Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate Change Reality: THE Progressive Crisis (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The "problem" (11+ / 0-)

    addressed in this discussion really is not the outright deniers, but the 'wait your turn' because there are 'more pressing issues'.  

    Dealing with climate change (and the intertwined challenges of energy) is at the core of it all. In a twist of Smalley's terrawatt challenge, there is no progressive issue not made worse and harder to achieve if there is unchecked climate chaos, and there is no progressive issue not made more possible if there is serious action on climate mitigation.

    It is, however, broader than this -- as you are aware since this IS NOT about progressives vs rabid conservatives, this is about providing decent prospects for the future of human society.

    Oh ... by the way ... reality is that there is no person on earth whose grandchildren have better prospect with unchecked climate catastrophe.

    •  Have you read Archdruid's post this week? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose, A Siegel, WarrenS

      Failure is the Only Option, Part 1? That's been obvious to me since Jimmy Carter's solar panels were removed from the White House.

      Also at Energy Bulletin has been an occasional series of  about theeffect on medicine of PO/CC. In short: the current HCR effort will, in all likelihood, be moot within a decade or two.

      •  Sigh ... (9+ / 0-)

        Rarely happens. I lost a really long response/discussion of the Arch Druid post stating that I had agreement / disagreement in the discussion.

        For example,

        Carbon emissions can’t be cut by waving a magic wand; the cuts will cost trillions of dollars at a time when budgets are already strained, and impose steep additional costs throughout the economy.

        I see this, especially in next decade or so and especially in the US, as buying into NAM-type disinformation rather than looking at the opportunities before us. A massive 100% renewable energy within 10 years? Okay, maybe. But, a 25 percent (or more) cut from today has real opportunities to be a net positive for the economy (driving down energy efficiencies, leveling out subsidies so clean energy is not disadvantaged, etc ...) even without counting all the secondary/tertiary benefits (such as improved health with reduced pollution).

        While, as always, powerfully written, I find elements to be off the mark ...

        •  The point to be made (0+ / 0-)

          Perhaps, is that various means to improve enegy efficiency are immediately available which require fundamentally low or no investment and provide economic returns which enable investment in clean energy capacity, which in turn, produce short-term economic return in productive consumption as well long-term return in sustainable energy generation.

          Non-consumption costs nothing. Conservation is cheap and makes to quick return on investment. Building a green economy is business.

          For example:

          Turning off unused lights costs nothing. Installing motion decetor liting controls and compact florecent or LED lamps is cheap and the pay-back within 1-2 years.

          Any Kossacks who hasn't done the above is missing an opportunity to take control of the system and lower carbon footpront immediately.

          Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

          by koNko on Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 05:02:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh ... by the way ... (7+ / 0-)

        the basic point, however, of both is fundamentally correct: the mass of public discussion (and policy discussions) operates in a realm disconnected from the realities of the challenges that we face.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site