Why Zero Carbon is the only solution to global warming and climate change

I’ve been writing a lot about the Zero Carbon economy, one of the two methods we have of dealing with the coming economic scarcity, and the only one of those ways that provides us a solution to climate change — “global warming” (though some of that warming may produce extreme cooling, in fact a new Ice Age, in some parts of the globe).

But that information, about the coming scarcity and the argument for Zero Carbon as the solution, is part of a longer essay, and the second part of it at that. So I want to bring these ideas to the forefront, and not by just linking to them.

You have two ways to get this — either via YouTube or by reading. The YouTube discussion, with Matt Filipovicz, is immediately below. If you’d prefer to read, just skip past the video and start. Either method will get you there.

Here’s the bulk of my discussion with Matt (my whole discussion with him is available on his site).

Matt made an excellent point midway through this, by the way. One scenario for managing the scarcity is, we manage it for our benefit. The other scenario is, the 1% manage it for theirs. Nicely put.

Now the writing that this discussion refers to, all via this this essay. First, about the coming scarcity. I noted that Chris Hedges and economics historian Avner Offer predicted scarcity. From Hedges piece on Offer, he writes (my emphasis):

Our current economic model, [Offer] said, will be of little use to us in an age of ecological deterioration and growing scarcities. Energy shortages, global warming, population increases and increasing scarcity of water and food create an urgent need for new models of distribution. Our two options, he said, will be “hanging together or falling apart.” …

Offer has studied closely the economies of World War I. … He holds up these war economies, with their heavy rationing, as a possible model for collective action in a contracting economy. … “These war economies were relatively egalitarian. These economics were based on the safety net principle. If continued growth in the medium run is not feasible, and that is a contingency we need to think about, then these rationing societies provide quite a successful model.”

From this I think we can conclude the following (my writing here):

Climate will give us a scarcity world

There’s more in the [Hedges] piece about the implications of this thinking for the economics profession, but let’s look at one other aspect of his thought. While Offer says that the scarcity world is coming, he doesn’t elaborate how. Allow me.

Aside from the obvious, that at some point population growth will outstrip food production, there’s a factor that perhaps no one but the geniuses in the bowels of the Pentagon have considered. The climate.

Modern human society depends on sufficient production of a number of commodities. Let’s just consider three: food, water, energy. First, there’s no question in anyone’s mind that climate changes will affect global supplies of food. (Click to see how, or search on the phrase “will climate change affect food production?” No one says, “We’ll be just fine.”)

The same with the water supply. In fact, I can almost bet that these commodities will go into scarcity because of one factor alone — the psychopaths in the investment community are giddy over the prospects. Everything from new shipping lanes through the formerly iced Northwest Passage, to opportunities for military contractors, to drilling for even more carbon (oil) in the formerly iced Arctic Ocean, to — you guessed it — profiting from drought and famine by cornering the market on food and water (pdf). …

But power — energy — scarcity is a special problem, because energy scarcity is also the solution. There is absolutely no question that we’ll enter a world of energy rationing in the next ten years, if not sooner. The question is, do we do it by choice or necessity?

Which leads to the solution, a voluntary Zero Carbon economy. Here’s what that looks like and why it’s needed:

The Zero Carbon economy, a rationing regime that works

I’ll be plain — we can solve the energy crisis with extreme energy rationing now. We need to put the brakes on the carbon car hard and soon. That’s the only way to keep the world below the original +3°C “game over” scenario. That’s the only way to keep the world at or below the newer +2°C “life between the Ice Ages” scenario:

In studying cores drilled from both ice sheets and deep ocean sediments, [James] Hansen found that global mean temperatures during the Eemian period [a prehistoric warm period between two of the Ice Ages], which began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 15,000 years, were less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today. If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said.

“The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago [when he made his +3°C "game over" prediction]. Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient,” Hansen said. “It would be a prescription for disaster.”

And it’s the only way to mitigate the +1°C disaster we we’re experiencing right now. We need a Zero Carbon economy — now. Not Obama’s “carbon neutral” (“keep the Kochs in walking money”) economy, a Zero Carbon economy. The following was written in 2011:

Wartime effort reduction path

Emission reductions can still be the route to doing that, Hansen states. Based on these insights an American Environmental Coalition led by 23 high-ranking officials of American energy, climate and environmental NGOs, recently wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao, calling for wartime-like mobilisation by the governments of the United States and China to cut carbon emissions 80 percent, based on 2006 levels, by 2020, in order to reach the 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 stabilisation level [indeed, that’s just nine years – the price of having done nothing before].

The bracketed comment was the author’s, not mine. It’s now 2014. We just wasted three years. The longer we do nothing, the worse it will get, the less time to put on the brakes, and the more drastic the rationing — either voluntary or forced — will be. Let’s look at what that means:

Voluntary rationing means the U.S. government steps in, absorbs all the excess capital from the economy it needs, and builds out a Zero Carbon energy regime at a man-on-the-moon rate, a wartime-rationing rate. It does so with zero-carbon goals, not comfortable-rate-of-change goals. To go to Zero Carbon use in, say, five years has to mean rationing, hard “wartime” rationing. Tough luck, but time marches on. Best to start now.

Forced rationing means that the Exxons, Rex Tillersons and David Kochs are allowed to dump all the carbon they can into the gas tanks and carbon-fueled generating stations of the world at the fastest rate they can, for the highest price they can get. Then die rich.

Meanwhile, South Florida will flood in the next “Haiyan”–scale hurricane event, development will cease, property values will crater, insurance costs will soar, drinking water will go salty, and everyone who can get out, will. That will put fear into the eyes of every other American, and we’re off to crisis time as panic and disaster feed on each other. From that day on, it’s a whole new world.

Water will be rationed by its scarcity — food by the inability and unwillingness of owners to grow or deliver it — and energy by high prices (pricing power, baby!), crumbling infrastructure, and mounting social chaos in a world run by … yes, “just deserts” overlords who won’t give up a thing so the rest of us can survive.

Voluntary rationing means that we’ll have it very hard, World War I and II hard, for five-to-ten years, and then we’ll be carbon-free forever. Forced rationing means that the chaos and the population decimation of the next half century will play out, and most of who’s left will be hunter-gatherers in a post-Holocene world. Forced means “forced by circumstances and our own bad choice of whom to listen to.” Even vengeance won’t be an option; David Koch will be dead.

You can read the two bottom lines here, including what we should do.

But first things first. If we have any shot at all at fixing this mess, we need to have our eye on the right goal. So-called “carbon neutral” is a climate-caused death sentence. Zero Carbon, on a crash agenda is the only work worth doing. As a great man once said, it doesn’t make any difference how fast you climb the ladder, if it’s the wrong ladder.

Thanks for your attention to this important issue.

GP

Twitter: @Gaius_Publius
Facebook: Gaius Publi

(Facebook note: To get the most from a Facebook recommendation, be sure to Share what you also Like. Thanks.)


Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States. Click here for more. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius and Facebook.

Share This Post

  • morecotwo

    You must mean Obammy who promised to part the seas.

  • alpha2actual

    Take a 27 millionth of a gram of Plutonium Oxide suspend it in a half litre of ambient atmosphere and inhale it. Let see what happens. I’ll put my money on lung cancer before bone cancer.

  • Phil Hubb

    Why the focus on CO2?
    CO is more harmful and flourohydrocarbons are even worse.

  • blogagog

    “Are you fucking nuts… 1000 ppm of what?”

    Not entirely sure I understand your question. 1000ppm CO2 means 1,000 of every 1,000,000 molecules in the air are CO2. Another way of putting it is 0.1% (or more accurately 0.1%M). And I’m not nuts. My Mom had me tested.

    Most people, even the alarmiest of the climate alarmists no longer believe that Greenland stands the possibility of melting. But let’s imagine for a moment that the armageddonists are correct and it WILL happen. What does that mean for you and me? Will we die from drowning after years of wading through sea water in our living rooms that rises inch by inch every year until it finally covers and drowns us and the television no longer works because the sea water shorted it out?

    Or will we simply move inland? I believe in mankind, so I suspect the latter.

  • BillFromDover

    Like the Bible?

  • BillFromDover

    Yes, no or maybe:

    Is the temperature of this planet higher than it would normally be without the million of tons of CO2 greenhouse gasses we are pumping into the atmosphere daily?

  • march1969

    First you take my comment out of context (old trick) then you resort to insults (sign that you cannot argue on the issue) and then you confirm my suspicion that your dogma infliction is incurable. Get a life, Armageddon is not coming any time soon because of GW (or may be because of a New Ice caused by GW “in some parts of the globe”?. You still have to acknowledge that GW has STOPPED for the past 15 years and counting. Now, who’s the denier? Careful, the Spanish Inquisition used to draw and quarter their “deniers”…LOL.

  • Kopernicus

    The climate models assume the following:

    The earth is flat.

    There are no other heat sinks or sources other than warming produced by CO2

    The heat capacity of the top 3 meters of seawater is ignored.

    Cloud cover and water vapor have no effect on warming/cooling.

    That CO2 has this strange property that once it is opaque to IR it can actually still let IR transmit through. That is false.

    Do you even know how many Ph.D. climatologists there are? It is a few dozen. There are far more physicists, chemists, biologists and geologists out there. Many of us scoff at the methods and claims of this tiny fraction of our community.

    The ‘Climate-Gate’ e-mails (why don’t you read them) clearly show that they were gerrymandering the editorship of their journals to squelch any debate.

    There is MONEY in perpetuating this fraud. See how rich Al Gore has made himself.

  • Kopernicus

    There was farming in Greenland from 800-1200 AD.

    http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

    Fact.

    The entire Greenland ice sheet only contains enough water to raise sea levels by less than an inch.

    2/3 to 3/4 of the ice is at the South Pole. Which oddly enough has been expanding over the last 20 years…

  • Kopernicus

    Plutonium is toxic. Sub-microgram levels ingested are lethal.

    CO2 is necessary for the survival of 9/10 of the worlds biomass.

  • Kopernicus

    CO2 is not pollution. Nothing is ‘pollution’ that 9/10 of the biomass on the planet needs to survive.

  • Kopernicus

    What a JOKE. The world was 3-5 C warmer from 800-1200 AD and mankind flourished. Greenland had settlements. Vikings probably discovered Canada almost 500 years before Columbus.

    Now even Ice Ages are part of ‘global warming’.

    It is so nonsensical coming from an educated adult to not even be funny!

  • BillFromDover

    “I don’t need any peer reviewed scientific evidence to…”

    Of course. Did ya ever meet an ignorant denier that did?

  • George1111

    Is the author talking seriously or if this a joke? If he believes that the governments in China and India are going to destroy their economies to implement this utopia, he is living in fantasy land. I always have a problem with this doomsday scenarios. If they are so sure that there are going to be those biblical flooding as the Ice caps melts how come that they are not selling their houses in Malibu at fire sale prices and moving to Denver.

  • BillFromDover

    Unfortunately, climate is driven by physic, not ideology; hence your proclivity fro constantly attempting to change the subject from one of simple physics to one of ideology

    This is a simple question:
    Do the 90+ millions of ton of CO2s pumped
    into the atmosphere daily cause the temperature of the Earth to heat up more that
    it naturally would absent these gasses..

  • BillFromDover

    I’d be embarrassed to admitting to being a scientist with the arguments you posit.

    BTW, what is your field of ignorance?

  • GeorgeMokray

    “Your second paragraph explicitly argues for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is a stupid idea. Plants need it to breathe, and we rely on said plants for the oxygen we breath. It’s called photosynthesis.”

    Plants take carbon out of the atmosphere. That’s what I’m advocating. Use ecological systems design to expand the biosphere and speed that process to return the carbon content of the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels, about 270 ppm of carbon dioxide.

    And I’m sure that the 99% can easily afford the passively safe and “environmentally friendly” thorium reactors which are readily available and working all around the world a few decades from now.

  • BV

    Your second paragraph explicitly argues for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is a stupid idea. Plants need it to breathe, and we rely on said plants for the oxygen we breath. It’s called photosynthesis.

    With regard to the effect of CO2 concentration on plants, I would imagine the study controlled the number of plants in the system. Such is fundamental to the scientific method: control all variables but one and determine the effect of the one variable on the system. However, the earth, as you know, has space to grow additional plants, and therefore your doom and gloom scenario likely wouldn’t happen.

    With regard to personal attacks, you whacko greens deserve it. You have presented to the world a doomsday scenario of climate change based on models that have FAILED to correctly predict experimentally measured temperature changes in the lower atmosphere. That isn’t science.

    And the goal for your antiscientific approach is to limit the 99%’s access to cheap, reliable forms of energy. How elitist. If you want to lift people out of poverty, provide them with cheap, reliable forms of energy. If you want to challenge the privileged position of the global 1%, give the 99% cheap, reliable forms of energy so that they can power their ideas to challenge the 1%.

    For the record, providing such energy doesn’t mean that it should solely be in the form of hydrocarbon sources. I’m sorry, “fossil fuel” sources. Thorium, molten salt reactors are passively safe and environmentally friendly. We should be placing our efforts in developing this form of energy.

  • BV

    what? I was speaking of carbon dioxide, which is to plants as oxygen is to us. I have no idea what you’re trying to say, and I’m going to guess that neither do you.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    So, as you are publishing your carbon zero call, were you using electricity from the grid — much of it generated by natural gas or coal — and then sending it out, via an internet which uses electricity, to people who are viewing it by using electricity? By writing and transmitting this, were you not encouraging other people to use electricity?

    Yup, that’s what I thought.

  • Ford Prefect

    ROTFLMAO. Thanks for this: “…for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock.”

    You’re a communist!

  • 4th Turning

    Looks to me like you wee-wee on all the trees in the park…

    alpha2actual Liberalism Is Nonsense • 6 months ago
    “Concepts and Implications of Altruism Bias and Pathological Altruism”, Barbara A. Oakley. This paper describes the Pathological Altruism Disorder as not only applicable to individuals but government policy decisions as well. The following excerpt is a terrific description of what is going of with Anthropogenic Climate Change fringe currently. “Good government is a foundation of large-scale societies; government programs are designed to minimize a variety of social problems. Although virtually every program has its critics, well designed programs can be effective in bettering people’s lives with few negative tradeoffs. From a scientifically-based perspective, however, some programs are deeply problematic, often as a result of superficial notions on the part of program designers or implementers about what is genuinely beneficial for others, coupled with a lack of accountability for ensuing programmatic failures. In these pathologically altruistic enterprises, confirmation bias, discounting, motivated reasoning, and egocentric certitude that our approach is the best—in short, the usual biases that underlie pathologies of altruism—appear to play important roles. Those possessing altruism bias would be most strongly biased to object to the very concept of altruism bias. Research has shown the near impossibility of reaching biased individuals using rational approaches, no matter their level of education or intelligence; such attempts can be likened to squaring the circle

  • alpha2actual

    The fallacy of your argument is Plutonium is incredibly toxic and therefore is an inappropriate application to this discussion. Try another analogy. By the way resorting to analogy is an indication of a deficient intellect.

  • B Buckner

    Clearly this site is a farce. Until you joined in, all of the commenters were supportive and in on the gag. You are taking this seriously and the joke is on you.

  • 4th Turning

    Don’t you think the “rainbow” tee shirts at 1:14 are just delicious?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1fjmr-Kmxk

  • Danny K

    Go ahead and laugh as these countries start to use more”evil coal”in their energy equations. Pretty soon they all will be fracking, trying to find cheaper, reliable energy to avoid rolling blackouts and high costs associated with the bill of goods the global warming brigade have been sold. Talk about funny and ignorant. How are the wind farms doing in Spain and England? Germany is so enthused about renewables, they’re building more coal-fired plants. Good luck Biily.

  • alpha2actual

    Yo, billfromdover, . Here is a listing of Federal subsidies dedicated for electric power production by source, fiscal 2010, dollars per Megawatt. Oil and Gas $0.64, Hydropower $0.82, Coal $0.64, Nuclear $3.14, SOLAR $775.64, WIND $56.29. You don’t need a Harvard MBA that there is something amiss here..

  • Danny K

    I think you need to dig a little deeper in your search. Oil gets the same tax breaks and advantages as Google, GE and Apple. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Farm fuel tax credits for farmers, low income heat assistance. These are all classified under fossil fuel tax credits. You Liberals want to eliminate these subsidies? i doubt it.

  • Srinivas Varma
  • Danny K

    Get rid of all energy susidies. Period. Let the market dictate what succeeds.

  • alpha2actual

    Long enough for the room temperature IQs to realize that there is 3,000 years of readily available Uranium available.

  • alpha2actual

    What I know is that Wind Turbines express a net carbon footprint, factoring in decommissioning and that are incredibly inefficient pieces of bird and bat killing crap.

  • alpha2actual

    I recognize the portrait, the subject of which deceased tin 1863 as a result of syphilis. I wasn’t aware of the fact that intellectual imparement was genetically transferable, until now. Congrats.

  • alpha2actual

    By the time there is “political agreement” 99% of developed countries populations will be dead. I’m putting my money on an EMP. Are you aware of the fact that the small large substation transformers can take 6 months to build, and the really large transformers can take 2 plus years to build? I thought not. I think it would be really difficult to build a transformer in the absence of electricity, think about it.

  • alpha2actual

    You are aware of the fact that during the last Ice Age the C02 content was in excess of 1300 ppm, Unless of course you are a product of Common Corp, sight reading, culturally illiterate, why Johnny can’t do math generation.

  • alpha2actual

    More importantly Jeff Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar is a Paul “Margaret Sangter” Eugenics cretin. Kill off those “brown” non entities in developing countries because they are consuming natural resources that should rightfully be consumed by us, the obnoxious public intellectual parasites.

  • alpha2actual

    The health and uninterrupted functioning of international Fossil Fuel Markets determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Exxon Mobil, and Chevron, and BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, Peabody Energy, and BHP Billiton . Those are the nations of the world today. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, it has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, to see that… perfect world… in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality, no Anthropogenic Climate Change. Only one vast and ecumenical holding company of fossil fuel conglomerates, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused, all IPhone GPS tracking disabled.

  • alpha2actual

    Biff, obviously you have no sense of humor, get some therapy or Lithium.

  • alpha2actual

    The report is still trying to it’s transnational progressive transference of wealth from the worker bees to scum. That is what is really pathetic.

  • alpha2actual

    Agenda driven stupidity?

  • eggroll_jr

    Hmm

  • alpha2actual

    Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States. Gaius has written in a variety of genres and styles. He’s published short stories and poetry, books on education & technology, and is currently working on two book-length projects, including one novel.

    In addition to writing, Gaius has been a professional educator and currently manages a small publishing consultancy. He holds a Bachelors degree in Great Books with a side concentration in physics and math, and a Masters in English and Communication.

    Gaius is an occasional guest on progressive media shows, such as Ring of Fire Radio and Virtually Speaking.

    The autor of this article has terrific scientific credentials, you decided. The tipoff should be California.

  • alpha2actual

    You can’t be talking about Al” ManFBearPig” Gore, a Freudian delight who flunked out of Divinity School, I mean this moron is so “serial”, obviously he has the intellectual weight to warrant a Nobel Prize.

  • alpha2actual

    James Lovelock, a founding member of Greenpeace, is objecting to a wind turbine project in North Devon, UK in a letter to the Torridge District Council as testimony against the proposed Witherdon Wood Wind Turbine project.

    “I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human need. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilization.”

    James Lovelock, Environmentalist and inventor of the Gaia hypothesis

  • alpha2actual

    The per Megawatt cost of production of a MegaWatt of an off shore wind turbine is $70 dollars, as oppose to $23 to $36 for an established Nuclear Plant, depending upon the installation. Due the math QED

  • alpha2actual

    The Germans just went to Brussels and essentially told the Professional Parasitical Burauecarts to screw it with you feed in tariffs. Obviously you have not keeping up on current events.

  • alpha2actual

    Excellent yet obvious observation. The preponderance of the Fossil Fuel subsidies are Tax and Credits available to all business, including renewables, applicable to the expensive exploration and field development phase of the production process. The Production Tax Credit is applicable solely to Renewable Energy. Only a fraction of fossil production goes to electrical power generation. Therefore in order to make an accurate comparison, the calculation of fossil fuel subsidy are the amounts dedicated solely to electric power production. The US Energy Information Agency is the go to government source for unbiased data. Here is a listing of Federal subsidies dedicated for electric power production by source, fiscal 2010, dollars per Megawatt. Oil and Gas $0.64, Hydropower $0.82, Coal $0.64, Nuclear $3.14, SOLAR $775.64, WIND $56.29. You don’t need a Harvard MBA that there is something amiss here..

    Without subsidies and mandates this nonsense wouldn’t be happening in the US. And yes it takes both sides of the isle, the Crony Capitalists, Crony Socialists and the latest addition to the mix Green Robber Barons and Eco Socialists. By the way, check out how the renewable energy policies have worked out in Europe in regards to the recession. Spain solar has crashed, Cap and Trade market is in the tank, Germany’s offshore wind debacle, UK canceling all of it onshore wind projects, etc.

    http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy

  • alpha2actual

    Don’t go down the political agenda road otherwise we will have to address the “political agenda” of the so called Anthroprogetic Global CO2 Induced Warming Cretins.

    It is a misconception that the Anthropogenic Global Warming cabal is benign, well intentioned, and monolithic– it is not. In reality the movement is extremely factionalized and schizophrenic. Unfortunately the legitimate players are the Rent Seekers, Grant Chasers, and Politicans pandering to a constituency, the Green Lobby.

    The True Believers are the Transnational Progressives, Luddites, Malthusians, Narcissistic Xenophobes, Gaia cultists, Margaret Sanger Eugenics disciples, Eco Socialists, and Pathological Altruists to name but a few. Review your “Silent Spring” and the attending banning and restrictions on the use of DDT. The carnage visited on the inhabitants of the Sub Sahara, South America, and Asia is unconscionable. Read Erlich’s “Population Bomb” and the Club of Rome literature “carrying capacity” is code for disdain of inhabitants of Third World countries.. Science is intended to drive policy not the other way around. Policy driven Science misallocates capital but more importantly takes lives.

    These modern environmentalists, and I’m including the Global Warming Alarmists, are immoral and inhuman and have racked up a body count that surpasses 80 million and counting, 80% children under five and pregnant women. The 40% US corn production diverted to the Ethanol boondoggle price increase effect on the global market has moved 20 to 30 million inhabitants of developing countries from food insecurity to starvation.

    Last year these room temperature IQ sucked out $359 BILLION dollars to finance their various agendas.

  • alpha2actual

    Nice try, I’m really impressed. Get over the $359 BILLON dollar part genius.

  • Gene_Frenkle

    Delta, UPS, Alcoa, and utilities that have coal fired power plants all attempt to operate as efficiently as possible in order to maximize profits. GM built the H2 that was a worse vehicle than the Pinto or the Edsel and was extremely inefficient…and it was heavily subsidized!!!!! That’s right, because it was over 6000 pounds it qualified for business tax breaks!! The Hummer and GM were just as bad as any tobacco company and the tobacco companies would never get a bailout like Chrysler and GM got and they employ many Americans.

    Al Gore should be leading by example…and buying carbon credits is not something that ordinary people can do!?! But paying $15 to travel 200 miles in a Megabus that takes 2 hours longer than a flight is something that many people choose to do and Megabus is a very efficient way to travel even though it burns diesel.

  • march1969

    I don’t need any peer reviewed scientific evidence to label “totally unhinged” statements like: “some of that warming may produce extreme cooling, in fact a new Ice Age, in some parts of the globe”. I only need common sense which you obviously lack but have successfully replaced it with your powerful AGW aka CC aka Global Climate Disruption religion.

  • BillFromDover

    Greed?

  • BillFromDover
  • BillFromDover

    But, ain’t it (at least) a good start?

    After all, how long to you believe fossil fuels will last?

    Last I heard, except for the saddle-laden Triceratops at the creation museum, we are fresh outta dinosaurs.

  • BillFromDover

    Yo, Danny,

    Hows about the 4 billion we give the oil companies each year to supposedly search for oil (like they can’t find any on their own)?

    https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=4+billion+in+oil+subsidies&oq=4+billion+in+oil+&gs_l=serp.1.0.0i22i30l2.325609.332476.0.335752.17.15.0.2.2.0.205.1489.13j1j1.15.0….0…1c.1.38.serp..0.17.1493.Ayc0zVcvATI

  • BillFromDover

    “No one in Europe can afford to heat their homes because this BS”?

    Really? And I’m sure you can provide links where this entire continent has frozen to death?

    And ya all wonder wonder why we just sit back and laugh at ignorance assertions as this?

  • madskills

    First you start by being a geologist. You also might take a basic college earth science course to understand what the definition of climate is and the factors going into making such. I certainly would not want Al Gore’s interpretation be the “final word”. Do you even understand the difference between cause and effect? I am not a denier, I am a trained scientist. Calling it “climate change” when it doesn’t change the climate or calling it “global warming” when you can point out places were temperatures have dropped is the problem. Throwing chemicals, particles, water vapor, carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere is definitely causing severe weather differences. And it can have catastrophic results. If you want everyone to get on board, call it correctly. That is my point. Reread my comment and take the blinders off.. for a change…..

  • BillFromDover

    I don’t suppose that you are a Rush long-time-listener, never-time caller are ya?

    Again, what do you know that 97% of the world’s climatologist don’t and what are your credentials other than blatant ignorance?

  • BillFromDover

    Most plants also require water to grow, as well the animal kingdom to survive.

    Now what do ya think will happen if I take a 5 inch (id) fire hose, shove it down your throat and open it up full-bore?

    Get the analogy, parable or whatever you can grasp?

    Never mind, didn’t think so.

  • GeorgeMokray

    “No subsidies for renewables.” No subsidies for any energy sources? Full cost accounting, including all known externalities, for all energy sources? Let’s at least do that as a thought experiment then make the determination whether we want to put all our a$$e$ on that line.

  • BillFromDover

    What blows my mind is that these same Neanderthals will also ague that the Earth is around 10,000 years old while citing evidence of how hot it was 3 million years ago.

    Go figure.

  • 4th Turning

    The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based libertarian group, is raising its rhetoric a notch by claiming that rising greenhouse gas levels will actually help the world more than harm it.

    The group points to increased plant and forest growth, bigger crop yields and longer growing seasons as benefits derived from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. The assertions are made in a 150-page report that reviews studies, some going back to the 1980s, that Heartland officials say are purposely ignored by scientists contributing to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Altogether, Heartland says, the economic and scientific benefits of a warming world “greatly exceed any plausible estimate of its costs.”

  • BillFromDover

    Figures!

  • Danny K

    Ok, pal. Level the playing field. No subsidies for any renewables. None. I’ll pull my head out of propaganda, you pull your head out of your a$$.

  • BillFromDover

    Nah, God did it!

  • BillFromDover

    And, if I may throw this argument back in your face, why should I agree with one unpeer-reviewed outlier and shun the collective opinions of over 97% of the world’s climatologists?

    If your kid gets sick, why do you take him to a doctor rather than a butcher or Casey?

    Isn’t this obvious?

  • BillFromDover

    You know what’s pathetic?

    Never mind.

  • BillFromDover

    Somehow, I get the feeling that absoultly no one could have a serious discussion about this rant.

    Have ya ever heard about something called coal-fired power plants?

    BTW, what does Al have to do with the amount of CO2s being puked into the atmosphere daily?

    Just wonderin’.

  • BillFromDover

    And I’m sure you peer-reviewed scientific evidence to back up this assertion, or are just pulling crap out of your ass?

  • BillFromDover

    Hey, it’s your kids and grand kids Earth also.

    You wanna leave then an uninhabitable planet just to put another fuckin’ dollar in your wallet, be my guest.

    Just remember that you are taking us all down with your willful ignorance.

  • BillFromDover

    Nice try, bu8t all you deniers are using straw-man arguments that completely miss the main point which is:

    Is the temperature of the planet higher than it would normally be without the 91 million tons of CO2 greenhouse gasses we are pumping into the atmosphere daily?

    Somewhere between 97 and 98% of the world’s climatologists say yes.

    My question is simple: what do you know that they don’t? And please be specific.

  • BillFromDover

    “Let’s understand that CO2 concentrations of under 1000ppm are no big deal.”

    Are you fucking nuts… 1000 ppm of what?

    Hey, let’s assume that the melting of the entire Greenland ice sheet that would flood half the world is no big deal.

    Ergo…

  • 4th Turning

    Hey, GP
    Just googled al gore is an idiot so these guys could catch their breath and take a bathroom break…

    #1 In 2008, Al Gore boldly declared to a German audience that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.” (Needless to say, that did not happen. In fact, the ice cap in the Arctic actually got larger this year.)
    #2 “CO2 is the exhaling breath of our civilization, literally. … Changing that pattern requires a scope, a scale, a speed of change that is beyond what we have done in the past.” (Actually, without carbon dioxide life on earth would not exist.)
    #3 “The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.” (It sounds like what Al Gore really needs is more cowbell.)
    #4 During a speech at NYU Law School in 2006, Al Gore made the following statement: “Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.”
    #5 “Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real.”
    #6 “The interior of the earth is extremely hot – several million degrees.” (It actually peaks out at about 11,000 degrees.)
    #7 “There is an air of unreality in debating these arcane points when the world is changing in such dramatic ways right in front of our eyes because of global warming.”
    #8 “It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.”
    #9 “The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more — if more should be required — the future of human civilization is at stake.”
    #10 “We ought to approach this challenge [of global warming] with a sense of profound joy and gratitude: that we are the generation about which, a thousand years from now, philharmonic orchestras and poets and singers will celebrate by saying, they were the ones that found it within themselves to solve this crisis and lay the basis for a bright and optimistic human future.”

  • BillFromDover

    Let’s take your average Joe Blow that weighs 180 lbs and have him ingest a miniscule1/2 gram of plutonium, shall we?

    Since there are 453.59 grams in a lb, this would be a ratio of 1 to (180 * 453.59 * 2) or `163, 292.4.

    Expressing this as a percentage we now have 1/163, 292.4. or a staggering .0000006123%

    If you are not willing to ingest this, can you, at, least see the fallacy of your argument?

  • BillFromDover

    How much carbon do wind turbine dump into our atmosphere?
    I’ll take pollution for $400 Alex:
    https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&biw=1552&bih=861&q=how+much+co2+is+released+daily++90+million+tons&oq=how+much+co2+is+released+daily++90+million+tons&gs_l=serp.3…60841.67001.0.67312.17.17.0.0.0.0.155.1573.16j1.17.0….0…1c.1.38.serp..13.4.360.38Qd4BhXZZU

  • mikekelley10

    Your pictures are meaningless. That could be steam rather than pollution, and it may be in China where our coal is now being sent for unscrubbed burning. Carbon free electricity is a pipe dream. Wind and solar now make up only 2 to 3 percent of our production, and only the wealthy trust funders of the Sierra Club could afford power exclusively from these intermittent sources.

  • BillFromDover

    Good point.

    What we actually need in these places are nukes with problems instead… yes

    Or perhaps, more of these:
    http://blog.hasslberger.com/img/coal_fired_power_plant.jpg
    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/pollution.jpg

  • mikekelley10
  • alpha2actual

    Here’s a synopsis of a typical Anthropogenic Climate Change abatement project, Cape Wind Nantucket. This is the will be the first offshore wind turbine installation in the United States.

    This 120 wind turbine project is rated at 468 mw and will produce 143 mw after applying a capacity factor of 30.4 % (as computed the the University of Delaware) the time the wind actually blows, life cycle is 20 years therefore this project will produce 24.6 Terawatts life cycle. Insofar as this project located in an area which is enshrouded in fog 200, on average, days of the year a low wind velocity environment, a more realistic life cycle output would be 15 Terawatts.

    A combined cycle natural gas turbine plant studied by the DOE completed in 2010 is rated at 570 mw and produces 470 mw, capacity factor 85%. cost $311 MILLION. life cycle 35 years therefore this plant will produce 133 Terawatts life cycle.

    The contracted cost of the Cape Wind energy will be 23 cents a kilowatt hour (excluding tax credits, which are unlikely to last the length of the project), which is more than 50% higher than current average electricity prices in Massachusetts. the bay state is already the 4th most expensive state for electricity in the nation. Even if the tax credits are preserved, $940 million of the $1.6 billion contract represents costs above projections for the likely market price of conventional power. moreover, these costs are just the initial costs they are scheduled to rise by 3.5 percent annually for 15 years. by year 15 the rate will be $.38 per Kilowatt.

  • alpha2actual

    Earth’s oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists published today in the journal Nature.

    The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide (CO2) measurements and found that the processes by which the planet’s oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity.

    “Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

    Last year, globally, human activity presented 35.9 BILLION tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, of which 18 Billion tons actually made it to the atmosphere. This is impressive until one realizes that the atmosphere weighs in at 5.5 MILLION TRILLION tons. Therefore, as a contribution to the atmosphere human activity is a staggering .00000359%.

    Last year, globally, $359 Billion was expended on Anthropogenic Climate Change abatement in the form of research, technology and renewable energy projects, almost a Billion a day. This amount has been found to be deficient by Anthropogenic Climate Change cultists who feel that $700 Billion is appropriate.

  • realheadline

    Alarmists generally fall into two categories, either dumb enough to believe the climate gloom-and-doom or dishonest enough to repeat it. Either way, they have become a national laughing-stock. Remember everybody: Be sure to turn ALL your lights on tonight at 8 PM for power appreciation day!

  • alpha2actual

    Kostenexplosion bei Strom, Öl, Gas: Energiearmut in Deutschland nimmt drastisch zu, DerSpiegel (Explosion of costs for electricity, oil, gas: energy poverty in Germany increases dramatically, DerSpiegel)

    Rising energy costs are becoming a problem for more and more citizens in Germany. Just from 2008 to 20111 the share of energy-poor households in the Federal Republic jumped from 13.8 to 17 percent.”

    Energy poverty is defined by the number of households that must pay more than 10% of their net income on energy. All told 6.9 million German households (every 6th household) finds itself in energy poverty, Spiegel writes.

    Much of the rapid increase in energy prices is owing to Germany’s growth in expensive wind and solar energy. Ironically, despite more than 20% of Germany’s energy now being supplied by renewables, CO2 emissions have been rising just the same.

    Ay the way Germany has 23 Coal Power Plants in the pipeline.

  • John Wondra

    Gauis Publius is little more than a self-serving, self-enriching meld of Tom Steyer and George Soros hypocrisy.
    People actually believe this crap?

  • GeorgeMokray

    http://energytransition.de/2013/11/denmark-surpasses-100-percent-wind-power/

    “Here, we clearly see why Denmark has a more ambitious target for its energy transition – 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, [I made a mistake by saying it was 2030] compared to ‘at least’ 60 percent renewable energy in Germany by the same year. The Danes have loads of relatively inexpensive wind power, and they plan to store the excess partly as heat simply by running electric heating systems when power is cheap. Eventually, it could also be stored chemically, such as via electrolysis to produce green hydrogen. At that point, the heat and transport sectors could theoretically also be served with excess green power.

    “The German transition will be more challenging, partly because it is based more on solar, which will increase the need for seasonal chemical storage from the summer to the winter. Furthermore, German wind power is not quite as inexpensive as Denmark’s, and solar is more expensive than wind. Nonetheless, the comparison with Denmark shows why Germans justifiably do not think their energy transition is particularly radical.”

  • GeorgeMokray

    “No one in Europe can afford to heat their homes…”
    Really? Every single person on the European continent can’t pay for the heat in their houses? That’s a ridiculous statement, argumentative hyperbole with no basis in fact.

  • mark

    6 billion people breathe more CO2 into the air every minute than coal plants…why don’t you do us all a favor and stop breathing to save the planet.

  • Danny K

    Better catch up on your news delivery. Or do you get it carbon-free, from a messenger who walked here from Europe or South America?. No one in Europe can afford to heat their homes because this BS. Brazil is falling apart. Norway is wealthy because they have an enormous amount of crude oil offshore. And, with the exception the exception of China, all the countries you mentioned fall under the blanket of U.S. military protection.

  • Danny K

    Zero carbon ain’t going to happen.

  • 4th Turning

    Trees Will Save Us From Global Warming? Scratch That

    For the couple of decades the Greening Earth Society, a creation of the coal industry, has been happily insisting that the more carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere the lusher and more verdant the world will be. As far as climate change goes, their attitude is Alfred E. Neuman’s: what, me worry?
    So it is always amusing when even the most straightforward assertions break down. In the climate-change field, one such assertion is that, since plants breathe in carbon dioxide, surely in a world with higher concentrations of CO2 plants will flourish and suck up lots of the stuff. We call that a negative feedback. Unfortunately, a study in this week’s Nature finds that, after exceptional warming, an ecosystem anchored by a tallgrass prairie actually takes up less carbon dioxide than it did before the warming.

    There is no small irony in the finding that warmer conditions cut carbon storage. One of the last great hopes for avoiding dangerous global warming is for plants to suck up more and more of the CO2 the industrial world produces. Oh well.

    http://www.sharonlbegley.com/trees-will-save-us-from-global-warming-scratch-that

  • The_Fixer

    Casey’s a petroleum geologist, and has a vested interest in the status quo. He’s not an atmospheric scientist. His assumptions have been questioned by atmospheric scientists. His paper has not been peer-reviewed. As such, it qualifies as an opinion piece, or a musing.

    Additionally, the hype surrounding the paper was, as hyperbole tends to be, over-the-top. One thing in life I’ve learned is that the more something is hyped, the less substance it has.

    I find it increasingly odd that people are so resistant to the idea that so many mainstream, well-trained and accomplished scientists could be right about atmospheric change being caused by human activity. These scientists couldn’t have all been fooled by bad data or even wrong arguments. They may not have every detail right, but they certainly have the general process down.

    Those are my observations, take them as you wish.

  • blogagog

    I have an idea. Let’s understand that CO2 concentrations of under 1000ppm are no big deal. It’s been that high for many millions of years at time when mankind, the animal kingdom in general, and plants could survive quite handily and comfortably.

    Then let’s understand that plants are not going to let us raise the concentration that high because they will grow like the plague and suck much of it up. That’s what happened historically at least.

    Then, let’s realize that humans are not really that bad, and there’s no reason to keep coming up with doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario as environmentalists are wont to do. The world will continue. Mankind will continue. Let’s enjoy the ride.

    That’s what I’m going to do at least.

  • madskills

    Start by calling it correctly, “Atmosphere Change”. Climate is decided by many things. Relevant features of climate are latitude, elevation, typical wind patterns, moisture patterns, closeness to elevation changes, closeness to large bodies of water, and closeness to other land areas with different precipitation patterns(think desserts). You are certainly not changing latitude, elevation, or closeness to water or mountains…..

  • 4th Turning

    In the final analysis it is the unfathomable arrogance that will have betrayed us…

    https://www.lensculture.com/articles/nigel-dickinson-smokey-mountain-cambodia#slide-9

  • 4th Turning

    Whip Inflation Now (WIN) was an attempt to spur a grassroots movement to combat inflation, by encouraging personal savings and disciplined spending habits in combination with public measures, urged by U.S. President Gerald Ford. People who supported the mandatory and voluntary measures were encouraged to wear “WIN” buttons,[1] perhaps in hope of evoking in peacetime the kind of solidarity and voluntarism symbolized by the V-campaign during World War II.

  • alpha2actual

    This post is right out of the Ecological Socialist’s play book, no kidding look it up. Their vision is a Post Capitalist Utopian conformist society. Their most pressing challenge, how to redistribute wealth from the producers to the parasites.The liberal billionaire who clamors about sustainability likes progress. What he dislikes is the middle class with its mass produced cars and homes, cheap restaurants full of fatty foods and television sets and daily deliveries of cardboard boxes full of stuff and shopping malls. He thinks, in all sincerity, that they would be happier and more spiritually fulfilled as peasants. Beneath all the empty chatter about social riches and sustainability is that need to impose progressive misery. Beneath the glossy surface of environmentalism is a vision of the American middle class learning to dig through bags of garbage, the detritus of their consumerism for which they must be punished, to become better people.

  • alpha2actual

    European experience Capacity Factor (an actual measurement of output) calculations come in on average mid twenties. However, CF is not the complete story. The power has to be dispatchable. A six year study of Denmark’s offshore wind production found that while wind provided 19% of the country’s electricity generation, it only met an average 9.7% of the demand over a five year period, and a mere 5% during 2006. This is referred to as Demand Capacity.

  • modoccus1

    The future is thorium as an interim to a total renewable state. Proof of concept already accomplished at Oak Ridge,Tenn. in the 60s. If the damaged nuclear reactors in Japan had been molten salt thorium technology, there would have been no explosions, no released radiation, and no meltdowns —-completely safe, and you can’t build nuclear weapons with it, and the volume of spent fuel is far less, with much lower radiation that has a short half-life.

    It is technologically possible to have energy too cheap to meter (distribution costs not included). It would be economical to catalyze abundant natural gas into liquid fuels. And then the possibility of using factory assembled modular units to power huge desalination plants to solve future water supply problems. The list could go on and on.

    It was only until recently when the carbon budget of photovoltaic solar systems actually turned positive. Previously it took more carbon to produce solar panels then the carbon they would save over their lifetime.

    Electricity “too cheap to meter” with thorium would make enormous savings in cost and carbon emissions of solar panels, which in turn would greatly speed up the adoption of solar instead of building more coal plants in developing countries.

    What bothers me is that the solutions offered is always in the negative form, more restrictions, more controls, cutbacks, and more power to the central governments, even controlling global agency, instead of the positive solutions of abundant carbon free energy.

    Besides, the negative approach is not going to work in a democracy. If the pain gets too great the environmental grinches will be voted out of office. It looks like even Europe is letting things slide on carbon containment.

    And then the negatively constituted control freaks will say we cannot afford to have democracies to deal with the coming apocalypse. If carbon driven global warming is real, the way out is forward with positive solutions.

  • http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

    If this is so important, why won’t the believers change their own behavior? Give up fossil fuels, meat, refrigerator ice makers, hair dryers, plastic bottles, only buy local, bike to work, etc and so on, go zero carbon themselves? Heck, you folks barely make even token changes in your own lives for your beliefs.

  • eggroll_jr

    Wars focuses public spending and industrial policy. If we declared war on truant carbon atoms not participating the normal Carbon Cycle as they should, as well as other renegade molecules, we might have a chance. After Pearl Harbor, most of US industry was repurposed for the war effort in a matter of weeks. Public spending quickly exceeded 100% of GDP, and unleashed vast R&D efforts. The 6th Great Extinction Event is much larger than Pearl Harbor, but unfortunately so slow-moving that it does almost nothing to focus national or international resolve. Instead of shouting from the rooftops that that we are about to lose the franchise to cockroaches, bacteria or a malevolent Johnny Depp AI, most of us are content to listen to Arianna advise us on how to “thrive” or worry about why Chris and Gwyneth are splitting the blanket.

  • march1969

    You forgot the methane (CH4) produced by herbivores, especially bovines, responsible for some 15% of GREENHOUSE GASES PRODUCTION. Kill them all at once and serve them to the whole world in the form of a giant BIG MAC?

  • march1969

    ” “global warming” (though some of that warming may produce extreme cooling, in fact a new Ice Age, in some parts of the globe).” Totally unhinged!

  • GeorgeMokray

    “from the atmosphere in entirety”
    That’s a very good straw man you built there. Show me where I wrote “in entirety”?

    Plants in an atmosphere with too much CO2 grow fast and leggy and susceptible to disease, if I remember the research correctly. Why do you want to increase plant susceptibility to disease by increasing atmospheric CO2?

    As for smoking weed, one indication you are losing an argument is when you start making personal attacks.

  • BV

    why in God’s holy name would we want to remove “carbon,” by which you mean “carbon dioxide,” from the atmosphere in entirety when plants require carbon, I mean carbon dioxide, to survive? why do you hate plants? the weed you smoke every night requires carbon dioxide to grow.

  • BV

    Nonsense. Europe is ditching their renewable energy resources. Read the news. Germany is leading the way, as they are now building new coal-fired plants.

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/03/18/governments-rip-up-renewable-contracts/

    http://www.thegwpf.org/germany-open-10-coal-fired-power-stations/

  • Gene_Frenkle

    Obama is the person responsible for throwing money at the corporations that produced the Hummer and Jeep! Until liberals admit that GM and Chrysler and their unions are the worst actors in the nation with regard to carbon emissions then we can’t have a serious discussion. Exxon was producing the drug, GM and Chrysler were the dealers pushing it and allowing people to abuse it. The Democratic Party and their leaders have no moral authority on this issue and obviously don’t really believe the worst case scenarios…if they did Al Gore would be taking Megabus instead of airplanes.

  • GeorgeMokray

    Seriously, you reactionary right-wing wrongists need to get out more.

    Denmark reached 50% of their energy from renewables this year and will be probably be 100% renewable before 2030, ahead of their plan. Norway is almost completely hydroelectric powered and is becoming the energy storage center for Northern Europe. Germany is moving quickly to power itself with wind, solar, and biomass and turning off nuclear power plants. Iceland still has plans to become the first hydrogen economy based upon its geothermal and hydro resources. Solar is at parity or cheaper than traditional grid electricity in Italy, Spain, and Germany today. Brazil started back during the first energy crisis to produce an alternative to gasoline from sugarcane waste, bagasse, and now a large percentage of their vehicles run on it. Israel is planning to get off oil. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest investors in solar technology. South Korea has been pursuing a policy of “green growth” for over the last decade looking to bridge the gap between the developing and the developed world with new, clean energy technologies. One company in Bangladesh, Grameen Shakti, will provide basic solar electricity for 5 million households by the end of 2015. Even China is planning more and more renewable technology because they can no longer breathe in many of their cities for days and weeks on end.

    Wake up and get your head out of your own propaganda. The world is leaving the US behind as it confronts the effects of pollution, including climate change, a term that I believe the Repug propagandist Frank Luntz originally thought up.

  • morecotwo

    This MUST be the Onion.

  • morecotwo

    I did, and ended up back here!

  • morecotwo

    Pathetic. The new UN report has been leaked. It’s now on to Global Lukewarming.

  • Ford Prefect

    Hey, looks like the Oil & Gas Association’s mutant army of Denia-Trolls have finally showed up!

  • David Reich

    Read this:

    http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

    the tell me why I should agree with you guys and not Casey?

  • JT

    Seriously, you enviro liberals live in such a fantasy world. So – the US government can’t figure out how to implement a simple Health Care website, or to successfully stop the Russian government from an overt act of aggression in The Crimea. So, I am sure that the world will accept our leadership to force the ENTIRE world economy to change 90% of their energy sources in the next 6 years. What a joke. You need to wake up. The majority of people in THIS COUNTRY don’t even agree with you that AGW even exists as you believe, or they believe that it may exist, but isn’t the dire threat that you all worry and obsess about. How about you start making a serious case to the US people that you are right, rather than the current campaign that consists of:

    – Name calling – “Deniers”

    – Refusal to even listen to dissent (Papers and Magazines refusing to accept contrary content)

    – The hilarious habit of attributing ANY weather event to AGW – Drought? = Warming! Tornados? = Warming! Heavy Snow? = Warming!

    – Changing the name of your cause, because the environment, darn it, just isn’t cooperating with your models! Global Warming becomes Climate Change become Global Weirding, becomes WHO KNOWS WHAT’s NEXT?

    Now, since most of you are “true believers”, your reaction to the fact that, darn it, you just can’t get a majority of people to believe, will be that either other people are:

    – Not as smart as all of you

    – Totally misinformed by the Evil Right Wing Media (Fox, Rove and Koch – Oh my!)

    – OR – Selfish people who clearly don’t care about others, like you do

    So either people like me fall into one of you neat boxes above, or you guys are just dead wrong on what is happening, and what are some REALISTIC solutions. Have fun living in your self-constructed fantasy land where you are the smartest, care the most, and where you so easily identify the evil deniers who want to destroy the earth through either their diabolical plans, or their selfish need to consume (Right wingers are either dumb or diabolical, right?).

    “Zero Carbon” has exactly ZERO CHANCE of happening anytime within the next 50 years, short of some revolutionary break through in technology (which is certainly possible). However, I have to burst your bubble and tell you that given current alternative energy sources, all you are engaging in here is mental self pleasure.

    PS – I love the above comments about going to war to deprive others of their power sources……..

    ******”Also like I’ve said many times we’ll be using the military to bomb coal fired plants in China or whatever soon after we finally shut down our own if deemed necessary”*******

    – I am sure that will go well…….

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrEqIpi6sg Moderator4

    No. But if you wish to read it, please go to http://www.theonion.com.

  • Monophylos Fortikos

    It’s all pretty much “I’m not a scientist, know little about the topic, and here’s some irrefutable facts I found on the internet at right wing site that disprove all of what thousands of actual earth scientists around the world think.”

    God >_< It drives me a bit crazy, the conspiracy-theory logic that's applied to "refuting" climate modelling. Just as the infernal and intricate machinations of the conspirators at NASA who faked the moon landings still managed to overlook some obvious detail that any child could see exposed the whole thing as fake–no stars in the sky or whatever–somehow the vast cabal of atmospheric scientists who are foisting the global warming hoax on us managed to overlook some little thing obvious to any right-wing talk-show host that blows the whole structure to flinders–sunspots or the fact that plants use carbon dioxide or something like that.

    As I've said before, I think it's an aspect of a general attitude toward science in general: our rightists don't really believe any of it is true but that it's all made up, not real work but instead a sort of mental masturbation not far different from debating angels on pinheads or the Animal Farm pigs’ practice of filling sheets of paper with writing and then burning them in the furnace.

  • 4th Turning

    Maxwell House retailing at $14.00 this week at our local supermarket (after reducing contents last
    year by several ounces). Drink up!

    Intro sentence a gift to you, emjayay.

    If there was ever a reason to rise up in support of a benevolent climate-obsessed world dictator, this could be it.
    An epic drought—Brazil’s worst in decades—is threatening exports from the world’s largest coffee exporter and driving up wholesale prices worldwide. We’ve officially entered the realm of bloggers’ worst-case scenario.
    The current run on coffee is an example of the kinds of follow-on effects to be expected as the climate warms and rainfall patterns become more erratic. The ongoing lack of rainfall, coupled with record high temperatures across the whole of southeast South America during the current Southern Hemisphere summer, is just the kind of extreme weather event that’s been becoming more common over recent years. In an era of scientific consensus that we humans are doing this to ourselves, this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/25/coffee_shortage_caused_by_brazilian_drought.html

  • EyesOfTX

    Wait. Did I click on the Onion by mistake???

  • emjayay

    Ha! Someone else says what I’ve been saying. Nothing much happens in the US until Florida (and Manhattan) flood. Again, read comments at for example Yahoo!News for a sample of the head in the sand rationalizations and insistence on fringe theories by the typical American.

    Oh look there’s one right above.

    It’s all pretty much “I’m not a scientist, know little about the topic, and here’s some irrefutable facts I found on the internet at right wing site that disprove all of what thousands of actual earth scientists around the world think.” And some scientists were predicting an Ice Age just last week. And it naturally gets warmer and colder. Etc. Etc. Plus, God makes the weather and it’s up to Him.

    Also like I’ve said many times we’ll be using the military to bomb coal fired plants in China or whatever soon after we finally shut down our own if deemed necessary. Plus expensive and/or risky techno solutions to cool the atmosphere and remove carbon already there. Once the shit really hits the fan we could go to Zero Carbon the next day and the effects would continue to get worse for a years and there will be more and more calls for any action possible.

  • B Buckner

    This was a great piece, absolutely hilarious. This is some kind of a Colbert thing, right? To get proper credit you really should write under your real name, although I love the Gaius Publius nom de plume. Perfect. This piece makes me want to go back and read Ehrlich’s Population Bomb which is full of laughs. Come to think of it you are stealing his bit. I think he might still be alive, or at least Holdren is, so watch out.

  • emjayay

    The Annoying Grammar Police Nanny is always on duty.

  • GeorgeMokray

    Zero Carbon is only a start. We should be thinking about zero emissions, zero waste. Period. Full Stop. Zero emissions as in statistical quality control’s zero defects on a production line, an approachable goal. We need to do that, at least as a thought experiment, an experiment which would, in all probability, show us many new and different ways to reduce the wastes we currently produce.

    There may also be many ecological design solutions which can safely and even quickly take carbon out of the atmosphere. There is a growing movement around soil carbon sequestration and you can read about it in my notes to _Cows Save the Planet_ (http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/02/cows-save-planet.html) and dive deeper into one particular method in my notes to _Holistic Management_ (http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/holistic-management-new-framework-for.html)

    There is also an argument to be made for a post-scarcity economy based upon ecological design principles and Gandhian economics. That possibility should be kept in mind so that we don’t ignore a path that does not require rationing and scarcity. The real scarcity in human events is almost always imagination, a secondary solar resource.

  • http://www.americablog.com/ Naja pallida

    As much as I agree, zero carbon is the only real solution, the problem is, it isn’t going to happen. Not until something catastrophic happens to steer the political will. Until then, our Congress is going to continue to be bought by big energy interests, and have absolutely no reason to do anything against their benefactor’s wishes. Even widespread public support for something doesn’t sway them as long as money is pointing them in a different direction.

    We’re already a trillion dollars behind on basic infrastructure maintenance, and easily another trillion to bring it up to what our existing population needs to withstand what we already know is coming, whether we dropped carbon tomorrow or not. How do we even begin to address that with zero political will, and a population that would rather watch Dancing With The Stars, than care that their children are going to be living in a third world country?

  • caphillprof

    I think for individuals it will be most cost effective to strategize coping with forced rationing. By the time we have political agreement, forced rationing will be all that’s left.

  • GaiusPublius

    Thanks for finding that.

    GP

  • Ford Prefect

    Outstanding, per usual. If you’re working on a book, I look forward to reading it. Common sense like this ain’t so common anymore. Especially when any positive development has to be approved by corporate imperialists at the WTO, etc.

    See how the US is demanding India throttle it’s solar energy development to meet the needs of our corporate overlords:

    The U.S. wants India to back off a policy that would require local sourcing for solar energy technology, and has sought World Trade Organization enforcement action. Representatives from the two nations reportedly met last week to try to settle the trade battle over India’s rapidly developing solar industry, but reached no resolution.

    U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in February that India’s rules for locally made products for its solar power program “discriminate against U.S. exports” and break WTO rules. “We are determined to stand up for U.S. workers and businesses,” he said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/28/india-us-solar-wto_n_5031345.html

    So no progress, even if it saves the human race, unless the corporate overlords approve? Perhaps it’s time to abolish the WTO, as a threat to global security.

  • emjayay

    “…we need to have our eye on the write goal.”

    Really?

  • Drew2u

    So what does our Energy Revolution or Electric Renaissance look like? What is out there that we can point to and say, “We can do this!”, to get people excited about the paradigm shift?

    Wireless Energy:
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/tech/innovation/wireless-electricity/index.html

    Navy using lasers to beam down solar energy from space:
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2014/03/space-solar/

    fusion:
    http://txchnologist.com/tagged/fusion

    a turbine blimp for remote areas and disaster-hit regions:
    http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/27/turbine-break-records-transform-wind-energy/

    Wind farms becoming more popular:
    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/watch-how-fast-wind-farms-spread-across-u.s-17223

    Tidal power:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/21/tidal-lagoon-power-cheaper-wind

    Though I think the big thing that would get the most attention is to make homeowners convinced that they would be able to have their own installed solar/wind power that would be cheaper per kilowatt and more efficient that municipal electricity. The same goes for cities and especially rural towns that don’t have as much money to begin with, that utilizing these services will help the taxpayer ultimately save money.

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS