one Christmas.

              That is, very concretely, a threat to crash the economy if we aren't taken seriously.

              And there is no law requiring anyone to buy Christmas presents.

              So not only is it nonviolent, it's legal.

              Though, we should also:

              1)  Take our money out of the bankster banks and move it to local credit unions.

              2)  Perma-boycott the worst offenders such as Koch Industries products (they are big in the paper products area, such as paper towels).

              3)  Vote, vote, vote, as if the existence of the human race depends on it, which it does.   Make it excruciatingly clear to Democratic candidates that "climate is Job 1."  Make full use of primaries accordingly.  Goal: Signed statements by candidates, that they agree that "climate is Job 1," and then hold them to it.  Make it a Norquist test for Democrats and make it stick.

              We should do those items regardless of anything else, for a whole range of reasons, not the least of which is to demonstrate that we really do have a big stick and we are willing to use it.  You could call that "firing a warning shot."  

              We got the future back. Uh-oh.

              by G2geek on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 11:32:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are right on here. I have been beating this (0+ / 0-)

                drum for a while, but without a lot of traction.  No buy Christmas is a great idea, and one that can be combined with a real Christmas theme, like visit a hospital, or shovel a person's sidewalk.  Dress it up right, and we can possibly get a large buy in.  We have to start now, though, and get the stuff right.  Some will commit from warming concern, others from a Christian viewpoint.  Nice if we could get the Pope to sign on.  Others will join from an occupy position, and many because they do not want to go further into debt.  We might want to focus on the miso erection that parenthood means much plastic under the tree and much plastic from the wallet.  

                Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

                by StrayCat on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:21:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the key to this is, make it a triggerable threat. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sfinx, StrayCat

                  We don't want people to just start boycotting Christmas randomly.

                  What we want is a list of millions, tens of millions, who will do so when the boycott is actually called but not sooner.  We want the kind of numbers that if the boycott is triggered, will make an immediate and enormous difference in retail sales starting on "Black Friday" as compared to the previous year.  We want the news stories to say "retail sales down by (e.g.) 20% since last year."

                  This is what makes it an "atomic bomb."  The force of it is concentrated rather than dispersed.  But more importantly, it is intended as "deterrent force" that can be unleashed in response to a specific triggering event.  

                  Then the leadership of the organization would have a strong negotiating position with an Administration and with Congress:  "Deal with us and do such-and-such, or else."

                  Best part is, the "or else" isn't even illegal.

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:39:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  If you're young, you may not believe this. (6+ / 0-)

                But, when I was a kid, during the 73 energy crisis, we used to consider people who hung Christmas lights on their houses to be unpatriotic.

                And this was a somewhat common belief, at least for one Christmas in my Midwestern suburb -- I didn't grow up in some eco-loving family.

                Kind of funny to think about it now. But I guess wasting resources during war was probably viewed the same way during WWII. Taking long drives for no reason when we were trying to save oil and rubber for the "war effort," for instance.

                Culture can be shifted.

                Of course, climate change is basically a meteor heading straight for the planet, so cultural shifts won't make a huge dent.

                •  I remember that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek

                  Christmas tree lights virtually disappeard from our neighborhood as well.  It is also when tiny lights instead of the big bright colored lights of my youth came into vogue.  Now we have led lights popping up.

                •  yes, i remember all of that. (0+ / 0-)

                  In the 1970s. And also Carter's "moral equivalent of war," which was prophetic.

                  WW2 was also a time of ferocious conservation.

                  Culture shifts will make a huge dent, and even more easily: the first shift we need is to get people to support shutting down coal and building non-carbon replacements.  That will stop 30% of GHG emissions and buy us time for the rest of the needed steps.

                  Also, anything people do that is buy-in to the meme, will reinforce and strengthen their desire to do more.   Once that ball gets rolling it will keep going.

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:42:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  You are making the same mistake.... (0+ / 0-)

                ....that supporters of single payer did. You are counting soft support as hard support.

                What people say they will do, and what they actually do, are two very different things.

                This is the landscape that we understand, -
                And till the principle of things takes root,
                How shall examples move us from our calm?

                (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

                by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:14:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and you are making the same mistake... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... that people make when they get a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness and immediately become suicidal.

                  It's called pre-emptive surrender and there is no place for that when facing a global existential threat.

                  Even Ronald Reagan understood this when he made the comment to the United Nations that if hostile extraterrestrials attacked Earth, all the talk of nations and races would stop and we would be one planet and one people fighting for our lives.

                  In any case, the Christmas boycott is intended precisely as a deterrent force threat, like an atomic bomb.

                  During the Cold War, one might have reasonably asked if, had the Soviet Union launched an attack against the US, would our Air Force missile crews turn the keys in their silos to launch the retaliatory attack.  The case was made that a retaliatory attack would just add "needless" death and suffering, and many people opposed the "second strike" policy on those grounds.  

                  But the USSR's leadership was not going to take any chances that our missile crews would refuse to turn their keys, and our bomber pilots would refuse to fly, and our submarine crews would refuse to launch their own missiles.

                  And our leadership was not going to take any chances that the Soviet crews would refuse to launch theirs.

                  That was deterrence, and it kept the peace during an incredibly dangerous time in our history.

                  The threat of crashing the economy by nuking the retail sector is similar.  We should hope that we don't have to do it, but if it is necessary to make that threat in order to get the actions that will save humanity from something far worse than nuclear war, so be it.

                  And if we keep the politicians guessing about "what we would actually do," all the better for making them anxious enough to deal with us.

                  If you have any better nonviolent solutions for forcing our elected officials to deal with this, I'm all ears.

                  Otherwise we may as well petition Markos to make "human extinction risk" an exception to the site policy against advocating violence.  Do we really want to go there?

                   

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  That's exactly right (6+ / 0-)

      If we do survive as a civilization it will be in large, very Northern, sustainable cities. Canada and Russia own most of that land. You are very right to speculated about the US taking Canada and China taking a large part of Siberia. Canada is easier as they are drastically underpopulated and have almost no military to speak of. I suspect that it will be a merger under pressure, probably including a promise to preserve French culture in Quebec. China and Russia are another matter altogether. It could be that Russia agrees to lease a large part of Siberia to China. I hope that it works out peacefully.

      There is one geographically obvious irony, and that is the Middle East. After centuries of fighting over control of ancient lands, the ME will be entirely uninhabitable.

      •  China (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StrayCat, The Wizard

        has consumed more concrete over the past three years than the US in all of the 20th century:

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

        by CFAmick on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:28:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Concrete, glass ,steel, energy, agriculture (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ypochris

          China leads the world in so many categories that it should be obvious that they are in fact the largest economy. GDP is a terrible measure as it includes military spending, investment sector, health care excess, and lots of marginal economic activity that has nothing to do with the welfare of the people. China's economy has managed a soft landing to 7% growth, which ties our best year growth in the last 50 years.

          Have they managed to tame the free market economy? Do they know something that we don't about economics? I suspect that the answer is yes to both of those questions.

          Just for comparison, we were doing a running average of about 3.5% growth before 2008, and are now doing about 1.75%.  As an engineer I have to say that we don't know what the hell we are doing about managing a free market economy. That's right, you bozos in Washington get a grade of D- to F in understanding and managing our economy.

          •  China is essentially one quarter of the world's (0+ / 0-)

            population suddenly exploding into the industrial and silicon age all at once. How can it not have grown exceptionally fast?

            Nothing particularly mystical about it. It was a potential enormous economy waiting to be exploited and helped along by western economic powers.

            And its potential is still well beyond maxed. Unless of course they pollute themselves into dysfunction.


            "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

            by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Correct (0+ / 0-)

              The people who invented paper money were prevented from being entrepreneurs for forty years. It was like tying down the safety valve on a boiler. The energy was going to get out one way or another.

              This is the landscape that we understand, -
              And till the principle of things takes root,
              How shall examples move us from our calm?

              (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

              by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:17:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Umm..hi...us Canadians are in the room!! (4+ / 0-)

        A fo ben, bid bont. - Welsh proverb. ( translation: If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)

        by Gwennedd on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 11:11:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know and that's why I mentioned this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          forgore, flowerfarmer

          I love Canada. I have Canadian family and when I am there I sing O Canada with pride. My comments are not to disparage Canadians but to cause them to think about the future. From the US perspective the things that I said are true. I would speculate that since we are transitioning to a multipolar world that Canada needs to strengthen their ties with Europe and even the East, read China, Japan, Korea, Russia, etc. The US is the country of manifest destiny and we do have fangs.

          •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gwennedd, sfinx

            The Republicans would die before they allowed any union with Canada. Remember, outside a few enclaves in Alberta where they apparently sniff gasoline, an American "left-winger" would be on the center-right in Canada. Add 30 million socialists? No way.

            Besides, that tundra is absolutely crap farmland. There's a reason why the natives up there were hunter-gatherers.

            This is the landscape that we understand, -
            And till the principle of things takes root,
            How shall examples move us from our calm?

            (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

            by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:21:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We have already strengthened ties to China (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Wizard

            and Japan, and possibly Korea. Russia is at the moment not feasible. Harper is what's standing in the way of better ties with Europe. Right now he's playing nicey-nicey with the US in hopes of getting the Keystone XL through. Wait and see what happens if PO nixes the pipeline!! Herr Harpers head will explode! He can't get one through BC ( we and FN won't let him) and the US won't let him...he'd better leave the country because all the speculators and investors will want a piece of his ass.

            I have no doubt that many US citizens would like to come here. Canada is a large country with lots of land and water. Problem..much of our water is from either glaciers or snow packs. In the future there will be less of both. Much of our land in the north will not sustain agriculture. And the land that is currently sustaining ag is being badly used. There will be a dust bowl in Alberta and Saskatchewan in the near future. The fishing is overrated.

            We have a few teeth of our own.

            A fo ben, bid bont. - Welsh proverb. ( translation: If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)

            by Gwennedd on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:39:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  A lot of that land is melting permafrost (7+ / 0-)

        And perennially frozen peatlands.

        It's going to melt (releasing scary amounts of methane and carbon as it does). And:

        Detailed inventory of peatlands by aerial photography shows that peatlands with climatically sensitive localized islands of permafrost cover 17,505 km. within a broad band of occurrence in continental western Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba). *Within this zone, 37.5% of the total area covered by bog * and 9.1% of total area covered by fen have localized permafrost landforms (frost mounds and/or internal lawns).
        Russia and Alaska are similar.

        In other words, at this point, I don't think we really know how inhabitable (buildable) that land  will be.

        I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't people doing surveys and trying to determine that right now. Canada doesn't really want its cities being overrun by American refugees.

        And places like Fairbanks, AK already have HOT summers. So we can't assume the Alaskan interior will be an option.

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:18:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  only southeast Alaska will be valuable (0+ / 0-)

          The rugged and sopping wet islands from Yakutat down to Ketchikan are going to be the only habitable parts of Alaska.  Everywhere else is actually pretty dry, but snow and short, cool growing seasons stretch water pretty effectively.

          Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

          by Visceral on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:15:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's why I don't think people understand just (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maryabein, flowerfarmer

          how perfect a storm it is we're sailing ourselves into.

          Human population explosion/global warming. Wham, bam. No thank you Mother Nature ma'am.


          "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

          by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:38:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't need to take Canada, US already owns Alaska (0+ / 0-)

        Alaska is almost as big as the lower 48. Plenty of room for the US to retreat to, without invading anybody.

      •  What do you expect to see by 2050 ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pescadero Bill

        Some possibilities:
        - Drought in US west and midwest leads to crop failures (vegetables & corn) US farm belt abandoned
        - large sustained power outages due to stronger storms / weak infrastructure
        - dust bowls in southwest
        - deadly heat waves
        - Increased global conflict - one possibility is India / Pakistan war
        - Ocean food chain collapse

        I know this is dark but i would appreciate any edits / builds to this list  

         

        •  Mass migration from North Africa to Europe. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          forgore

          Or a continuation/exasperation of.

          - Sudden and extensive collapse of the Amazon rain forest.
          - Salt water encroachment into fresh water aquifers in low-lying land areas dependent on aquifers. (See: Florida and Pakistan)
          - Failing snow pack fresh water sources. (See: Peru, India, United States, etc.)
          - Population displacement and loss of equity in coastal areas (See: U.S. East Coast).

          Or at least we'll start to see the beginning of these inevitable effects.


          "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

          by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:47:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  nuclear wars could possibly bring back the year (5+ / 0-)

      without summer, perhaps solving Mother Nature's people problem in a rather Malthusian way.

      We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

      by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:00:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not going to work (19+ / 0-)

      The thin acid soils formed under tundra and boreal forest lack the nutrients and proper chemistry to be compatible with most food crops.

      •  I've heard that too. (5+ / 0-)

        You can't turn any land into farmland. The northern tundra does not have the right soil.

        curious portal - to a world of paintings, lyric-poems, art writing, and graphic and web design • Drawing Out the Muses / Pricing Your Artwork now available as e-books

        by asterkitty on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:35:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  When the first white settlers (18+ / 0-)

        moved to parts of Wisconsin they found acres of woodland and assumed it would be great for growing crops. It wasn't. Most of those settlers moved on.

        The US speciates soils the same way we speciate flora and fauna. If you want to get nerdy here are the 12 current soil orders:

        Alfisol - soils with aluminium and iron. They have horizons of clay accumulation, and form where there is enough moisture and warmth for at least three months of plant growth. They constitute 10.1% of soils worldwide.
        Andisols - volcanic ash soils. They are young and very fertile. They cover 1% of the world's ice-free surface.
        Aridisol - dry soils forming under desert conditions which have fewer than 90 consecutive days of moisture during the growing season and are nonleached. They include nearly 12% of soils on Earth. Soil formation is slow, and accumulated organic matter is scarce. They may have subsurface zones of caliche or duripan. Many aridisols have well-developed Bt horizons showing clay movement from past periods of greater moisture.
        Entisol - recently formed soils that lack well-developed horizons. Commonly found on unconsolidated river and beach sediments of sand and clay or volcanic ash, some have an A horizon on top of bedrock. They are 18% of soils worldwide.
        Gelisols - permafrost soils with permafrost within two metres of the surface or gelic materials and permafrost within one metre. They constitute 9.1% of soils worldwide.
        Histosol - organic soils, formerly called bog soils, are 1.2% of soils worldwide.
        Inceptisol - young soils. They have subsurface horizon formation but show little eluviation and illuviation. They constitute 15% of soils worldwide.
        Mollisols - soft, deep, dark fertile soil formed in grasslands and some hardwood forests with very thick A horizons. They are 7% of soils worldwide.
        Oxisol - are heavily weathered, are rich in iron and aluminum oxides (sesquioxides) or kayolin but low in silica. They have only trace nutrients due to heavy tropical rainfall and high temperatures. They are 7.5% of soils worldwide.
        Spodosol - acid soils with organic colloid layer complexed with iron and aluminium leached from a layer above. They are typical soils of coniferous and deciduous forests in cooler climates. They constitute 4% of soils worldwide.
        Ultisol - acid soils in humid climates, tropical to subtropical temperatures, which are heavily leached of Ca, Mg, and K nutrients. They are not quite Oxisols. They are 8.1% of the soil worldwide.
        Vertisol - inverted soils. They are clay-rich and tend to swell when wet and shrink upon drying, often forming deep cracks into which surface layers can fall. They are difficult to farm or to construct roads and buildings due to their high expansion rate. They constitute 2.4% of soils worldwide.

        In brief many can't handle staple crops.

        “You think You're frightening me with Your hell, don't You? You think Your hell is worse than mine.” --Dorothy Parker

        by Ice Blue on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:03:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The soils in central and northern Canada (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein

      are not suitable for the highly productive agricultural systems we depend on to feed our billions. We can't just move our agriculture north, in spite of the well-worn talking point.

  •  As I understand it, (14+ / 0-)

    in many or most areas of the United States, pretty much, you're outdoors in mid-summer because you're headed from one air-conditioned space to another. Without delay. You don't "spend time" outdoors, because that isn't comfortable or conducive to well-being. If I understand the predictions about climate-change on weather, this problem will only expand in coming decades. It will cover more geographic area, more of the year, and the temps will be higher. The change will be like that experienced by the froggie in a pot of cold water, where you slowly turn the burner up, until the water is boiling.

    As predictions go, I'm comfortable with this one. It seems plausible.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 05:45:24 PM PDT

    •  Okaaay, but what is everyone going to do for water (9+ / 0-)

      Buy it?

      And remember, weather does not remain stable. Storms of all types will be nastier than they are now and more unpredictable.

      The elites will all be on Mars.

      A fo ben, bid bont. - Welsh proverb. ( translation: If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)

      by Gwennedd on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 05:59:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gwenn -solar powered desalinization (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gwennedd, virginislandsguy, karmsy

        Also helps with rising sea levels.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:06:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  VC - I'd love to see the math on that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, StrayCat, karmsy
          helps with rising sea levels.

          "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." - Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

          by ozsea1 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:21:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Surely it would help some (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ozsea1, karmsy

            I have no idea how much, but maybe someone with the right expertise could work on an estimate.

            I do think that solar powered desalinization will be a critical part of providing fresh water for coastal communities.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:27:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you're off by several orders of magnitude (8+ / 0-)

              human water consumption is a drop in the bucket relative to the size of the ocean.

            •  How vulnerable would such plants be to (0+ / 0-)

              increasingly severe weather?

              There's little doubt in my mind we're in for a dystopian future. Survivable, but for fewer and fewer for the next couple of centuries.

              Beyond that -- as I believe the heat potential of an atmosphere doesn't peak for around 500 years even as CO2 might be diminishing with the damage done (for instance to the oceans) lasting from 100's of thousands to millions -- it's anybodies guess.

              "Logan's Run" may be humanities only hope.


              "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

              by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:57:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Hmm, yeah (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, freerad, StrayCat, karmsy

          I just worry about the waste product being constantly dumped back into the sea.

          Desalinization on such a large scale may upset the saline ratios in seawater. This idea requires more thought.

          A fo ben, bid bont. - Welsh proverb. ( translation: If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)

          by Gwennedd on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:29:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This might be balanced by (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean, not a lamb

            the fresh water melt of the polar ice.

          •  Correct (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gwennedd, forgore, ypochris

            First of all, desalinization is energy intensive.
            Second, desalinzation gets more expensive over time as the local sea salinity increases. (Yemen is currently facing this problem).
            Third, more expensive water effects prices of practically everything. From food, to industrial goods, to personal use & laundry.

            So desalinization is part of the solution, especially as the technology may rapidly develop out of necessity, but it too has clear limits. We will probably need more reservoirs as well.

            Ultimately, we will have to have an honest discussion about the limits to growth.

            •  Limits to growth indeed. Humans are like a cancer (4+ / 0-)

              spreading over the earth and disrupting every organic system that has evolved over time.  Much of the disruption is unnecessary, and done for easy profits or to protect power nodes in the human organizational matrix.  Most of the west can be comfortable and secure with much less than we have as individuals.  Finding this balance is requisite to survival.  Less electrical use, together with solar and wind, mass transportation and electric small town vehicles, bicycle and golf cart lanes instead of new roads and more automobile lanes are a start.  But, there has to be some political will, and some real focus on what moderate and practical steps will have the most impact on CO2 emissions and heat generation.

              Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

              by StrayCat on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:34:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Idle words. (0+ / 0-)

                You won't sell any such program.

                Nor need you sell any such program.

                How about this?

                "You can have anything you want.... on two conditions. First, it has to be 100% recyclable. Second, it has to run on renewable carbon-neutral power."

                But then, that would remove your opportunity to force your own preferred lifestyle on other people, wouldn't it?

                This is the landscape that we understand, -
                And till the principle of things takes root,
                How shall examples move us from our calm?

                (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

                by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:29:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nothing in this universe is one hundred percent. (0+ / 0-)

                  And the extremes of thought and requirements you put are no more than excuses for doing nothing.  Vote with your dollars and much can be accomplished.

                  Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

                  by StrayCat on Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 10:49:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Surreal. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              flowerfarmer

              The people who in one place point out -- correctly -- that we can have access to more solar and wind energy than we can ever use should not be mewling about "energy intensive." Energy is on the verge of becoming just about the cheapest thing we have on our side.

              This is the landscape that we understand, -
              And till the principle of things takes root,
              How shall examples move us from our calm?

              (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

              by sagesource on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:26:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Our current energy system is dependent on water (31+ / 0-)

      which is going to be under huge competition as it is also needed for things like food, survival, etc.

      Right now, our genius policymakers have decided that we can afford to remove trillions of gallons of water from the hydrologic cycle and mix it with toxic chemicals rendering it useless for future use so that frackers can make a bunch of money.

      Even in CA, which already is in extreme drought, the legislature seems to think that they have plenty of water for frackers.

    •  over 85F and I begin to feel ill. I do not get how (8+ / 0-)

      people live in places where it gets hotter than normal human body temperature. I can keep warm in the cold, but I have trouble cooling off in the heat. I stay acclimatized to the season and stay in the region where I live in the NE woods so that I don't have to use air conditioning, because I like the windows open, with fresh air coming through. (also "air" dehydrates  me very quickly.)

      We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

      by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:05:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Minimal or no clothing helps a lot (3+ / 0-)

        if the humidity is low enough.  A change in summer clothing habits seems inevitable.

        However, as the oxygen level drops due to acidification of the oceans...

        The clusterfuck possibilities are endless here.

      •  Most people acclimate. (3+ / 0-)

        The first winter for someone in Wisconsin, they think they're going to freeze to death.  A person's first summer in Phoenix, they think their head is going to explode from the heat.

        Your first year in Seattle, you're sure going to die of depression from the the gray and rain.

        But if you force yourself to get out of climate control and move around (as safely as possible ) in actual weather , your body adjusts.  

        Obviously, there are people who can't do this because of illness. Age and general healthiness can affect the body's ability to thermoregulate.

        (And the old joke is that San Diegans can't handle anything colder than 70 or hotter than 75 because, well, they live in San Diego)

        :)

        But for many people, it really means just pushing past the discomfort. There's no secret to living in an extreme climate other than simply that you live there.
        .

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:31:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes. I've been to San Diego. It was 73 and sunny. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karmsy, grover, flowerfarmer

          And I am perfectly acclimatized to NH. But that's why I can't deal with the rest without really confusing my body.

          We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

          by nuclear winter solstice on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:04:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  we can handle it, but it's definitely abnormal (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flowerfarmer
          And the old joke is that San Diegans can't handle anything colder than 70 or hotter than 75 because, well, they live in San Diego.
          Those are just the limits of where we start to consider the weather to be "cold" or "hot".  They might all be tourists, but you still see lots of people outside almost regardless of the weather.  But I've lived here my whole life and I'd rather it be "cold" than "hot".

          We can also drive in the rain, just not at 80 mph.

          Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

          by Visceral on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:26:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds like all the critters (9+ / 0-)

    will be gone too. Not sure how the human species would survive without bees who've been baked in their hives. Eat meat? Probably won't be able to afford it by then either.

  •  Humans are a virus in sneakers (22+ / 0-)

    and we've given our mother a fever.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 06:11:49 PM PDT

  •  You know the big problem is the thought in the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolfbrooks, METAL TREK

    back of most everyone's minds is that "well we'll all be dead by then and so no big deal to me" BUT with the advances in Medical Technology concerning Aging it could very well be possible for most everyone alive now who are under the age of 50-60 to still be alive 100 years from now,I'm 59 an all 4 of my grandparents lived till they was 80 or more (my Parents both didn't make it past 65 but my mom who left and took me with her to live with her folks when I was 2 years old passed away years later of a heart attack at 52 but she had rheumatic fever as a child so that played a big part in her case and my father died at 64 of a heart attack or so I heard.)so I have hopefully around 20-25 years of medical research that can make 91 year old the new 21 year old and so a good chunk of us may still be around to see signs saying "DO NOT GO OUTSIDE EVER".  

  •  And we won't come home until we kissed a girl... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    METAL TREK, Villabolo, lotlizard

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:14:00 PM PDT

  •  we can thank republicans in NOV for the mosquito (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    METAL TREK

    and weed exposions

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:48:05 PM PDT

  •  For more info on the subject. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, ozsea1, marina, kamarvt, Grainpaw

    For those wanting general information on Global Warming you can link to here. It's an excellent website with 176 arguments and their rebuttals.

    A million Arcosantis.

    by Villabolo on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:55:25 PM PDT

  •  I can't even imagine what this means for (10+ / 0-)

    wildlife. I'm pretty glad I won't be here to see it as it would break my heart.

    The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

    by cany on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:58:49 PM PDT

  •  I guess I'm grateful that my husband and I were... (6+ / 0-)

    I guess I'm grateful that my husband and I were unable to have children. That doesn't mean we don't care about everyone else's, though. We try to do our part for the planet, but finances can make that a challenge. I'm very scared for the future if things don't change, like, yesterday. What the heck can we do with this large number of our population that just chooses to ignore scientific facts? I just don't even know anymore.

  •  Thanks for this diary. As we all know, (0+ / 0-)

    fear is a great motivator, and the more we use it, the bigger will be our advantage and the closer we will be to our goals.

  •  It is hard to be hopeful (9+ / 0-)

    Thanks for this post. But I think it doesn't go far enough.

    This TED talk by David Roberts predicts that by 2300, if current trends continue, temperatures on Earth will reach 170F in some places. Human life above ground will become impossible.

    What is scarier is the time lag. The climate changes we are experiencing today are the result of human practices 30-50 years ago. What we are doing today will not affect our climate for another 30-50 years. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow, we would see dramatically worse climate conditions for another 50 years.

    Then there is the positive feedback effect. Heating will release methane gas from northern tundra and arctic land masses. Methane is far better at trapping UV radiation than CO2, so warming will accelerate. No one knows if we have passed the point of irreversible warming yet.

    It is essential that every effort be made IMMEDIATELY to reduce our carbon footprint. Not just in the US but worldwide. The future of human existence on the planet clearly depends on it. Is such a thing possible in our current political climate? Unlikely, but even if it could be done, it may not be enough. Look what happened on Venus.

    Can anything save us? I would like to think that there are technological solutions to this problem. Is anyone considering techniques to REMOVE CO2 from the atmosphere? Algae and/or plankton grown in strategic locations could remove CO2 and act as carbon sinks. Restoring tropical rainforests would help. There may be other ideas. Finding and funding them is kind of critical.

    Perhaps there is hope. I will be dead of course, and so will all of you, before the situation improves, if ever. Some people believe differently.  But science doesn't really care what we believe. Sorry to be a downer, but that's how I see it.

    'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none go just alike, yet each believes his own. - Alexander Pope

    by liberaldad2 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:46:37 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for linking the David Roberts talk; (6+ / 0-)

      it's full of good information, and my go-to scare the pants off myself global warming talk.

      Preserving forests and re-forestation are huge parts of mitigation.  Unfortunately, forests moving towards the poles would not necessarily help; dark trees absorb more sunlight than white snow or ice or tundra, which would add to local warming and ice melting.

      Geo-engineering may become necessary, but we should try to avoid it.  Not only are the moral questions enormous -- if we deliberately geoengineer and the monsoon fails (as it looks like adding fine particulates to the upper atmosphere might cause), who take the blame? will there be wars -- not only are the immediate practical concerns huge -- unanticipated side effects? who decides? -- but any large project would commit humanity to trying to sustain that project for centuries, at least.  (Meanwhile, if we geoengineer and don't reduce emissions, then the geoengineering will become even more necessary to keep some semblance of climate stability.)

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:25:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for your response (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kamarvt, RepublicansDemise

        The climate change story is so depressing, it kind of helps to have some glimmer of good news. The 50-yr thing scares the sh*t out of me. If today's climate is what the 1960s have caused, is there any hope at all 50 yrs from now? Then there's the methane !!

        I read a report about a conservation group (maybe it was Nature Conservancy ?) working with a South American govt to buy large areas of land and protect it for reforestation in perpetuity.  Clearly important, but we revel in such small victories - when the ship is going down.

        If the choices are changing human nature or geo-engineering, what are our chances? It may already be too late.

        'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none go just alike, yet each believes his own. - Alexander Pope

        by liberaldad2 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 11:04:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The real danger is to crops, it seems to me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RepublicansDemise, forgore, ypochris

    The disruption of global food supplies may lead to mass starvation. The human race will survive, but maybe not civilization as we know it.

    •  Don't understand how you can say that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfinx

      humans will survive. If surface temperatures go to 170F by 2300 as David Roberts predicts, and methane becomes a significant component of the atmosphere, temperature would keep going up from there. Humans would have to create a massive underground infrastructure to survive. And they would have to do it during periods of drought, famine, wars, new diseases, and general chaos. Think Venus.

      'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none go just alike, yet each believes his own. - Alexander Pope

      by liberaldad2 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:38:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My 1999 poem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ypochris

    URBAN SPRAWL - MOTHER NATURE'S RAPE

    Our urban sprawl mauls Mother Nature's wonder.

    The capitalists' sins,
    profit and gain,
    reign while Chaos grins.

    Slowly sowing the seeds of destruction
    with a manic push for production;
    lulled into carnal security,
    too blind to see.

    In the end many will have profited their temporary gain,
    then watch helplessly their desperate childrens' pain.

    Wondering when they could have saved
    their tiny ones from dying of thirst
    or a belly full of hunger.

    A man will trade his mansion on high
    for food and water so his child won't die.

    Nothing will escape the planet-wide mistake
    of Mother Nature's rape.

    Copyright © 9-1999 by Sonja

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 07:03:22 AM PDT

  •  Oh this is all a bunch of hogwash. There's no s... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall2

    Oh this is all a bunch of hogwash. There's no such thing as global warming. Just ask a republican... if he or she can hear you over the roar of their central air conditioning unit.

  •  Already I hear complaints from (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall2

    people who work outside like painters, tree cutters, and roofers that the wetness in the NE is having a big impact on their schedules and limiting what they can get done.

  •  Outdoor activities won't cease (0+ / 0-)

    If you follow the link to the original Reuters story, it says that the "wet bulb" conditions they're talking about are predicted to occur about two days per year in the locations they mention . . . so outdoor life won't be utterly impossible, as long as people pay attention to warnings - sort of like air quality warnings now.

    But it's still bad. Really, really bad.  And liable to get worse, since when it reaches that point we may not be able to tip it back the other way.

  •  And a lot of Kossacks want to make things worse (0+ / 0-)

    by adopting Germany's energy policies which would make air conditioning unaffordable for many poor Americans.

  •  Um, (0+ / 0-)

    I'm all for cutting back on carbon emissions, etc because I think we are killing the climate.  However, I draw the line at hyperbole that might turn off folks who haven't made up their mind yet.

    "Functionally impossible to be outside." Um. No.

    Texas is Ground Zero in the fight for a better future. Get on board or get out of the way.

    by DyspepTex on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:01:39 AM PDT

    •  Right (0+ / 0-)

      I think the quote was taken out of context, though the Reuters article didn't really make it clear either. I believe it was saying that on a few days a year it would be functionally impossible to be outside, not, as you might conclude, from the headline of this post that it would be true all the time everywhere.

      Nonetheless, I believe climate change is the biggest problem of our time and we'd better get busy addressing it.

  •  this kind of weather (0+ / 0-)

    i know it's all about us but the birds and bees can't walk around in wet suits.  what happens to other living things under these conditions?

  •  The Day After Tomorrow (0+ / 0-)

    Art imitates life in many of the movies that have come out predicting future life on the planet.  Although scientifically inaccurate in their information, you can't help but wonder just what it will look like; variations on the theme of climate change and what it might mean for us and future generations.  There has been global climate change before, I believe it is cyclical; thing is when it did happen before there weren't so many of us to be effected by it.  Now the potential for mass kill off is very high.  The planet will spit us off like a bad flu bug.

  •  Hoping to buy their way out? (0+ / 0-)

    Older people, like myself, aren’t so worried about climate change for ourselves - although, it is already having an impact on people - but more for our grandchildren. It is the progeny of our children that will reap what we’ve sown.

    I wonder sometimes; the wealthy, who for the most part run this country, often buy their way out of trouble, especially their wayward children. In trouble with the law? No problem, money can cushion or erase almost any blunder or malice. They are used to paving a smooth road by using money as a foundation. Perhaps many have become so used to money offering an easy solution to any problem that climate change is just another obstacle to throw money at should it become an issue.

    There are exceptions, of course, the founders of Ben and Jerry’s comes to mind - capitalists with a conscience; not blinded by greed. The problem here is we are talking about a possible extinction event. Not sure anyone is going to be able to buy their way out if it comes to pass.

    It would be better not to know so many things than to know so many things that are not so. - Felix Okaye

    by eclecticguy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 01:03:42 PM PDT

  •  We're doomed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meinoregon

    I give humanity 2 generations.

  •  No Problem (0+ / 0-)

    I will just climb in my F350 and turn on the air conditioning.

  •  If the heat doesn't kill us, the food and water... (0+ / 0-)

    If the heat doesn't kill us, the food and water shortages will.

  •  "It will be functionally impossible... (0+ / 0-)

    for WHITE people to be outside."

    I foresee the return of the African slave-trade.

  •  Really (0+ / 0-)

    This could be an optimistic view of the future or, the silver lining in an other wise very dark future. Keep in mind that the world population will be close to twenty billion by then.

  •  It's a hoax!!! (0+ / 0-)

    Come now people, it's all a hoax!  Those decimated coral reefs and those videos of gigantic chunks of ice falling off of icebergs, crazy weather, heat waves, drought, etc.  ALL FAKE!  It's a liberal plot to uhm.. hmm.  Wait.. how would the left benefit from creating this hoax.. hmm.  I'm not really sure.

    What will the right lose by listening to what 98% of scientists world-wide are saying, and have been saying, for years now?  They would lose profits! NOOOO!!!!!  Not profits!  "Curb the way we do business just to give us a place to exist?  Preposterous!!!"

    "I'm a billionaire coal tycoon and no, I REFUSE to be a little less rich.  That's right.  I can buy everyone and everything 1000x times over and you want ME to go down to only being able do that ONLY 999X over????"

    I'm still astounded that billionaires are buying elections.  Why?  Because they need more money?  Really?  Who are the real hoarders here?  The newspaper hoarders?  I don't think so.

    As Bill Bugo says it "How big does your yacht gotta be?"

  •  The Republicans fear machine (0+ / 0-)

    has taught many people to be afraid of things they really don't need to worry about (gay marriage, evolution, women, birth control, and abortion to name just a few) and to disbelieve things they should be afraid of (climate change in particular).  

  •  Sorry "OMZOG! We'Z ALL GONNA DIE!" boys... (0+ / 0-)

    but we're COOLING, not warming, and will be for some time.

    Man-caused "global warming" is a myth, and beggaring every nation and corporation on Earth won't stop natural processes from doing their thing.

    http://www.forbes.com/...

  •  Adaptations (0+ / 0-)

    We'll all become siesta cultures.  Stay inside during the heat of the day.  Work early AM and after the nap.  Maybe less work will get done.  Economic growth will be a thing of the past anyway, so who needs to work hard?  Hopefully, we will have done away with today's economic inequality.  Otherwise, there will be a desperately poor class and the oligarchs who will protect themselves from all the unpleasantness.  

    That, and we'll all move to Canada, Siberia, Tierra Del Fuego, and... Antarctica?

  •  Welcome to the future (0+ / 0-)

    No matter how bad it gets, Republicans will STILL claim it's just a hoax.

  •  Civilization (0+ / 0-)

    will move underground into elaborate cave systems both natural and human made.

  •  I was just thinking about that this morning (0+ / 0-)

    and our flimsy construction won't help us . . . we'ill use more power for cooling  . . . instead of the thick walls of yore . . . a basement "Man Cave" could become a survival necessity.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 09:59:17 AM PDT

  •  Homo Erraticus (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peregrine kate

    I've been listening recently to Anderson's new work, Homo Erraticus, essentially tales of human migration and associated folly. Two pieces in particular - The Browning of the Green and Cold, Dead Reckoning -- could provide the running soundtrack to this Reuter's article, indeed the entire series of IPCC Assessment Reports. Quite haunting on all fronts. Easy to point fingers, too, and plenty at which to point, though, as a species, we have been walking (dead) this trajectory since at least the dawn of agriculture. I'm grimly reminded of Jared Diamond's classic Discover article, The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, and Bodley's Price of Progress. "We are the tribe that eats itself and spits out not a morsel thing, and navigates this desert by our cold dead reconing." Apparently, Kocks didn't get that memo... 'Functionally impossible,' Homo Erraticus, indeed.

  •  Conservatives Don't Care, (0+ / 0-)

    as long as there's money to be made.

Meteor Blades, Angie in WA State, Sylv, Jsea, oofer, filkertom, grollen, Timaeus, Trendar, mimi, PeterHug, karlpk, Shockwave, Wintermute, liz, mslat27, eeff, xynz, HootieMcBoob, windwardguy46, Creosote, JLFinch, TracieLynn, sponson, fugwb, Einsteinia, susakinovember, whenwego, ehavenot, teresahill, Agathena, ask, farmerhunt, chimpy, lorikay4, ivote2004, jalbert, splashy, kcc, psnyder, brainwave, Lawrence, DSC on the Plateau, defluxion10, wordwraith, 2dot, Dood Abides, zerelda, ybruti, Sembtex, Sassy, oortdust, Gowrie Gal, sb, rapala, G2geek, marina, UncleCharlie, democracy inaction, kamarvt, dewtx, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, FutureNow, eru, owlbear1, bleeding blue, SaraBeth, Sun Tzu, GreyHawk, Fury, Overseas, jane123, sunbro, spunhard, Ginny in CO, turdraker, bookwoman, peacestpete, xaxnar, Jim R, martini, golem, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Clytemnestra, profundo, Gorette, AoT, The Wizard, MargaretPOA, blueoasis, global citizen, StrayCat, Ashaman, Crashing Vor, real world chick, novapsyche, JVolvo, Spock36, onionjim, lastamendment, doingbusinessas, One Pissed Off Liberal, camlbacker, Dartagnan, ColoTim, puakev, yoduuuh do or do not, FischFry, Back In Blue, Bridge Master, carpunder, Wreck Smurfy, Don midwest, keyscritter, TomP, Empower Ink, VA Breeze, JDWolverton, JeffW, ChocolateChris, GAS, zerone, weezilgirl, Calamity Jean, Lujane, TomFromNJ, hwmnbn, doppler effect, JamieG from Md, billybam, forgore, maxcat06, 207wickedgood, maggiejean, greengemini, nchristine, The Dead Man, mkor7, LibrErica, TheOpinionGuy, bfitzinAR, Shelley99, Keith Pickering, Munchkn, sfarkash, astral66, collardgreens, Just Bob, The Jester, NJpeach, Crabby Abbey, JoanMar, pixxer, cai, Betty Pinson, Oh Mary Oh, fiercefilms, slice, indubitably, Mister Met, Pakalolo, kerflooey, ozsea1, slowbutsure, cv lurking gf, asterkitty, Teiresias70, CoExistNow, marleycat, thomask, Muskegon Critic, chickeeee, LSmith, worldlotus, sound of progress, Caddis Fly, Joe Jackson, blue muon, Hayate Yagami, SteelerGrrl, CoyoteMarti, Auriandra, No one gets out alive, Laurel in CA, livingthedream, Siri, charliehall2, IndieGuy, nellgwen, oldcrow, orpurple, belinda ridgewood, Syoho, Lilredhead, MartyM, doroma, wxorknot, james321, etherealfire, rat racer, Victim of Circumstance, ItsaMathJoke, George3, James Wells, peptabysmal, Robynhood too, CalBearMom, Hammerhand, Lily O Lady, jbob, goodpractice, HedwigKos, Dewstino, northerntier, Mannie, ET3117, Juzzain, Catkin, skepticalcitizen, Rich Lyles, RUNDOWN, richardvjohnson, eagleray, patbahn, Gurnt, stitchingasfastasIcan, bull8807, dcnblues, liberaldad2, agitatednactivated, Gunnar Thomas, NewRomeIsBurning, bobcat41702, Doctor Jazz, BHSDesk, MissMudgeon, eyeofgotham , jessbell911, Blackwolf53, Silencio

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site