Skip to main content

The research is getting fast and furious in dealing with the urgent crisis of climate change.  Scientists predict that we only have a few years to turn our situation around to prevent tipping points which will lead to unreversible climate change with extreme weather, loss of biodiversity and prevalent food insecurity due to frequent floods and droughts in traditional farming areas.

Most actions for mitigating climate change and slowing global warming temperatures have relied on reducing C02 emissions.   C02 emissions remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years,  so even if we went completely C02 neutral today, there would still be the damaging remains of the past use of C02 lingering in the atmosphere preventing us from stopping the most damaging effects of Climate Change.

As I wrote yesterday the research which was used for our team proposal at the MIT Climate CoLab on the reduction of short lived climate forces to prevent the worst effects of climate change has just been published in The International Journal of Climate Change

Talk about fast and furious.  Right on the heels of the publication in The International Journal of Climate Change comes the news of more new evidence just published from Nature The International Journal of Science which strengthens the case for the reductions of the short-lived climate forcers of Black Carbon and tropospheric ozone.  The new research states that recent Northern Hemisphere tropical expansion is primarily driven by black carbon and tropospheric ozone.   This is significant.  Scientists are realizing that we don't have the time to focus on primarily reducing C02 and that we need a short term solution to buy us the time to reduce C02.   Evidence is strongly pointing to reducing the short-lived climate forcers of Black Carbon, Methane and tropospheric ozone as a crucial action.

This is not to say that we should stop with our efforts to transition to clean energy which will reduce the amount of C02 and other GHGs entering our atmosphere as that is a very important component to stabilizing our future climate.  But in order to prevent the worst and irreversible effects of climate change we need to rapidly reduce the short lived climate forcers as they are the primary agents of warming in the short term.

The good news is that we still have some time to prevent the worst effects of climate change...it's in our hands.

   Albert Einstein

    Those who have the privilege to know, have the duty to act.

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

  •  Yet no one (30+ / 0-)

    will touch this issue -- not democrats, not republicans.  Certainly not the media.

    "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

    by Steven D on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:17:03 PM PDT

      •  And we'll have to crowd source it to get anything (26+ / 0-)

        substantive done. The warming is on the verge of thawing the permafrost, which contains a phenomenal amount of methane. The release of that methane will hopelessly complicate any mitigation strategy. And warming from the CO2 itself isn't the most dangerous aspect of the levels rising. The most dangerous aspect of the rising CO2 levels is ocean acidification. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the air and the ocean is the base of the pyramid of the biosphere. If the zooplankton and various mollusks and larvae can't produce shells, the food chain collapses. And the phytoplankton produce a significant proportion of O2, so the increasing acidity of the global oceans,(=decreasing pH), is threatening the biosphere.

        1st things first, we need to get Obama re-elected to have any prayer of doing anything, but on Nov 7th, we need to get serious about climate change.

        Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

        by FarWestGirl on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:32:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i agree we need to get Obama reelected (8+ / 0-)

          but he greatest source of the short lived climate forces outlined in my diary is livestock production....that WE can do something about now.

          Macca's Meatless Monday

          by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:36:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody believes me (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dirkster42, beach babe in fl

            when I tell them how profound an impact meat production has.  It's like they've put in earplugs when I suggest that eating less cow might help.

            •  i don't have the strength to go vegetarian (3+ / 0-)

              but i have dramatically cut down my beef consumption.

              •  vegetarianism has helped my health immensely (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wee Mama, quillsinister, melo

                and I went mostly vegan about 1 year ago and have never felt better.   For me, it's been mostly about changing cooking habits and finding new recipes.  It's getting easier to do that as more are reducing meat.

                Macca's Meatless Monday

                by VL Baker on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:18:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  right on bb (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  beach babe in fl

                  been vegan for 35 years and lovin' it.

                  learning to nourish oneself from plants is not as simple as dropping the meat and just eating the salad and fries, you have to unlearn a bunch of stuff and learn a whole lot more.

                  your diaries rock!

                  why? just kos..... *just cause*

                  by melo on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:21:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I'm with you: (0+ / 0-)

                I feel that I have to eat meat once in a while, but I'm focussing on eating a lot less of it.
                  The problem is, there are no vegetarian restaurants. All fast food involves meat. If you're out in the work force, it's hard to get by without eating meat.

                •  This turns out not to be the case (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama, beach babe in fl

                  even at most burger joints other than Wendy's.

                  McDonald's: Salads, yogurt, fruit + walnuts

                  Burger King: Salads, fruit smoothies, onion rings

                  Wendy's: No vegetable salads, but a few side dishes

                  Any place with a salad bar

                  Cheese pizza; most pizza chains have a Veggie Lover's pizza or something similar; cheese/veggie calzones

                  Bean and cheese burritos at Taco Bell and other Mexican-American or authentic Mexican places; Chiles rellenos or huevos rancheros if you have time to sit down

                  Chinese buffet takeout always includes a tofu dish

                  Veggie Delite at Subway

                  But, I have to admit,

                  Wendy's (as listed above), KFC, Arby's, fish and chips houses: Nothing but side dishes

                  Busting the Dog Whistle code.

                  by Mokurai on Fri May 18, 2012 at 06:35:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  YA wtf do (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dirkster42

            these guys know. They dont go to the vegan tokeout drum circles or ANYTHING!!!

            Then again.. a political committee of the UN (a political organisation) produced a report.. and it doesnt have any of that pesky peer review by those evil sciency poeple or anything...

            According to your premise.. if we just kill all the mammals on the planet climate change will go away...

            A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

            by cdreid on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:15:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yet James Hansen of NASA recommends (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wee Mama

              reducing meat as the single most effective individual action that can be taken to reduce climate change

              Macca's Meatless Monday

              by VL Baker on Fri May 18, 2012 at 04:44:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well u found a dude (0+ / 0-)

                and as he's a climatologist he is of course.. an expert on biology  and everything else... that trumps those silly scientists doing studies in their fields and all..

                A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                by cdreid on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:19:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  This is unnecessarily broad. Nowhere at all will (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              beach babe in fl

              you find that beach babe suggests

               

              we just kill all the mammals on the planet
              Her specific suggestion is to stop raising beef cattle, reduce dairy cattle and reduce poultry (limiting to range fed or in the long term eliminating them too). These are all "unnatural" animals, ones that humans have domesticated. Even if these were totally eliminated it would leave over a million species of mammals still around, and those would be a good deal less under threat.

              I am not sure what your reasoning is that can ignore simple evidence that cattle raising increases green house gases with shorter half-lives (and therefore more opportunity for change).

              Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

              by Wee Mama on Fri May 18, 2012 at 06:45:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh cool (0+ / 0-)

                So we'll all just go hunting then.. cause that whole domestication thing didnt work out. After that we'll get rid of the pesky farms too cause well that causes pollution too...

                Your evidence is a political tract by a political organisation with a political agenda using an old and slightly goofy study that was originally.. used for a political end.... by um.. the people who do most of the polluting when it first came out a VERY long time ago..

                A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                by cdreid on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:21:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No need to go hunting if people (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  beach babe in fl

                  develop flexible and tasty vegetarian diets. Lots of folks live on that with relish. You have set up a false antithesis.

                  Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                  by Wee Mama on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:34:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  oh sweet jesus (0+ / 0-)

                    Youve set up something based on someone who lives a very spoiled very western verly likely very urban lifestyle where the magic truck brings the magic wonderbeans to hippy nirvana.

                    Those veggies you eat? MASSIVE POLLUTERS. HUGE cause of deforestation and ecodestruction. You know all those cornfields in iowa? They werent always fields.... You know those rivers that nothing lives in?? Guess why. Something to munch on. Youre like the nuke nuts. You get some emotionbased nutty stuff in your head and no mere facts are going to pry it out.

                    And you know what? Frankly... speaking for the 99.9% of the world who dont spend their day reading guru books and smoking from the magic  love bowl.. you'll take our steak/hamburger/chicken/oysters/fish/milk/bacon from our cold dead hands..

                    A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                    by cdreid on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:46:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I live in Iowa. A lot of that corn goes to (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      beach babe in fl

                      feed pigs and cows, and some of it goes to ethanol. As I figure it, if people eat the corn directly instead of passing it through a cow at 15% efficiency, the same amount of corn feeds a lot more people.

                      Here in Iowa we also have prairie-fed buffalo grown for meat. Very tasty and lower impact than feed lot beef.

                      Most of your imagined descriptions of me bear no relationship to reality.

                      Probably the biggest problem is total population, but it will take a while to alter that in a constructive, humane way. Educating girls is our best bet.

                      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                      by Wee Mama on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:16:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  CORN is one of the (0+ / 0-)

                        single worst polluters ever to hit our ecosystem. I have no problem with that because it is a necessary evil.

                        Your premise seems to be... everyone eat corn and beans and rice and the world will be nirvana? PLEASE look up the effects of industrial farming.  And you might just consider that diet you want to mandate on the world is eaten by a lot of  the worlds population. And they have short, unhealthy existences. Which may or may not relate but you dont know that.. youve just decided "im vegan-ish-egetarianish so everybody should be".. well i dont like megacities . They are environmental NIGHTMARES. And most of you folks live in them. But im not allowed to outlaw them...... and dont want to.

                        The problem IS total population. And educating girls doesnt have anything to do with it thats another uppermiddle spoiled westerner masterbatory fantasy. Education has nothing to do with it.. thats an entitled western college educated elite  fantasy. POVERTY is the problem. And we wont get rid of that because to do so would require the american upper middle class to sacrifice. It would require the end of right wing economics and classism which is what keeps those folks in those ivory towers. And the very people screaming about evil meat are the very ones who would never ever allow that to happen

                        A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                        by cdreid on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:55:46 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Not to mention radiation... time for all good (11+ / 0-)

          humans to come to the aid of their planet, eh?

          •    "A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'universe,' limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

          This delusion is a prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons close to us.  

          Our task must be to free ourselves from our prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all humanity and the whole of nature in its beauty." – Albert Einstein

          •  Yet another indirect life threatening consequence (10+ / 0-)

            I really hate to add to the horrible consequences of global climate change but there is one that hides far below the radar and it has more to do with the nature of man than with "nature."

            The fact is when climate changes impact natural resources (wheat crops moving north, same as rice, water reserves moving anywhere) the history of mankind shows that wars result.  Maybe not so much in the richest countries (but not unthinkable) but certainly for countries that are already struggling to provide food and WATER for their people.

            That is why the ONLY government body convinced that climate change is REAL and is planning for the "new world" (though not engaging in limiting their impact) is the Unites States Military.  The US and Canada are jointly planning for naval bases in the artic sea  The military is trying to figure out how to get aid into war areas without entering the war and on and on and on.

            "How can the United States be the Greatest Nation ever if it is the only modern nation where citizens hold bake sales to pay for life saving medical care?" Single payer is coming but how many people will die before it becomes the only solution?

            by 4CasandChlo on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:07:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, they are also making some plans to limit (7+ / 0-)

              their impact.  They're installing a lot of solar heating & such on US bases, and moving to vehicles that use biofeul or partly biofuel.  Not enough by a long shot, but they should be pushed to do more, since even the US miitary presence here in the US (all those bases) involves a huge number of vehicles.

              But it is interesting to note that the military has clearly been assessing the reality of climate change even under their former Republican commander, or (at least I think) they wouldn't be this far along in beginning responses.

              --------------- --------------- --------------- "Every part of you belongs to you." -- from a story of Virginia under the Personhood law. Read it here.

              by Fiona West on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:48:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This: (5+ / 0-)
              ...the ONLY government body convinced that climate change is REAL and is planning for the "new world" (though not engaging in limiting their impact) is the Unites States Military.
              Is not entirely true.  We've taken a variety of small steps, like limiting gas turbine warships to economical speeds (kind of a relative thing when you're talking about gas turbine engines, admittedly).  All drops in the bucket, but the culture is shifting.  Here, you might enjoy this.  :-)
            •  Obama would not have raised the mileage (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              carver, beach babe in fl

              requirement to 50 mpg if he thought there was no concern. People can argue about whether that is enough but it is more than anyone before him did, it is a step in the right direction, and it is evidence that he thinks it matters.

              It has secondary effects at making local jobs as well.

              Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

              by Wee Mama on Fri May 18, 2012 at 06:49:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think another example of lateral (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FarWestGirl, beach babe in fl

              strategies is the new mercury requirements. Clearly reducing mercury in the environment is very valuable and has been needed for a long time, but we have seen that its secondary effect is taking coal fired plants offline and reducing the number of new ones coming online. Again, I don't think it is coincidence that policies that are good for one purpose are also good from a climate perspective.

              Maybe we need to work on educating and agitating at the White House to reduce any subsidies to livestock raising and increase health standards. The combination of those two would almost certainly reduce the amount of beef being raised.

              Heck, just cutting the federal water subsidies 20%/year until the subsidies are gone would do a lot, and save money at the same time.

              Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

              by Wee Mama on Fri May 18, 2012 at 06:53:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  we have been working to eliminate the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wee Mama, melo

                subsidies for growing soy and corn...this is a lateral strategy as would make prices for animal grain feed reflect the true cost which in turn would make animal factory farms less profitable.   The cost of meat would increase which would encourage less meat consumption.   Another benefit is that it would free some land that has been damaged by monoculture planting of corn & soy and we could try to replenish top soil which has been dangerously diminished.   Not to mention the benefits of fewer factory farms to our water and air supply.

                So many benefits from reducing livestock production.

                Macca's Meatless Monday

                by VL Baker on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:31:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  scientists have the knowledge, we need guidance (4+ / 0-)

          why don't some scientists and policy experts get together, make proposals, and put something up on kickstarter.  lets crowdsource this thing until it works.  

          i would do it, but i don't know where to start, besides my personal life.  

          •  it's already been done. it's now up to us (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            adrianrf, dirkster42

            the greatest source of the short lived climate forcers is livestock production...the best way is to drastically reduce meat consumption

            MIT has been crowdsourcing on climate change ...see the link above.

            Macca's Meatless Monday

            by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:02:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We may have to put together some sort of forum (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dirkster42

            to brainstorm and kick things around. There are so many factors that need to be included in the equations that it's going to be a massive project to coordinate all the various fields so that we get something useful.

            Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

            by FarWestGirl on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:05:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  MIT is doing that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FarWestGirl, dirkster42

              We mainly have the knowledge of what to do...there is just
              not much individual or political will.

              Macca's Meatless Monday

              by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:09:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good. There's a lot of groundwork to be laid and (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                beach babe in fl

                then a double ton of getting the word out so people can understand and get onboard.

                 I have to disagree with you saying that we mostly know what to do. We know a lot of things that we can, or could, be doing that would help slow things down a bit, but the whole problem is so large and multifaceted that we really don't even have a serious handle on it yet. Most of what we do have is relatively preliminary data gathering, there's still a lot of that, plus the analysis and positing active interventions, then testing them. To deal with it effectively is going to take hundreds, if not thousands of people and tens of thousands of hours of computer modeling just to get started understanding the implications. And then a massive shift in global priorities to start implementing whatever ends up looking the most promising. It's a big, big endeavor. ::sigh::

                Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

                by FarWestGirl on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:24:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  We dont have anything like the knowledge (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FarWestGirl, melo

                or even the ideas.

                Everyone is on the hydrogen, electric, nuclear, biofuel kicks. Those wont actually do anything but slow things down. Electrical - each time you convert energy you lose a tremendous amount of it in the process.. Hydrogin - same as electric. Nuclear - still havent gotten around that  pesky fuel disposal problem, or accident problems, or the fact that you need huge bodies of water whos environment you decimate. Biofuel - oil.. in the end.. basically is biofuel. Solar and wind are awesome.. but the decisionmakers are city folk. And they can only see megaprojects...

                We need every roof covered in solar panels or with a windmill. (some of those same "Green!!! and granola! cities ban silly eyesores like those) We need MUCH MUCH more efficient batteries to store the energy. We need 10  other ideas equal to those two.

                Mostly we need to get into space in a Huge way. FAST. And industrially. We do not need 100k overpaid pampered uppermiddleclass mit grads figuring out what they can take a pic of with their next billion dollar probe... we need spacetugs towing asteroids closer to the earth for harvest. We need giant solar sources capturing the unlimited power of the sun. We need asteroids being turned into permanent human habitation by ai robots.

                When/if humanity REALLY gets into space our energy and material shorteage problems are a thing of history. The resources nearby are nearly infinite. Imagine platinum costing what copper does now. Imagine energy being basically free.. and all biofuels including oil and coal a thing of the past...

                It takes desire. And it takes the willingness to eliminate our current space beauracracy almost entirely. (Something obama actually made a dent in for better and for worse).

                A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                by cdreid on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:27:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The point about biofuel is that plants take CO2 (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FarWestGirl, melo

                  out of the air to make their sugars and oils, so you put back only what you started with. Of course, this assumes that you use carbon-neutral energy to grow the crops to make the fuel, but that is certainly no harder than any other part of the energy cylce.

                  Busting the Dog Whistle code.

                  by Mokurai on Fri May 18, 2012 at 06:42:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm a HUGE fan (0+ / 0-)

                    of biofuels. Though dk being the home of the uppermiddle class social liberal/econ conservative neohippy... its not "cool" with them.. they want nuclear cuz its awesome and stfu about waste and whatnot!

                    If we move hard to biofuel wind and solar (small and large scale!) and biofuel we could make a HUGE dent. And move to space hard and fast while we do it. Because once we've done that we literally  will have the 'free' energy that we can use to undo the damage we've done. You cant burn coal to run a carbon-fixing factory. But you can certainly use spacebased energy to do so.

                    ps what you just said is heresy to the ignorant closet randians (nuke freaks) and granolachewers (uppermiddle city hippys without a clue)

                    A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                    by cdreid on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:27:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  That is the big problem - changing the way (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FarWestGirl, beach babe in fl

                people think and then motivating them to do something.  I'm afraid the "shit is going to have to hit the fan" before large numbers of people are going to be willing to change their ways in a significant enough fashion.  And leadership will not push for it until the pressure comes from their constituants.  There are issues much more important than the next election.

                If we really want to straighten out all this crap we need to really think about shit!

                by John Crapper on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:37:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Agreed. We who do see and understand have to (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  John Crapper, beach babe in fl

                  come up with ways to get effective policies implemented and part of that is going to require framing those policies so to maximize compliance among people who either don't understand or don't care. As well as outmaneuvering those invested in heel dragging and opposition. Scattering short-term carrots to encourage long-term changes in habits and production/mediation strategies is one approach that I see us needing in abundance.

                  Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

                  by FarWestGirl on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:45:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Local dollars local sense, a very interesting (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tobendaro, beach babe in fl

        talk (and book) by Michael Shuman addresses economic
        issues by advocating for the shift of switching from investing in Wall Street to investing locally...how that could turn our economy around...
        local dollars local sense

        what you are advocating, collective individual action, seems very similar.  Grassroots action may very well be the thread out of the maze that will keep us from disaster, be it economic or environmental. If our government is too broken to act on our behalf, we must act ourselves...

  •  If only our politicians had to will to act (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WarrenS, bythesea

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:17:12 PM PDT

    •  this solution depends on our actions n/t (10+ / 0-)

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:21:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't depend only on our individual actions - (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kamarvt

        stop eating meat and all will be well.  For one thing, the largest contributing factor may not get us there if we aren't working on others, and you havent even mentioned any other.  Secondly, cnange in cultural behavior goes slowly unless there's supporting political/economic change.  We need to fight for legislation that outlaws factory meat farms with their huge "lagoons" of cattle manure.  We need tax breaks for organic farming, to help that expland.  This will also feed back into personal behavior.  The education needed to pass an anti-factory farming law in a given state will also cause people to think about and assess their personal choices.  

        We'll have to work on state levels, probably, before we can get national legislation or tax-policy change.

        --------------- --------------- --------------- "Every part of you belongs to you." -- from a story of Virginia under the Personhood law. Read it here.

        by Fiona West on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:56:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  oh dear god (0+ / 0-)

          actual SCIENCE disagrees with you. The political folks though will write papers all day agreeing about you.

          A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

          by cdreid on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:28:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  absolutely we need to lobby for changing (0+ / 0-)

          agriculture subsidies and stronger laws for factory farms.  I think so strong that they would be eliminated and I have been working for these ends.   But with our political situation it has been very slow..and now we have an environmental crisis so rather than wait for 'government' to make us change our behavior it's a simple thing to change on our own.

          Macca's Meatless Monday

          by VL Baker on Fri May 18, 2012 at 04:53:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Black carbon increases in same locations as SO4 (15+ / 0-)

    Black carbon clearly darkens ice and snow, but I'm not buying the results of this study which may not be considering the offsetting effects of reflective aerosols. Both black carbon and reflective aerosol levels have increased greatly in China and India. I suspect that sulfuric acid aerosols offset many of the effects of black carbon on atmospheric warming.

    I don't think we should downplay the importance of rising CO2 levels.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:17:42 PM PDT

    •  rising C02 must be stopped but it will not (8+ / 0-)

      prevent the worst effects of climate change.   Read both
      of the studies.  BC, Methane and ground level ozone have to be reduced for best affect.

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:26:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a little leery of the policy impact of (12+ / 0-)

      focusing on black carbon aka soot, which is generated in developing countries (burning wood and cookstoves) more than in the US, rather than focusing on carbon dioxide. There's a certain amount of smugness, imperialism, or whatever you want to call it in us deciding that other countries' dirty habits need to be cleaned up before ours.

      The world is on pace for 11 degrees F warming. Nothing else in politics matters. @RL_Miller

      by RLMiller on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:50:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  black carbon is mainly due to deforestation (9+ / 0-)

        and open fires.   The cookstove project is good and will help with health and the environment but the big culprit is deforestation

        Good to see you RL :)

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:05:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you see the story from Brazil today ? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigjacbigjacbigjac

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:27:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i saw the story about the auto companies (2+ / 0-)

            iron ore and deforestation...but it's not the primary use of deforested lands ...that goes to livestock

            Macca's Meatless Monday

            by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:30:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ... (2+ / 0-)

              "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

              by indycam on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:33:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Probably not (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cdreid, TomFromNJ, Wee Mama

              As a cause of deforestation, livestock is probably #2 now, or approaching it. Soybeans are #1 in places like Argentina, Brazil or Paraguay.

              In Indonesia, over the last 15 years or so there have been several major wildfires in forested land and peat bogs primarily - millions of acres - due to swidden agriculture, mostly expanding oil palm cultivation. For example, the 1997-8 fires covered 25 million acres and produiced between 13% and 40% of total global CO2 emissions in those years - one fire.

              Most of South American soy goes to China and Europe, about 20% for human consumption, 10% for oils and related uses, and the remaining 70% for animal feed, which covers a much broader range than cattle, including chickens, for example. Brazil is the world's largest soybean exporter.

              For example here, or here.

              It's never too late to have a happy childhood - Tom Robbins

              by badger on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:05:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  exactly, livestock production including (3+ / 0-)

                grazing And growing feed for livestock feed is the greatest overall cause of deforestation.   First the loggers come to cut the forest then it is burned and then turned into either grazing land or for farming of soy or corn for animal feed.  All animals beef, poultry, pigs.  etc.

                Macca's Meatless Monday

                by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:13:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Palm oil isn't used for animal feed (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cdreid, bigjacbigjacbigjac, Wee Mama

                  It's used in human food, to make biodiesel and (at one time) for napalm. And the Indonesian fires, when they occur, and they occur every 10 years or so, are bigger contributors to greenhouse gasses than nearly any other agricultural practice, in addition to harming air quality over much of SE Asia, and tons of black carbon.

                  The deforestation in Burma and Southeast Asia, China, Siberia and even parts of Africa supplies Chinese lumber mills and factories that turn out cheap furniture for retailers like Ikea and Target, or even DIY products for Home Depot. That deforestation will also be followed (has been already to some extent) by large wildfires that emit more CO2, black carbon and toxics like mercury.

                  When you add those up, my guess is they exceed deforestation due to livestock production - grazing and feed production - by a significant amount. And livestock production is food production - some other food product will need huge acreages in favorable climates to provide year-round replacement for livestock production, if that ever took place. And energy for fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (the last two might be optional if you look at organic production, but fertilizer is necessary, because exporting crops exports nutrients; livestock make fertilizer).

                  You'd still need land for food, since food is somewhat essential. Palm oil and Ikea bookshelves are somewhat less essential.

                  You're focusing on only a portion of the problem, and one that isn't as easily dealt with politically and culturally as some of the other parts.

                  Americans, for example, at 5% of the world's population, consume 25% of the world's forest products. Do you think that correcting that might reduce deforestation too?

                  It's never too late to have a happy childhood - Tom Robbins

                  by badger on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:08:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I saw a TED talk -- wish I had the link -- about (2+ / 0-)

                    a wonderful reforestation project in Indonesia.  Small in scope, but a model.  It combined careful scientific design with involving the local peole.  The result was a reforested area including land left in a (restored) natural state for endangered species (orangutans), as well as areas for sustainable agriculture built largely on native plants and including both food and plants for biofuel as an income source for the people.  It was a model of combining intricate scientific knowledge with traditional local ways.  Those kind of experiments are incredibly important to find, support, and expand.

                    Most sustainable agriculture is likely to involve some raising of animals, especially smaller ones such as chickens and goats.  Appropriate numbers of animals in balance with the land provide manure for fertiization and do not involve massive release of methane as factory farming does.

                    --------------- --------------- --------------- "Every part of you belongs to you." -- from a story of Virginia under the Personhood law. Read it here.

                    by Fiona West on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:12:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  BBIF tipped for the inspiration as always (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WarrenS
  •  Thanks for this... (3+ / 0-)

    ...recced, tipped, FB'd, etc.  Your work is crucial in keeping us informed, BBIF.

    FWIW, I've got a LTE diary up; please drop in if you can!

    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:12:19 PM PDT

  •  Sequestered methane (4+ / 0-)

    in the subpolar permafrost as well as ices ( hydrates ) in the ocean floor is the Sword of Damocles hanging over our global heads.

    As related to runaway global warming, this is where the conversation and action need to be focused.

    IMHO, respectfully.

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

    by ozsea1 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:13:14 PM PDT

  •  Not sure that we really (7+ / 0-)

    have any more time to act, but it is clear that we won't get any real action anytime soon.  I fear that the time to act and really make much of a difference passed a decade or so ago, but it is still worth trying at least...

    •  I'm advocating for individual action here... (5+ / 0-)

      that we can do.   I hope eventually we get a carbon tax that is refunded to the people to also encourage lowering carbon footprints.   Maybe after the election ..sigh and of course only if O is reelected.

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:52:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know and agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beach babe in fl

        but am just honestly saying that while better than nothing, I am doubtful that it is enough...That said I am all for doing what we can.

      •  With all due respect... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bigjacbigjacbigjac

        "individual action"?! LOL!

        “You can see a lot of things that are wrong. Small changes you can propose. But, to be realistic, substantial change (which will really alter the large-scale direction of things and overcome major problems) will require profound democratization of the society and the economic system.”                                                                         ~from
        Noam Chomsky’s The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many    

        •  i agree we need total economic reform (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          adrianrf

          what that will do is change individual behavior.   Since we don't have total reform on the immediate  horizon.  I advocate that WE change our individual behavior rather than wait for it to be changed by systemic means.  We lose precious time by waiting.

          Macca's Meatless Monday

          by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:26:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  analogy to marriage equality (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigjacbigjacbigjac, Mokurai

          12 years ago it was a distant prize on the horizon.
          When Vermont passed the Civil unions law, there was a "take back Vermont" campaign by the reactionaries, convinced this was the doorway to hell. Howard Dean was replaced by a Republican governor.
          But over the next few years, people individually began to realize that nothing terrible was happening as a result of this ultimately minor change (much like in MA), and this began in turn to change attitudes. A local JP who had previously refused to perform same sex ceremonies changed his mind. The majority reaction; What took you so long?
          So then more people began to change their minds.

          When Vermont passed Marriage EQ, the republican governor looked like a troglodyte by vetoing it, and his own party joined in overriding the veto. He did not run for reelection.
          There was no "take back" campaign at all that time.
          Meanwhile, the issue gained support in many places around the country, and it is now officially endorsed by the POTUS.
          We are not done, and there are strong forces still to overcome, but the sea has changed on this issue, because people made individual choices to reexamine their knee-jerk reactions to something new and (they were told) dangerously radical and full of scary change.
          this is what gives our pathetic politicians the "courage" to do the right thing, which in this case is enacting laws to encourage the right behavior and discourage destructive behavior.

          The two do not go hand in hand. The people must lead, by individual action and sharing with others. This creates the climate (heh) that makes larger, more effective action possible.

          Class war has consequences, and we are living them.

          by kamarvt on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:04:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Here we are, with the sharpest wealth and income.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid

        ...inequality since the late 20s, and some of us want to propose a carbon tax?

        The last thing any member of any progressive community should propose is any policy which will exacerbate wealth and income inequality.

        And a carbon tax will exacerbate wealth inequality.

        Frankly, I'm not convinced that many Dems are that worried about climate change.  They are concerned about raising more tax revenue, however.  And since they are too coward to propose a progressive wealth tax, they are targeting the working and middle-class via regressive taxes.  

        At the federal level, Speaker Pelosi recently re-embraced Simpson-Bowls, which calls for MANY regressive taxes, including one on nergy.  And at the state and local level, countless Dems are not only proposing regressive taxes, but signing them into law.

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

        by PatriciaVa on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:20:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a carbon tax goes to the industrial polluters (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayDean, adrianrf

          and it is an incentive to reduce pollution.   The money can go to the people.

          http://www.carbontax.org/...

          Macca's Meatless Monday

          by VL Baker on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:39:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's like proposing a soda tax then.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid, bigjacbigjacbigjac

            ...claiming that it's not going to impact the poor and middle-class b/c the tax receipts are going to be returned to the people.

            I have a better idea.  Let's have the pols set an example.  Instead of flying to DC every week, why not have Congressman and Senators stay in their CDs and states for three months at a time?  Have them communicate with Cisco Teleconferencing.

            Can you imagine how much CO2 they'd save?

            But, as I've said, too many pols, a carbon tax isn't about carbon reduction.

            It's about raising revenue on the backs of the poor.  And sure, they may claim that they'll return 90% the first year.  But I guarantee you that by year 10, they'll less than half.

            I can't support any regressive tax.  And neither should any Dem who champions the working and middle-class.

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

            by PatriciaVa on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:04:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Everyone should pay a carbon consumption tax (0+ / 0-)

              Trying to make the rich more while exempting the poor is futile.

            •  My understanding is that carbon tax is progressive (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              beach babe in fl

              ...if instituted such that receipts are dispersed evenly per capita.  Yes, everything will cost more, but the carbon tax rebate will make up for those expenses for those who consume less than the mean (which is most of us).  

              It actually reminds me of Alaska's permanent fund dividend.  Cash to the people.  It helps the poor and rural (semi-cash economy) most of all, despite the high cost of food/fuel.

              Are you just going to gripe about it, or are you going to do something to change it?

              by smithbm on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:36:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              beach babe in fl
              ...a carbon tax will exacerbate wealth inequality.
              is not necessarily so.  It could be implemented with any number of controls.

              And this:

              Can you imagine how much CO2 they'd save?
              would be small change at best.  A nice feel good measure, but little substance.

              Half of all oil burned in America goes to meat production.  Most Americans eat far too much meat.  This is the single greatest thing that almost everyone can do today, and they'll save money in the process and be healthier.

              Still perhaps a drop in the bucket, but a much larger one than you're talking about.

              •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                yall flat out make shit up these days.

                Reminds me of handgun control inc. They put out so many lies that were relied on for so long when the other side eventually got an actual voice it came tumbling down in a crash so big it took HCI out... they had to rename themselves and are powerless now. And their cause is a thing of the past.

                A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                by cdreid on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:32:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly what part (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  beach babe in fl, melo

                  was made up?  Was it the ability of policymakers to adjust policy in order to mitigate potential untintended consequences?  Or perhaps that the travel footprint of our elected officials would not amount to much in the grand scheme of things?

                  Perhaps is was the part about oil consumption involved in meat production?  I'm actually not sure off the top of my head where I saw that statistic, but I've seen it in multiple places.  I'll try to find it, but if you have better numbers, I'm dying to hear them.  In terms of water and oil usage, as well a pollution, American meat production has a gargantuan ecological footprint.  And I'm not sure how anyone can rationally argue that we don't eat too much of it, or that we don't suffer health consequences from said overeating.

                  Feel free to disagree, but I'd like to see some math.

  •  Guess we're all screwed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soarbird, peregrinus

    Seriously, if we haven't been able to change the system in the last ten years, how are we going to be able to come up with a plan in 5?

  •  This is one of the few issues (5+ / 0-)

    that we ourselves individually can make a huge difference in. Just stop or reduce meat consumption. Thats it. If informed people are unwilling to do it... well...

    While many minority groups are the target for discrimination, few face this hostility without the support and acceptance of their family as do many glbt youth.

    by azrefugee on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:38:29 PM PDT

  •  More people are (3+ / 0-)

    willing to give going meatless and dairyless a try, it seems to me.  Thanks for your diary, bb.

  •  Please: "And" rather than "Or" (3+ / 0-)

    as in "walk and chew gum at the same time"

    I agree with the urgency of everything you are saying.

    And I understand the rhetorical reasons for titling a diary here as you did.

    But some people only read headlines on the rec list, and it's hard enough already to get folks to prioritize the planet without which none of us would exist at a higher level than their own personal pet issues. Please don't tell people not to worry about CO2. Rather, please go for the "even more urgent than" CO2 approach.

    Deeper, "Climate Change..It's not the C02 we need to worry about now" falls into a specialization narrowness trap that is killing us on all ecosystemic fronts. We need to worry, and take action, and be effective, on turning around and healing the whole -- systemically.

    We need to deal with CO2, methane, black carbon and tropospheric ozone. Climate chaos, ocean acidification, foodchain toxicities, and collapse of genetic diversity... all stemming from a much-too-heavy human footprint.

    Small changes are no longer enough. We have to shoot for 10:1 shifts.

    Personally, I've eaten 90% less meat than typical Americans -- and 99.999% less dairy (i.e., never even once voluntarily since 1983) than typical vegetarians -- over the past 29 years... while working to eventually phase out all domestication of animals worldwide (whether for the "companionship excuse" or the "food excuse", all animal domestication disasterously multiplies the human footprint.)

    Personally, I've used cars 90% less than typical Americans... while working to eventually phase out the internal combustion engines, "commuting to work", uses of fossil fuels, and ultimately the whole transport-centric economy as well as all the places outside animal bodies where "burning" is used in our culture.

    Those last 2 paragraphs were to let you know I'm on your team and aligned with what you're up to -- so hopefully you'll take my feedback in the very constructive way it's intended. :)

    #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

    by ivote2004 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:23:58 PM PDT

    •  I thought about the title and I agree that (0+ / 0-)

      some may think ok i don't have to worry about anything.
      But, they do that anyway.   It's very difficult to get any attention to climate change at all.   And when you work with solutions as I do and it involves people making changes well then it is EXTREMELY difficult as many don't want to make changes no matter how essential it is that they do.

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:07:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tropospheric Ozone is generated mostly by (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivote2004, cdreid, parse this, the fan man

    non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and NOx. Methane is not nearly as reactive as other hydrocarbons. Reducing methane will have little effect on tropospheric ozone.

      Incidentally NOx also causes a direct effect because NO2 absorbs broadly in the green to violet region of the visible spectrum, contributing to the direct absorption of radiation that bypasses the greenhouse effect and is, as a result, more efficient at warming the atmosphere in the vicinity of the cities where it is most prevalent.

      Oh, and we do need to worry about CO2. It is still the most prevalent source of warming, and making it go up only makes things much worse.

  •  Incidentally, (0+ / 0-)

    I just looked at the Nature article and the reason they are probably underestimating the northern tropical expansion is direct absorption by water dimer. I think that still is not in the models correctly.

  •  Moo shu pork: (5+ / 0-)

    http://www.treehugger.com/...

    "Now China’s annual meat consumption of 71 million tons is more than double that in the United States. With U.S. meat consumption falling and China’s consumption still rising, the trajectories of these two countries are determining the shape of agriculture around the planet."

    http://chinesefood.about.com/...

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:36:34 PM PDT

    •  i read that...we have to stop exporting our (0+ / 0-)

      soy and pork to them and take care of our own consumption.

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:10:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BB, yes we will cut back, but China will rock (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bigjacbigjacbigjac

        the world. We can stop shipping pork and soy, some other country will. By the way, better pork than beef!

        “The first principle [in science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

        by the fan man on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:26:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  China, SE Asia and S America are where we (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bigjacbigjacbigjac

      see the most benefit from changes in livestock rearing and consumption.
      I read a paragraph from Lester Brown that summed up China's situation. Pigs have been used as rural households "garbage disposal" for many, many generations. As China shifts from this form of food recycling to concentrated rearing and grain based production, both meat consumption and the toll on GHG emissions and agricultural resources rises fairly dramatically. We can only be thankful that the traditional meat is pork and chicken. If it was beef (gaining in popularity) it would be a very different deadly ball game.

      “The first principle [in science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

      by the fan man on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:13:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More science in general public pubs (2+ / 0-)

    The other day in the Albuquerque Journal, a bunch of letters to the editor that started with "I'm a scientist and I have a PhD..."  and they all said that they though Climate Change was a hoax.  

    It happens that there are scientists in New Mexico, at Sandia Labs, Los Alamos, and various other institutions.  

    Whenever there is public discussion these people come out and say that there is no issue.

    Thus, people in the media who aren't scientists and people in politics who also aren't educated in fields other than law perhaps, don't know who to believe.  

    That is why there is so little action.  I think if people who have a science background have some knowledge to share, there ought to be more efforts made to educate the public, the media and the policy makers.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:37:36 PM PDT

    •  Why don't you do a diary to call out these (0+ / 0-)

      pseudo-scientists? How many of them are climate scientists rather than, say, aeronautical engineers or nuclear researchers?

      Busting the Dog Whistle code.

      by Mokurai on Fri May 18, 2012 at 06:51:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point was that scientists need to do more (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bigjacbigjacbigjac

        I know that people in the scientific community are doing the work that they do and feel others should be doing the work of public communication.

        Who wants more stuff to do when one is already doing as much as one can?

        But the point is that the more efforts are made by more people, especially those in relevant scientific fields to reach the media and the public, the more the debate will shift away from the contrarians.  

        A lot of it strikes me as basic contrary reaction: "I am smart, therefore I don't agree (with ... whatever you got.)"

        Again, people in the media, and people in politics generally don't have their own basis for knowing who to believe.

        hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

        by Stuart Heady on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:11:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ozone is produced by incomplete combustion (0+ / 0-)

    of petrochemicals.  That being said, shouldn't the catalytic converter assist the combustion enough to address this?  Is Ca, the only place that requires them?

  •  SAw a story today that Texas cattle ranchers (4+ / 0-)

    are selling off cows and even closing down ranches because of drought. If they get another two years like the last one, most of them will go belly-up. Guess that will cut down on meat production.

    The people demand the fall of this regime ...

    by fourthcornerman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:14:49 PM PDT

  •  IGSD has some interesting info on this (6+ / 0-)

    link .... and there is a hint of a renewed push to use the Montreal Protocol as a way of by passing the crippled UNFCCC negotiating process.

    From Where international climate policy has failed, grassroots efforts can succeed: researchers, 4/27

    In the essay “The Climate Threat We Can Beat,” David Victor, political scientist at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies; Scripps Institution of Oceanography Director Emeritus Charles Kennel; and Scripps climate and atmospheric scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan argue that action on short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) would have a better chance for success and would generate swifter benefits in the form of less global warming in the near term, as countries attempt to find equitable methods for controlling carbon dioxide. This new strategy would be particularly attractive to the world’s major emitters of SLCPs —China, the United States and India—that so far have been reluctant to make big promises to control their emissions of carbon dioxide.

    Speaking about the new essay, Victor said “Action on soot and ozone can transform the politics of climate change because controlling these pollutants doesn’t just benefit the climate.  It also delivers tangible local benefits.  Even the governments that are skittish about spending money for global benefits can see real local advantages in this new strategy.”

    In February, six countries (including the United States) formed a coalition devoted to promote practical changes that could control emissions of global warming agents such as soot and ozone. The essay applauds that effort but argues that it must expand to include China and India.

    Also of interest, in CA: (from Saving our Planet UT San Diego 4/22)
    But at least 40 percent of the current global warming is due to four other pollutants. Many regions, particularly California, have proven and successful technologies to reduce these pollutants quickly and dramatically. Such reductions could cut future warming by almost half and delay by several decades the peak warming that threatens disaster for the world’s vulnerable peoples and places, including mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice, and low-lying islands and coastlines. Cutting these pollutants will also save 2 million lives annually and prevent billions of dollars of crop damage. Yes, saving the climate system can also save our lives!

    The four pollutants to address are methane, a gas that leaks from landfills and natural gas pipes; black-carbon particles in the exhaust of diesel trucks and the smoke from wood- and coal-burning cookstoves; noxious gases from tailpipes that produce ozone in smog; and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), man-made gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners and spray cans. Because these pollutants stay in the atmosphere only a short time, reducing them provides a payoff perceptible within a matter of months to a decade.

  •  I like the cut of your jib. (2+ / 0-)

    And this is kind of where I'm at as well.  Become the change you wish to see.  If nothing else, you demonstrate what's possible.

  •  I just hope there really is some time left. (2+ / 0-)

    Barack Obama: Thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass.

    by expatjourno on Fri May 18, 2012 at 03:59:28 AM PDT

  •  Please click on this link, and read, not so much (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beach babe in fl

    my diary,
    which got on the rec list,
    but please,
    oh please,
    click on some of the links in my diary.

    Read the information
    presented
    by those who've done the research.

    Here is the link:

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

    Contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate change,....

    Only contraception,
    in the long run,
    will make the critical difference.

    Imagine the world
    with much fewer of us humans:

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

    Thanks for reading.

    •  Please support global education, too (3+ / 0-)

      Educating girls is the most economical and fastest way to deal with population problems. I work with One Laptop Per Child and its Free Software and Creative Commons content partner Sugar Labs, in large part because they are the only organizations aiming at educating a billion children at a time. But there are many, many organizations working on Open Educational Resources for free distribution, under Creative Commons Sharealike licenses allowing translation and adaptation to local requirements.

      The other major issue is "standardized" testing, the bane of all teachers' existence. It is the biggest obstacle we have to teaching anything of importance, anything besides rudimentary reading and math skills.

      We also need people to call out the lies in commercial textbooks. See Richard Feynman, Judging Books by Their Covers.

      Busting the Dog Whistle code.

      by Mokurai on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:02:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The birth rate needs to become very low. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beach babe in fl

        Educating women
        lowers the birth rate,
        but does it lower the birth rate
        to one child for each five couples?

        That is what we need.

        It will not happen.

        Everything we do,
        such as educating women,
        wind and solar,
        all this will be too little,
        too late.

        Billions will starve.

        Famine is the problem,
        not global climate change.

        Drastic reduction in the birth rate,
        for 100 years,
        is the only way out I can see.

        Maybe,
        after billions die,
        someone will read this,
        and realize that some goofy idiot savant
        was one of the few who could see what was coming.

        Some goofy bigjac idiot savant.

        Thanks for reading.

        •  bigjac...I like your work and want your opinion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigjacbigjacbigjac

          on this diary i wrote a while back..How does it mesh with your views?

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

          Macca's Meatless Monday

          by VL Baker on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:48:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree more with nulwee than you, however, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            beach babe in fl

            maybe if we,
            most of us humans,
            would switch over to insect larvae,
            (I don't know which ones are healthiest,
            and which ones might be toxic),
            maybe insect larvae,
            such as silkworms,
            would work out better.

            But we need to give at least equal emphasis
            to both what we eat,
            and how many of us there are eating it.

            By the way,
            I eat a lot of hot dogs and cheese,
            a lot of chicken.

            The hot dogs are the cheap kind,
            made with chicken and pork.

            I firmly believe that the human organism,
            consisting of protein and fat,
            naturally seeks out animals,
            also consisting of protein and fat,
            to eat,
            in order to rebuild our physical bodies,
            cell by cell,
            molecule by molecule,
            using the nine essential amino acids
            present in all animal protein,
            and hard to assemble from plant foods.

            I cannot afford to be a vegetarian.

            I eat those hot dogs and cheese and chicken,
            because it's cheap,
            between one and two dollars a pound.

            Preaching to folks to eat more veggies
            causes them to buy veggies,
            and they rot in the fridge,
            because we don't crave veggies,
            we crave animal protein and fat.

            However,
            once again,
            we can still change,
            maybe to insect larvae.

            However,
            we still need to reduce the birth rate,
            maybe with a queen bee arrangement,
            with some women having up to five children,
            and twenty five women having zero children.

            We need to do both.

            I think both of us will fail,
            billions will starve.

            I don't want to hurt your feelings,
            and nulwee and others
            seem to ignore that yes,
            eating different foods
            can make a big difference.

            But please,
            join those of us who say
            that we also need to reduce the birth rate.

            Thanks for reading.

            •  i will rec your comment bigjac because i respect (0+ / 0-)

              you and your opinion, but we disagree.

              Macca's Meatless Monday

              by VL Baker on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:04:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ps...i do agree with stabilizing population (0+ / 0-)

                and reduction but I think what we consume is the more important element in climate change and the stats agree with me as high carbon footprint is what determines GHG emissions.

                Peace

                Macca's Meatless Monday

                by VL Baker on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:36:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Meteor Blades, a gilas girl, buffalo soldier, melo, Shockwave, cotterperson, SanJoseLady, jeremybloom, expatjourno, Creosote, Plan9, Wee Mama, Agathena, barath, ivote2004, Ignacio Magaloni, oceanview, fumie, askyron, kharma, ManhattanMan, defluxion10, Neighbor2, emobile, riverlover, Sembtex, parryander, JayDean, Mosquito Pilot, Steven D, Albanius, azrefugee, thereisnospoon, Maggie Pax, G2geek, maybeeso in michigan, indycam, gmoke, kamarvt, basquebob, Laurence Lewis, oregonj, where4art, Isara, joeotter, mightymouse, Alan Arizona, harrietshubby, Russgirl, Lefty Coaster, DarkestHour, lao hong han, boatsie, BlueMississippi, dirkster42, WarrenS, Delta Overdue, markthshark, One Pissed Off Liberal, RWood, dotsright, bigjacbigjacbigjac, aravir, Mary Mike, ballerina X, bnasley, mudslide, millwood, uciguy30, Mighty Ike, seriously70, JeffW, TX Freethinker, chakadog, bill warnick, bythesea, LI Mike, jamess, dewley notid, Missys Brother, petulans, DavidW, maggiejean, Bule Betawi, zmom, The Dead Man, Norm in Chicago, fourthcornerman, petral, elziax, asym, maxzj05, nancat357, citisven, Former Chicagoan Now Angeleno, Larsstephens, Amber6541, Just Bob, parse this, LaughingPlanet, LOrion, gulfgal98, elengul, Oh Mary Oh, Onomastic, ozsea1, darylita, Seitanist, FarWestGirl, marleycat, Cinnamon Rollover, Hayate Yagami, too many people, RLMiller, PrometheusUnbound, Only Needs a Beat, orpurple, Joieau, Horace Boothroyd III, martinjedlicka, Lorinda Pike, radical simplicity, AuntieRa, quillsinister, SwedishJewfish, John Crapper, DamselleFly, weck, northerntier, bob152

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site