Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate-Changed Jet Stream Responsible for Recent Strange Weather? (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Flat earthers (18+ / 0-)

    Science is based on observed evidence and peer review, not the kind of confused thinking snarked above.

    The evidence:

    280 ppm: Preindustrial atmospheric CO2 level

    300 ppm: The level in1950's

    350 ppm: The generally accepted by scientists,  point of no return (1990)

    390+ ppm (& rising fast): Today's reading

    Current total annual carbon emissions are SIX TIMES what they were in 1950.

    The polar ice-caps ARE melting.  Ocean circulation patterns ARE changing.  The oceans ARE acidifying.  Countless species ARE going extinct.  Droughts ARE spreading.  Crops ARE failing.  Millions ARE starving.  Tornadoes and hurricanes ARE increasing.  ETC., ETC........

    Hey, all the well meaning entreaties aside, we are truly, and permanently screwed as a civilization.  We are not just in trouble, we have failed.

    I have come to believe that human culture, now and numerous times in our history,  has proved incapable of adapting to ecological change.  The question is not: what can we do to fix it?; but rather: how bad is it going to get?

    GRAPH: 50 Year CO2 Rise

    The above graph was measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, high above the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  These measurements, being away from all variable influences, are accepted as valid proof by all credible climate scientists.

    I posted this same comment yesterday to another diary discussing climate change.  I felt the subject important enough to post again.

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

    by boatwright on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:33:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We're definitely down the rabbit hole (3+ / 0-)

      Yep, we've crossed the Rubicon and where we end up is anybody's guess.  It looks like America is taking a step backward.  We can only hope that the pain we're all about to experience will come quickly and hard enough to wake people up to salvage what's left.

    •  So what do u suggest we do? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Frank Knarf, ozsea1

      US per/capita energy consumption is 10% less than it was in 1974.

      Clearly, the US is not driving incremental CO2 emissions.

      And especially not the working and middle-class families, families which have seen income stagnation for over a decade.

      Despite this, some misguided Kossacks believe that these same families should have to pay more for their energy needs, whether via a carbon tax or cap and trade.

      Caramba.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

      by PatriciaVa on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:17:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  However, (6+ / 0-)

        US population has increased by 100 million people since then, so our overall energy use is greatly increased.  Also, I believe your statistic applies only to transportation.  Per/capita electricity use is much higher.

        I sincerely believe you are misinformed to think that the most important problem here is the price of a gallon of gas. A careful consideration of the science leads to the conclusion that the question is: Can the human species and any civilized life survive the coming environmental crisis?

        Please study the problem with an open mind.

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

        by boatwright on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:47:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Per Capita electricity consumption has stagnated.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse, ozsea1

          ..since the mid 90s.

          https://financere.nrel.gov/...

          With respect to your question regarding the viability of human life during climate change, I ask you the following.

          Are Dems really concerned about climate change?

          What about Secretary Panetta.  Is he not a public servant?  Does he really need to commute to California on so many weekends, expending tons of CO2 in the process?  Why didn't he move his family to the East Coast?  

          And what about Senators and Representatives.  Why do they commute so often.  Could they not caucus and cast their votes via Cisco Telepresence, from their home districts?

          I'd be wiling to bet that many Dems, even those who say otherwise, don't believe that climate change is a threat to this nation.  But these same Dems are too coward to ask the really wealthy (and by really wealthy I don't mean a junior investment banker) to pay their fair share.

          So, the easy way out is to feign concern about climate change and thereby have the struggling family in East LA pay a 30% tax on their energy consumption.

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

          by PatriciaVa on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:05:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  climate change policy = good for the middle class (6+ / 0-)
            Despite this, some misguided Kossacks believe that these same families should have to pay more for their energy needs, whether via a carbon tax or cap and trade.
            I think you're wrong here for two reasons, one short term and one longer term.

            In the short term, a well designed carbon policy such as the clean energy dividend is progressive, not regressive.  It would put money into the pockets of working people simply because carbon emissions correlates strongly with income and thus most middle-income and low-income families would be receiving more in dividends than they pay in surcharges.

            In the longer term, the economy is screwed for everyone (and when that happens, we've seen the middle class and working people be hit the hardest) if we don't address climate change.  We're talking about crop failures that hurt the farming regions of the country, increasingly expensive natural disasters, etc.  And that's leaving aside peak oil.

            contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

            by barath on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:33:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  of course (7+ / 0-)

            when gas was two dollars a gallon, that same argument was used against increasing the gas tax 50 cents a gallon. the price has doubled, it's just that the money is going elsewhere.

            yeah, we need something to protect lower income energy users, but we also need to build mass transit and go manhattan project on green tech and establish financial incentives for its adoption and use. and per capita remains irrelevant when population has increased so much. we're also talking about building new port facilities so we can ship more coal to asia.

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

            by Laurence Lewis on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:05:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's a separate issue (3+ / 0-)

            I think you are right that Democratic politicians don't care either and Denocratic politicians are going to stick it to the working and middle clas just like they do on most things.  

            But you shoul recalibrate your understanding of what would be possible.  It doesn't have to be paid for by poor people, unless the American people want to do it that way.  

            There is a shit ton of disinformation about costs out there.  For example I use 100% renewable power and pay about $15 a month extra and I am an early adopter

        •  I think the point is that we need a way to (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mindful Nature, PatriciaVa, ozsea1

          protect lower income families from the impact of higher carbon-based energy prices if we expect the public to support such measures.

          Where are we, now that we need us most?

          by Frank Knarf on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:15:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  they need alternatives to carbon-based energy (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse, wsexson, ozsea1

            and transportation. it's important to price perilously dangerous  things with hugely costly externalities at the point where they're not used casually, but there needs to be an alternative for them to use to avoid the carbon economy. it stands to reason that the rich and especially the carbon-intensive extractive industries that have largely created this mess should pay for that alternate infrastructure.

          •  Cap & Dividend (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse

            James Hansen has laid it out very clearly.

            Put a cap on carbon, charge a fee for carbon use, give a dividend to every household on a regular (probably monthly) basis comprising 100% of the carbon fee back to the public. The amount of the dividend is divided evenly among the population, so those who use less energy get more money back than they paid - energy savings = profit.

            It's a perfect mechanism to encourage rapid reduction in use.

      •  yes they should (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        That stagnating middle class is easily in the top 5% globally.   Hate to break it to you but most Americnas are richer than most other humans.  

        Now it wouldn't have to come to that if those middle class voters decided to find this by carbon taxes on producers who buy fossil fuels directly.  Take it out of oil company and coal company profits.  If middle class people buy gas guzzling cars and get hammered by rising gas prices well it isn't like no one saw this coming.  

        What I can't stand are people who argue we should do nothing to protect the really vulnerable world wide( think Ethiopia or Bangladesh)  because our US voters gave been voting to make rich people richer for decades with trickle down taxes

      •  or think that current nuclear power tech is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        the answer.

        Conservation, smaller consumer footprints,  reproductive choice freedom and the transfer of coal, gas and oil subsidies to renewables IS the answer.

        "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

        by ozsea1 on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 01:27:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Details. Check the recent hurricane stats. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Where are we, now that we need us most?

      by Frank Knarf on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:12:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site