Skip to main content

Bleak. Harsh. Scary.

Economies run on Energy. And ours is held captive by an outdated Energy Industry, that is slowly but surely ruining the Planet. If Hurricane Sandy decimating the NE, wasn't a wake-up call then I don't know what is?

Hurricane Irene in Vermont?  Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast?

How about the Firestorm in Texas?  Or the raging Wildfires in Australia?

How can we keep hitting the Climate Snooze-button, when deep and persistent droughts in the Midwest are "decimating" the price of food?  

Month after month, year after year, decade after decade -- the fallout from a more chaotic super-charged climate becomes more apparent, while the our adaptive response to these warning signs, has become increasingly casual:

We got time. The Planet will heal itself. Besides who even knows if Climate Change is even a real thing, or not?  There are a bunch of people in Washington DC who keep saying: 'Climate Change is a Hoax.'  

There are a bunch of people on my Radio who keep saying: 'Climate Change is a liberal plot to bilk the Government of millions.'  What if they are right?

Hmmm, what if they're not?

Check the donation list of every DC Climate Denier -- I'll bet you my "Tax Refund" {cough} that they benefit from the generous support of the Fossil Fuels industry.

Check the talking point list of every Climate Decrier on the radio -- I'll bet you my "Social Security CPI-Adjustment" {cough} that they rely on the fabricated support of psuedo-Science Front-Groups like the Heartland Institute and the API to tell them what say.

They are paid-performers afterall.  Very well paid, actually;  whatever the market will bear ... for just a few more years ... {cough} decades ... of Denial.

The saddest part of all, if you asked me -- We used to actually BE a Nation that believed in Science. That trusted its conclusions. That leveraged its insights ... to actually BUILD A BETTER FUTURE.

Sadly we are that no longer.  All to our great FUTURE loss. This new caviler attitude of more-of-the-same {all-of-the-above} -- does not bode well for a "more of the same" benevolent future.

If we were a country that still heeded the warnings of ACTUAL Scientists, then our future outlook might not look so bleak. Or harsh. Or scary.  

We might have been able to have turned these Future Lemons into some useful Lemon-aide. Maybe we still can rally the will to change, to adapt, to heed the alarm?  But if the past is any guide, probably not.

EPA -- Climate Change -- Our Official Government Site

Climate Change Indicators in the United States [2010]. REPORT (pdf 13 MB)

[Updated: Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2012. REPORT (pdf 18 MB)]

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010.

Over the last several decades, evidence of human influences on climate change has become increasingly clear and compelling. There is indisputable evidence that human activities such as electricity production and transportation are adding to the concentrations of greenhouse gases that are already naturally present in the atmosphere. These heat-trapping gases are now at record-high levels in the atmosphere compared with the recent and distant past.

Warming of the climate system is well documented, evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is very likely the cause of most of the recent observed increase in average temperatures, and contributes to other climate changes.[1]

About This Report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published this report, Climate Change Indicators in the United States, to help readers interpret a set of important indicators to better understand climate change. The report presents 24 indicators, each describing trends in some way related to the causes and effects of climate change. The indicators focus primarily on the United States, but in some cases global trends are presented in order to provide context or a basis for comparison.
The report also includes a summary of major findings associated with each indicator (see Summary of Key Findings on p. 4)

EPA selected the 24 indicators presented in this report from a broader set of 110 indicators, many of which were identified at an expert workshop (November 30 to December 1, 2004) on climate change indicators convened by the National Academy of Sciences and funded by EPA.

The indicators in this report were chosen using a set of screening criteria that considered usefulness, objectivity, data quality, transparency, ability to show a meaningful trend, and relevance to climate change.

All of the indicators selected for this report are based on data that have been collected and compiled by following rigorous protocols that are widely accepted by the scientific community. Various government agencies, academic institutions, and other organizations collected the data.

[pg 4]

Summary of Key Findings

The indicators in this report present clear evidence that the composition of the atmosphere is being altered as a result of human activities and that the climate is changing. They also illustrate a number of effects on society and ecosystems related to these changes.

Greenhouse Gases

1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In the United States, greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities increased by 14 percent from 1990 to 2008. Carbon dioxide accounts for most of the nation’s emissions and most of this increase. Electricity generation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, followed by transportation. Emissions per person have remained about the same since 1990.

2) Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Worldwide, emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities increased by 26 percent from 1990 to 2005. Emissions of carbon dioxide, which account for nearly three-fourths of the total, increased by 31 percent over this period. Like in the United States, the majority of the world’s emissions are associated with energy use.

3) Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen substantially since the beginning of the industrial era. Almost all of this increase is attributable to human activities. Historical measurements show that the current levels of many greenhouse gases are higher than any seen in thousands of years, even after accounting for natural fluctuations.

4) Climate Forcing. Climate or "radiative" forcing is a way to measure how substances such as greenhouse gases affect the amount of energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere. An increase in radiative forcing leads to warming while a decrease in forcing produces cooling. From 1990 to 2008, the radiative forcing of all the greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere increased by about 26 percent. The rise in carbon dioxide concentrations accounts for approximately 80 percent of this increase

Weather and Climate

5) U.S. and Global Temperature. Average temperatures have risen across the lower 48 states since 1901, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the lower 48 states have occurred since 1990, and the last 10 five-year periods have been the warmest five-year periods on record. Average global temperatures show a similar trend, and 2000–2009 was the warmest decade on record worldwide. Within the United States, parts of the North, the West, and Alaska have seen temperatures increase the most.

6) Heat Waves. The frequency of heat waves in the United States decreased in the 1960s and 1970s, but has risen steadily since then. The percentage of the United States experiencing heat waves has also increased. The most severe heat waves in U.S. history remain those that occurred during the "Dust Bowl" in the 1930s, although average temperatures have increased since then.

7) Drought. Over the period from 2001 through 2009, roughly 30 to 60 percent of the U.S. land area experienced drought conditions at any given time. However, the data for this indicator have not been collected for long enough to determine whether droughts are increasing or decreasing over time.

8) U.S. and Global Precipitation. Average precipitation has increased in the United States and worldwide. Since 1901, precipitation has increased at an average rate of more than 6 percent per century in the lower 48 states and nearly 2 percent per century worldwide. However, shifting weather patterns have caused certain areas, such as Hawaii and parts of the Southwest, to experience less precipitation than they used to.

9) Heavy Precipitation. In recent years, a higher percentage of precipitation in the United States has come in the form of intense single-day events. Eight of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990. The occurrence of abnormally high annual precipitation totals has also increased.

10) Tropical Cyclone Intensity. The intensity of tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico did not exhibit a strong long-term trend for much of the 20th century, but has risen noticeably over the past 20 years. Six of the 10 most active hurricane seasons have occurred since the mid-1990s. This increase is closely related to variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic.


11) Ocean Heat. Several studies have shown that the amount of heat stored in the ocean has increased substantially since the 1950s. Ocean heat content not only determines sea surface temperature, but it also affects sea level and currents.

12) Sea Surface Temperature. The surface temperature of the world’s oceans increased over the 20th century. Even with some year-to-year variation, the overall increase is statistically significant, and sea surface temperatures have been higher during the past three decades than at any other time since large-scale measurement began in the late 1800s.

13) Sea Level. When averaged over all the world’s oceans, sea level has increased at a rate of roughly six-tenths of an inch per decade since 1870. The rate of increase has accelerated in recent years to more than an inch per decade. Changes in sea level relative to the height of the land vary widely because the land itself moves. Along the U.S. coastline, sea level has risen the most relative to the land along the Mid-Atlantic coast and parts of the Gulf Coast. Sea level has decreased relative to the land in parts of Alaska and the Northwest.

14) Ocean Acidity. The ocean has become more acidic over the past 20 years, and studies suggest that the ocean is substantially more acidic now than it was a few centuries ago. Rising acidity is associated with increased levels of carbon dioxide dissolved in the water. Changes in acidity can affect sensitive organisms such as corals.

Snow and Ice

15) Arctic Sea Ice. Part of the Arctic Ocean stays frozen year-round. The area covered by ice is typically smallest in September, after the summer melting season. September 2007 had the least ice of any year on record, followed by 2008 and 2009. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2009 was 24 percent below the 1979 to 2000 historical average.

16) Glaciers. Glaciers in the United States and around the world have generally shrunk since the 1960s, and the rate at which glaciers are melting appears to have accelerated over the last decade. Overall, glaciers worldwide have lost more than 2,000 cubic miles of water since 1960, which has contributed to the observed rise in sea level.

17) Lake Ice. Lakes in the northern United States generally appear to be freezing later and thawing earlier than they did in the 1800s and early 1900s. The length of time that lakes stay frozen has decreased at an average rate of one to two days per decade.

18) Snow Cover. The portion of North America covered by snow has generally decreased since 1972, although there has been much year-to-year variability. Snow covered an average of 3.18 million square miles of North America during the years 2000 to 2008, compared with 3.43 million square miles during the 1970s.

19) Snowpack. Between 1950 and 2000, the depth of snow on the ground in early spring decreased at most measurement sites in the western United States and Canada. Spring snowpack declined by more than 75 percent in some areas, but increased in a few others.

Society and Ecosystems

20) Heat-Related Deaths. Over the past three decades, more than 6,000 deaths across the United States were caused by heat-related illness such as heat stroke. However, considerable year-to-year variability makes it difficult to determine long-term trends.

21) Length of Growing Season. The average length of the growing season in the lower 48 states has increased by about two weeks since the beginning of the 20th century. A particularly large and steady increase has occurred over the last 30 years. The observed changes reflect earlier spring warming as well as later arrival of fall frosts. The length of the growing season has increased more rapidly in the West than in the East.

22) Plant Hardiness Zones. Winter low temperatures are a major factor in determining which plants can survive in a particular area. Plant hardiness zones have shifted noticeably northward since 1990, reflecting higher winter temperatures in most parts of the country. Large portions of several states have warmed by at least one hardiness zone.

23) Leaf and Bloom Dates. Leaf growth and flower blooms are examples of natural events whose timing can be influenced by climate change. Observations of lilacs and honeysuckles in the lower 48 states suggest that leaf growth is now occurring a few days earlier than it did in the early 1900s. Lilacs and honeysuckles are also blooming slightly earlier than in the past, but it is difficult to determine whether this change is statistically meaningful.

24) Bird Wintering Ranges. Some birds shift their range or alter their migration habits to adapt to changes in temperature or other environmental conditions. Long-term studies have found that bird species in North America have shifted their wintering grounds northward by an average of 35 miles since 1966, with a few species shifting by several hundred miles. On average, bird species have also moved their wintering grounds farther from the coast, consistent with rising inland temperatures.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Environmental Protection Agency
EPA -- Office of Air and Radiation
EPA -- Office of Water

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA -- Climate Prediction Center
NOAA -- Earth Systems Research Laboratory
NOAA -- National Climatic Data Center
NOAA -- National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
NOAA -- National Oceanographic Data Center
NOAA -- National Ocean Service
NOAA -- Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

National Snow and Ice Data Center

U.S. Geological Survey

Data Providers and Indicator Reviewers -- Universities, Nongovernmental Organizations, and International Institutions

Arbor Day Foundation
Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences
Desert Research Institute
Japan Agency for Marine -- Earth Science and Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
National Audubon Society
Rutgers University
University of Colorado -- Boulder
University of Southampton
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin -- Madison

There's your wake-up call America.  

It's the Scientists vs the Oil Profiteers -- who are you going to believe the next time one of nature's alarm bells, gives us yet another not-so "gentle reminder"?

The stakes in this economic game of charades are very real.  Guess who will be hurt the most by our kick-the-can strategies, and who will just shrug their shoulders, count their cash, and fortify their villas in the Hamptons?

The Cost of Climate Change

$1.9 Trillion is Damages vs $36 billion in preventive investments. Which would you choose, if given the choice?

It's simple math, right?  "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" -- we used to believe that too.

Yet somehow it's the People, that always get left holding the empty bag, when the long-term economic bills come due.

And you know what, a whole lot of nothing buys you:  Nothing -- but more grief, insecurity, hunger, and more pain.

Just ask the Scientists, they've been warning us for far too long now.  Isn't it long past time we started to listen?  To act.  To plan.  To build.  To conserve.  To recycle.  To change our old-school energy ways?

Afterall just think of what we have to lose.  When reliable seasons, become a thing of the past.

That forecast calls for pain.  Pain by the community-full.

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

  •  Heard here in Central TX that farmers were (16+ / 0-)

    not going to plant corn for related reasons.  Thanks for the great post.  We must act!

    Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

    by divineorder on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 09:46:25 AM PDT

  •  I see a world with a lot less people. (15+ / 0-)

    Perhaps after the SECOND major Dark Age, we'll finally get it right, and won't have a third one.

    But wait... we don't have a Byzantium to save all of the ancient knowledge this time...

    Yeah... we're in some deep crap.


    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 09:50:04 AM PDT

    •  feudalism (5+ / 0-)

      wasn't that bad.

      Everyone had a good job, plenty to eat,

      and a bright future to hand their kids.


      Yeah Right!

      And the serfs never scraped and scrounged
      to find a way to make it to America, either!

      lol, isn't it ironic.

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        feudalism WASN'T that bad.  Comparatively.  The economy sucked, and most of everybody had to do hard physical labor in order to eat.  But . . . the man worked four days a week to pay both the taxes and the rent, two days on the house and his own crops, and had one day to laze around and blow bubbles.  Women didn't have to work on the rent/tax portion, so all of their work went towards the house and kids.  There was a holiday every two weeks or so.  Medicine and education were pretty rudimentary, but what there was, was available to everyone for free.  Villages were small, everyone knew and was related to just about everyone, and you walked to work.  You didn't have to go to work when it rained, OTOH you COULDN'T get the damned work that you needed to get done if it rained either.

        And yes, job security.  You couldn't be fired, and if your lord was either an abbott or a minor knight (most common), he didn't even dare to punish you very severely when he got pissed, because manpower was scarce and he needed his workers.  Without them, he couldn't get in the crops and pay his taxes.

  •  We've Just Gotten our 1st Billionaire Intending to (13+ / 0-)

    fight all-out on this issue, reported around 2 weeks ago as I recall.

    We need scientists and maybe certain key activists to quit squandering precious time on government, and put together face to face missions with more of global top ownership who aren't wedded to dirty energy. Governments aren't strong enough and probably lack even paper authority to address climate change as quickly and strongly as the science says is needed. Only ownership willing to take on big energy ownership can make enough difference.

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

    by Gooserock on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 09:55:40 AM PDT

  •  Here's the problem, as I see it. (8+ / 0-)

    Right now, and in the foreseeable future, fossil fuels are generally a much cheaper source of energy than the alternative in this country.  

    And people in this country are used to -- and demand -- cheaper sources of energy.  Watch what happens when gasoline prices go up significantly.  If you upped gasoline prices significantly -- say to $8 or even $10 a barrel - you'd see the market for electric cars, and other alternative energy sources for transportation explode.  But any politician who suggested doing something like that would be run out of office.  

    For the most part, people care much more about what it costs to fill their gas tank next week than they care about what scientists are saying about climate change over the next fifty or one hundred years.  

    •  people (12+ / 0-)

      addicted to old school, used to be cheap, energy.

      are the ones hitting the snooze button.

      But Renewal Energy can be cheap too.  And Hydro.

      and even large scale Solar -- which is getting cheaper every year.  (compare it to Nuclear infrastructure, to get an appropriate price ratio)

      We need to be making those infrastructure investments, those R&D investments
      in order to transition us from A to B.

      But instead, all we get is stonewalling and platitudes.

      We get a greenlight for a tars sand and fracking future,
      which will seal our future fates, firming on the road to oblivion.

      •  Right now, renewables are not as cheap (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, VClib

        as fossil fuel.  Not nearly.  That's the problem.  The only way renewables come even close competitively are with massive government subsidies, which are sometimes an open door for abuse and what people call "cronyism."    

        I'll give you just some examples.  Hybrid cars -- if you figure out what they save you in gasoline costs, they are a financial loser over the long term.  If gasoline were $8 or $10 a gallon, they would make financial sense, but right now, if you are worried about money, they do not make financial sense, given the extra cost.  

        Wind, generated electricity, as another example, is pretty cheap to produce, but the cost to get that electricity to consumers is very high, because all those windmills that generate the electricity are, and have to be, out in the middle of nowhere.

        Solar panels don't make financial sense to put on your home, unless the government provides very big subsidies, and sometimes -- if you figure out the actual dollars and cents -- not even then.  

        As things exist now, standing on their own, renewables are are not financially competitive with fossil fuels.  And most people in this country care about cost above all else.  

        •  that is why (10+ / 0-)

          we need an Apollo-style program from the top,

          to rebuild our infrastructure, to drive down those costs.

          The current Fossil Fuels infrastructure wasn't built in a day.

          The next one wont be either.  Subsidies are how the Government steers the economy. Oil and Coal and NG get more than their fair share of them.

          It's time we reallocated that future equation ...

          THE Desertec CONCEPT and Desertec-UK

          Clean power from deserts

          The Desertec concept


          For a summary, click Desertec in brief.

          Every year, each square kilometre of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts worldwide, this is several hundred times as much energy as the world uses in a year.

          larger image

          The larger red square on the left shows an area of 114,090 km2 of desert (about 338 km × 338 km [210 miles  × 210 miles] ) that, if covered with concentrating solar power plants, would provide as much electricity as the world is now using. (Of course, the world's CSP plants would never be put all together in one square like that). The 'EU' square (19,200 km2 or about 139 × 139 km  [86.3 miles2] ) shows a corresponding area for the European Union (when it included 25 countries). And the 'MENA' square (3,600 km2 or 60 km × 60 km  [37.2 miles2] ) shows the corresponding area for the Middle East and North Africa.

          Trading those Carbon Footprints for Renewable Footprints
          by jamess -- Nov 18, 2012

          All it will take is some long-term vision, a lot of work,
          and the political will.

          That last missing ingredient, is a bigger obstacle than a procrastination, price-driven people.

        •  Fossil fuels (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          receive billions in implicit and explicit subsidies, which is one part of that massive price advantage.  Not to mention that they are categorically relieved of financial responsibility for the damage they cause, both in normal operations and catastrophes.  The public cleans up the mess and absolves them from having to either clean up their garbage or pay for the cleanup EVERY SINGLE TIME.  If we made fossil fuel companies simply pay to clean up what they screw up, they'd all be bankrupt within a decade.  And that's without charging them for the last three wars, all of which were squabbles over fossil-fuel resources for their express benefit.

    •  They aren't cheaper. (19+ / 0-)

      Add-back the massive subsidies, the environmental and healthcare costs, the foreign affairs and military costs, and, you know, there's no freakin' comparison.

      I know Republicans can't connect these dots, but we can, and we should be able to get most independents to understand as well. And go help us if the centrists can't...

      Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

      by Words In Action on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:14:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They ARE cheaper in terms of (6+ / 0-)

        out of pocket costs to the consumer.  And that's what people care about -- what it costs me, this month, out of my family's budget.   For consumers, renewables make no financial sense without big government subsidies, and sometimes not even then.  

        And utilities, which are always under pressure to keep their regulated rate base down, are always going to look for the cheapest generator of energy in terms of out of pocket costs.  

        Things like "environmental and healthcare costs," or "foreign affairs and military costs" don't figure into either of those.  

        Now, you COULD make fossil fuels reflect those extra costs.  You could, for example, increase the federal tax on gasoline to reflect those costs.  You could bring gasoline up to $8 or $10 a gallon through taxation to reflect those things.  But, of course, the public would be up in arms about that and would run any politician who suggested that out of office.  

        •  That's why we need a carbon tax. Internalize cost (8+ / 0-)

          instead of externalizing all costs.  If people paid a price commensurate with the damage renewables would be competitive and conservation would be more popular.  Many companies have saved tons of money already by saving energy.  Wal-Mart even.

          The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

          by Mimikatz on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:03:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good luck with that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            You want to raise the cost of energy for consumers?  

            Policy wise, it may be a good idea.  

            Politics wise, it's deadly.  

            A lot of people have expressed the thought that the way to make renewables financially competitive with fossil fuels is to raise significantly the cost of fossil fuels.  And that's absolutely true -- raising the costs of fossil fuels would raise the cost of everything that relies on fossil fuels, and make this country use less fossil fuels.  The problem is that the vast majority of people in this country do not WANT the cost of fossil fuels to go up significantly, because that ultimately costs them more money.  

            People in this country believe that they are entitled to cheap energy.  The political football that is gasoline prices proves that.  If we raised gasoline prices to what it costs in Europe, a lot of people here would be in an uproar.  

            •  It's not raising the cost. It's just shifting the (5+ / 0-)

              point of payment.

              Use the tax to pay for healthcare, environmental clean-up, defense.

              Then people will get it. Oh, fossil fuel isn't cheap.

              All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. - Kurt Vonnegut
              It's a very frightening time when something as basic as due process is seen as somehow radical. - John Cusack

              by dadoodaman on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:42:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  NOT Everyone believes that; (8+ / 0-)

              Quite the contrary really ...

              New Poll Finds Overwhelming Support For A Carbon Tax Over Spending Cuts For Deficit Reduction

              by Jeff Spross, -- Feb 4, 2013

              A recent poll found Americans would prefer a carbon tax to cutting spending for deficit reduction by a huge margin.

              Commissioned by Friends of the Earth and conducted by the Mellman Group in December, the poll is the latest evidence that actions on climate change — and efforts to tax or cap carbon emissions specifically — are not the inevitable political losers assumed by beltway pundits. Another recent study by The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication determined that bipartisan majorities of voters felt action on global warming should be a priority, would consider a politicians’ views on the matter when voting, and support regulating carbon as a pollutant.

              Among other things, the Friends of the Earth poll found that on the carbon tax:

              -- Voters overwhelmingly prefer it to cutting spending. When presented with two options for reducing the deficit — a carbon tax on “big polluters such as oil, gas, and other companies,” versus spending cuts for “programs like education, Social Security, Medicare and environmental protection” — 67 percent favored the carbon tax. 59 percent favored it “strongly.”

               -- Voters support it regardless of how it’s used. If revenue from the carbon tax is used to close the budget deficit, 70 percent favored a carbon tax, with 51 percent favoring it “strongly.” If revenue was to both shore up the budget and invest in clean energy jobs and programs to fight climate change, 72 percent favored the tax, with 54 percent in the “strongly” camp.

               -- Voters support it even when they’re Republican. Not surprisingly, 93 percent of Democrats favored a carbon tax. What was surprising was that 66 percent of Republicans did.


              As Bob Dylan once sung:
              The times they are a changing ...

              It was like flipping a switch -- people went from 'Hell no' to 'Hell yes' Overnight
              by jamess -- Jan 29, 2013

              Hurricanes in your backyard, can do that to a person ...

            •  Much of what it costs in Europe (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Words In Action, VClib, Barton Funk

              are taxes, actually.  They were imposed during the LAST gas-price crisis, with the idea that governments could regulate the pump price of gas by reducing taxes as the base price of crude rose.  Of course, once they got used to the income stream, they couldn't give it up.  Not since they'd followed the Reagan-Thatcher lead and embraced "liberalism", as in, cut taxes for all corporations and rich people across the board while retaining regressive taxes on workers.

            •  OH, and as far as raising costs . . . (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Words In Action, Barton Funk

              Cap and dividend.  It lowers fossil-fuel corporate profits while rebating the cost of the tax to consumers so that they come out even if they use an average amount of energy, and ahead if they conserve.  Unlike most utility billing schemes, where you pay a substantial upfront fee for "distribution" regardless of how much you use, and recoup your initial losses by using more, not less, energy.

        •  Well perhaps you could be part of the effort (6+ / 0-)

          to educate consumers of all the expenses that come with fossil fuels?

          “Washington has become our Versailles. We are ruled, entertained, and informed by courtiers -- and the media has evolved into a class of courtiers." - Chris Hedges

          by Klusterpuck on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:09:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Neat phrase, (7+ / 0-)

        'singing in the bankster choir'. Thanks.

        Time is a long river.

        by phonegery on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:49:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  do you understand (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ilex, blueoasis, cynndara, VClib

      many people are struggling just to get by. i can't afford to think about an electric car. it would be so perfect for 90% of my needs. taking kids to school/friends house. groceries. but i have a truck already. and need it for work. not all the time. but when i need it it has to be there. buying a second car is just not economical. i'd save a lots of money on gas, but never enough cover the $15-30,000 a new car would cost. not sure if it would save much carbon going into air after you factor in all the pollution building a new car would cause.

  •  Within ten years it'll start getting truly awful (18+ / 0-)

    The fires we've seen in the southwest, the heat and droughts in the midwest, the hurricanes and tornadoes of unusual size, the odd winters, and all the other effects we've seen so far? That's nothing compared to what's in the pipeline.

    And it's a long pipeline. Even if we completely stopped all human-caused forcings today, what's already in the air and water would continue the downward spiral for decades. But we won't stop, certainly not in time.

    I think the biggest single change will begin when the arctic warms enough to start the tundra melting for real, releasing methane at an enormous rate. I think that will start in earnest when there is no summer arctic ice, which will happen in no more than 2-3 years.

    Meanwhile as FishOutofWater's recent diary described the changes in the Antarctic will play a role here too. That's an arena that nobody has been making much noise about until now. There are lots of these kinds of arenas, and they will all catch up with us.

    Lots more as well. Invasive species, dying oceans, evolved infections that drugs can't stop, trying to handle all this with a deteriorating infrastructure and an ambivalent electorate... not just a one-two punch, more like a one-two-three-twentyseven punch.

    I've had a full life. Oh sure, I could go another 30 years or more, but I've gotten my money's worth. But when I look at young parents, and especially, their children, I feel a huge well of sadness for what they will have to deal with.

    •  If we have economic collapse we will stop using (6+ / 0-)

      so much energy and pretty abruptly.  People will have to become more self-sufficient and cooperative to survive.

      I really can't see how we continue on the same energy use trajectory past 2020 because things will be changing so much.  Transportation costs will be rising fast, bringing more industry home.  Resource wars will be breaking out, but we won't have the ability to intervene abroad as in the past.

      Either we reduce fossil fuels voluntarily or we will reduce them involuntarily.  I think the problems will be huge by 2020, which makes the next 2 elections critical.

      Ironically, most of the biggest changes will come in the red states, the gun states.  How people react to scarcity will be key.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:10:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  that is the question, isn't it (10+ / 0-)

    I don't foresee a good future. I'd like to, but I don't. hard not to be cynical.

    gotta keep pushing.

    here's a nice dispiriting New Yorker story:

    Has Obama Already Given Up on Climate Change?

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:06:55 AM PDT

    •  good questions, mm (4+ / 0-)

      That inaugural speech 2013,

      gave me such hope:

      We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.

      Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it.

      We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure, our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

      President Obama spells out the Road ahead
      by jamess --  Jan 21, 2013

      Where in the world, is that guy?

  •  One thing though - we talk about "save the planet" (12+ / 0-)

    but the planet will be fine. It will take many thousands of years but the planet will fully recover from everything we've done to it. Our current human-based culture of the last 8-10,000 years is just a blip, and its disastrous effects on the planetary ecosystem will only last a few blips. A quarter million years for radioactive waste to stop being toxic is about the longest-lasting effect we'll leave behind, and on a geologic scale that's not very long. The planet will be fine.

    We, though, won't be here to see it. Considering how we've fouled our home over the last few millennia, perhaps that's for the best. Likely we'd only do it again.

  •  Is your hair on fire? (7+ / 0-)

    It should be.


    Those who are calm about all this are ... well, dysfunctional and a danger to the rest of the planet.

    Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

    by Words In Action on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:18:01 AM PDT

  •  btw, (6+ / 0-)

    thanks again jamess.

    keep diggin' up those inconvenient facts!

    Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

    by Words In Action on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:18:52 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, I find myself thinking (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, Klusterpuck, dadoodaman, cynndara

    that the 'best' scenario might be something like a catastrophic failure of the Antarctic ice cap, leading to a major rise in sea level in a short period of time.

    Why? Because even though it would do massive short term damage to the entire global economy, probably with great loss of life, it would directly impact the very rich in ways they could not manage to ignore. It could turn global attention, and economic leverage, to the problem while we still have the technological infrastructure to create real solutions.

    The scenario that scares me most is a slow, creeping rate of climate change while the global economy skews even farther towards wealth inequity. Where, by the time the whole problem is taken seriously enough, we've lost the capacity to institute the necessary reforms.

    Real futures usually fall somewhere in between extremes, of course, and on the whole I prefer to be an optimist. If we could find a way to kick the "free market" in the ass hard enough before catastrophic climate change occurs, that would help.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:29:37 AM PDT

  •  Free Kindle ebook from Amazon (6+ / 0-)

    Not the best written, but explores the "what if" for 100 years in the future if changes aren't made. Only half way through at the moment, but worth the $0.00 price so far.
    Thirsty World by Robert Tell

    "I just wanted to bring down your grim facade and for once, let you see the world as I see it. Giggling in a corner, and bleeding; but you've denied me even that." - The Joker to Batman, Arkham Asylum.

    by DeathDlr73 on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:29:45 AM PDT

  •  I expect yearly "storms of the century" (8+ / 0-)

    I expect Republicans to remain astoundingly, adamantly, irreversibly, willfully, ignorant.

    I expect--if there is a God--Frank Luntz will be consigned to the lowest circle of hell, which, according to Dante, is frozen darkness and the abode of traitors.  Apt for a traitor to his own planet.

    Harsh? Hey, don't flame me!  Flame God, or Dante, or both.

    "I wonder why Congress again in a new poll out today--11% approval rating. (It's) because they don't work for us. They work for the sons-of-bitches who pay them." Cenk Uygur

    by Dave in Columbus on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:44:35 AM PDT

  •  I plan to retire in about 10 years. (7+ / 0-)

    As an Alaska resident, we leave the state and head south several times each winter. In 10 years, I don't expect to be able to afford air travel, so we'll be looking for someplace that will have a tolerable climate year-round. We'll also be looking for someplace that has (or will have) water and renewable energy, most likely hydro. Proximity to agriculture will also be a factor, as the cost of transporting food will go up.

    Even factoring climate change into these decisions won't be enough, though. I have no illusions about "enjoying" my retirement. The sad irony in this is that the same people who rant about the deficit and burdening our children and grandchildren (of which I have none) with debt could give a rat's ass about burdening them with an unlivable environment.

    It's not the breaths you take - it's how you breathe.

    by frsbdg on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:47:07 AM PDT

    •  great points frsbdg (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Klusterpuck, dadoodaman, blueoasis

      The future burden talk is just politics.

      If they cared, they never would have 'racked up all that debt' in the first place.

      I may be heading up to the last frontier myself,

      when the heat gets too great, in the lower 48.

    •  We are hoping (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, frsbdg

      that our Stateside kids will come join us with their families here in the EU. (We have a child here who will likely stay here… sigh.) Don't know what we will do about seeing family after airfare is out of reach. (We skype a lot as it is, but it isn't the same.)

      I do not want grandchildren, but Mr Mo does and I think all three of my kids will have at least one child. The world is not going to be a very welcoming place for most people in very short order, I fear.

  •  Timing is everything, and we blew it. (6+ / 0-)

    We're on the backside of the Window of Opportunity where we can do much about the rapidly approaching insurmountable problems.

    I think the climate changes will come on so quickly and be so disastrous that there will be no denying that we've really messed things up. But it will be too late for effective change as feedback loops kick in and problems increase exponentially.

    We'll see mass migrations away from the coasts and places that have become inhabitable for one reason or another. Starvation, drought, wars, disease, huge uncontrollable wildfires...just like we see now but on a much larger scale.

    Too bad that Zero Population Growth wasn't taken seriously when it was a big issue in the late 60's and early 70's as too many of  'us' is at the root of all these problems.

    Too bad that so many humans are driven by greed and/or religious fundamentalism, both which benefit from un-controlled growth.

    My comfort is that the Earth will survive our impacts. Nature always has and always will bat last.

    Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List-686 pages of hyperlinks in PDF format Yesterday's history, tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

    by elkhunter on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:11:02 AM PDT

  •  You're totally harshing my mellow... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, dadoodaman, blueoasis

    But thx for wake up call!

  •  Don't worry so much. (6+ / 0-)

    There's a huge asteroid on its way.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:16:21 AM PDT

  •  Look, I know these facts, but here's the problem: (5+ / 0-)

    How do we change things by ourselves?

    If the governments of the world, and big money in the forms of financiers and the most powerful industrialists, refuse to change, how do we, the 99%, change things?

    It takes something as big as government or big industry to make the big infrastructure changes that it takes to get us off of fossil fuels as a country. Joe Average has no access to how power is generated or distributed in this country (look at those people in AR who didn't even know they were living on top of a pipeline). I don't see how the 99%, without help, can make those macro nuts-and-bolts changes in the basic infrastructure of our country. Absent those infrastructure and economic changes, what's left for the 99% to do is to refuse to consume. In other words, voluntarily embrace poverty.

    Are we going to have to voluntarily embrace poverty, by the tens or hundreds of millions? Because if the government changes nothing, and industry changes nothing, that's what we're going to be left with:  simply doing without, because they won't secure a healthy alternative way of getting us things like electricity and transportation.  

    The only force I've ever seen able to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily embrace poverty is religion. So are the religions of the world prepared to tell their faithful worldwide to embrace poverty for the planet? Or are we going to start a new fanatical religion? That might do it.

    Just to clarify:  I didn't want any of this, and we don't have to live in poverty to fix this crisis. Nor do we have to dispense with electricity out of our lives. None of those things is required by this crisis. If we had a government, we  could have the policy changes necessary to get us off fossil fuels in a sensible way, which wouldn't require anybody going without electricity or transportation, though it would change the ways in which we got both. And it would require a reduction in consumption, but not the steep or draconian reduction that is now required, because government won't fucking do anything and the Fortune 500 and the banks won't fucking do anything except obstruct change.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:20:32 AM PDT

    •  I'm to suggestions, SouthernLiberalinMD. (6+ / 0-)

      My hope, effort, and life's work has been,

      to return people back to Science-based and Humanity-based mindsets.

      But I'm only one lone voice in the profit-taking wilderness.

      I do what can, when I can, to sound the alarms. And to educate.

      One day my effort will likely cease,
      as it turns seriously to self-preservation,
      which I have been blissfully neglecting,
      over the last six long years of posting.

      •  "One day my effort will likely cease" (3+ / 0-)

        Not if you become cyborg-jamess and live forever!

        All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. - Kurt Vonnegut
        It's a very frightening time when something as basic as due process is seen as somehow radical. - John Cusack

        by dadoodaman on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:46:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, dude, none of that was intended (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess, Eric Nelson, blueoasis, ladybug53

        as an attack on you. Please accept my apologies for any hurt I've done you, which was unintended.

        What you're seeing here is my frustration, and it's not frustration with you.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 12:29:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my mistake (4+ / 0-)

          sorry I get that way sometimes.

          especially when I just had a go-round with a status-quo apologist. As usually happens, in most my posts.

          Still, do you have any suggestions,

          on how we can really change the course of the status-quo?

          I hope to shame and harass them (DC Dimbulbs) into action.

          But that's will only go so far.

          Probably won't really change until Y-ers and Millennium end up in office.

          Hope we can wait that long.

          thanks for your support  SouthernLiberalinMD,
          please excuse my moment of frustration too.

          •  Well, that's what I really hoped for (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jamess, ladybug53

            out of the last Rio thing. Rather than a walkout, what would happen if all those activists just ignored the UN guys and started brainstorming on things they could organize the 99% to do themselves?

            the key problem here is financing, because there's actually quite a lot of things we could do ourselves, beginning with energy efficiency measures, extending to things like neighborhood-based electrical power generation through solar and possibly small wind so that we have a disseminated power generation system, and extending further to things that I know sound hippy-dippy like big community gardens and urban farms, that reduce the distance the food has to travel and thus reduces both cost and carbon footprint for people--and with so many of us unemployed, we have labor, if people are willing to do the work. But even gardens take money to start and maintain. And the other stuff--retrofitting the buildings to be energy-efficient, setting up neighborhood power "plants"--they'd obviously be a lot smaller than the plants we have now--would take a lot of money. And with an increase in farms in cities, we'd want to make sure the storm sewers were up to handling additional agricultural runoff.  All that takes money. What I've been beating my head against is where/how to get the money.

            Ideally, a transaction tax on Wall St could fund the labor and materials necessary to bring about this change--which makes this set of ideas also a job creation machine.

            The Mean Green Job-Creating Machine, as Jeffrey Feldman once called it :-)

            But the problem is, of course the private sector isn't going to do this out of a sense of civic good and they don't care that they could ultimately profit off it. And the government is...well, we don't have a government, at least not much of one.

            So where to get the money? Ideas, labor, and organization we can generate. I bet some civic-minded young engineers and scientists would even be willing to help us out with the parts of this plan that require expertise. But we also need money. Where to get the money? The vampire squid is sitting on all the money.

            if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 01:20:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  great ideas, thanks SLMD (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SouthernLiberalinMD, ladybug53

              Think Global, act Local.  Utilize local resources.

              Tax the Wall Street machine, to rebuild the future of clean energy.

              Sounds so simple -- we need to make it happen.

              Afterall "These ARE the Jobs-of-the-Future, we've been looking for."

              That, and looking for a real GREEN President, after all these years.

              thanks again for the thoughtful reply.

              •  Sure. Do you think there's actually a way (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jamess, cynndara

                to get the government to produce this result?

                There's a bill that could do well as a beginning for this:  Conyers' Full Employment bill. It even has a green jobs piece to it.

                Hell, Obama, if he wanted to, could bypass Congress altogether and direct the Fed to fulfill the other half of its mandate:  to strive towards full employment. They magicked 16 trillion out of a hat to prop up the bankers; they could magic 2 trillion for a program like this. Hell, I don't see why 14 trillion rather than 16 would have ended the world for the FIRE sector in the first place; if you're going to throw massive amounts of money at the problems, then throw at least some of it at people who have an incentive to get the problems fixed--i.e. the American people.

                But apparently magicking 16 trillion out of our ass to hand to bankers is OK, but magicking 2 trillion to save the American economy and begin the process of getting us off fossil fuels is not OK. One is fine, and the other is wasteful self-indulgence, and beyond our means. I guess.

                if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 01:37:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  One game-changer (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              At least as it looks right now: new FDA hygiene regulations on production of produce.  Doesn't sound like it would have any effect on climate change, does it?  But here's the thing.  If these regulations are implemented, they will double the cost of mass-produced fresh fruits and vegetables, or maybe more.  We're talking everything from weekly testing of water, to actual hygiene training for every worker in the production stream, to massive record-keeping obligations.  EXCEPT, there's an exemption.  For extremely small producers (under $25,000 net) and for middling-small producers (under $500,000 net) who sell primarily direct to the consumer or to retail restaurants WITHIN THE SAME STATE or WITHIN 275 miles.  See what I mean?  Instant parity, perhaps even economic advantage, for small, local food producers -- farmer's markets, pick-your-own, subscription co-ops, farm-to-family stores.  Instead of being consistently undercut by 50% by the big chains, local produce sales will have a price advantage due to being exempt from some very tough regulations, most of which are really irrelevant for smaller operations.  It's a form of finally making corporate agribusiness responsible for the "externalities" of their unhealthy production methods on public health.  And it will incidentally address the social costs of long-distance transport of staple fruits and vegetables which CAN be produced locally, except that such production has been rendered uneconomical.

              Of course, doubling the cost of produce isn't exactly healthy for the average person either.  But combined with economic conditions, it's likely to lead to a Renaissance of the backyard garden, before the food distribution system as a whole completely breaks down.  Comments on the rule are still open, and I would suggest weighing in in support.  It might have little or no effect for the purpose proposed, but the side-effects could be quite valuable.

      •  And btw, I appreciate your efforts. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess, Eric Nelson, blueoasis, ladybug53

        I always read your diaries.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 12:30:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I keep thinking, god's sakes, there must be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        something we can do! Something short of trying to sell the idea of voluntary poverty to millions of people, or using violence, neither of which appeals to me.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 12:32:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yup (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          maybe hold Obama to his "lofty goals,"

          for future generations?

          •  We can try that. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jamess, cynndara

            If we're going to do that, what we need is to expand progressive media beyond the blogosphere. I know Gore tried that and failed, but we need to try again. Some days I wish we'd take all the money we would have given to politicians in a given 'cycle' and put it toward buying a newspaper chain or radio stations. Because we'll need more than the blogosphere to break through the hermetically-sealed bubble the MSM have built around Obama and others, which protects them from having to be accountable.

            I have to admit I'm worried that what we'd get out of Obama would be a Climate Commission to study the issue for five years, headed by Jeffrey Immelt, T. Boone Pickens, and David Koch.  (rueful grin) But regardless, it's probably a good idea to hold him accountable.

            if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 01:29:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The climate-snooze button. I'm stealing... (7+ / 0-)


    Kudos on this diary.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:55:45 AM PDT

  •  What kind of future? It's staring us in the face. (3+ / 0-)

    There is going to be a major dieback of the human race in this century.

    Ownership isn't interested in preventing it. They intend to survive it, preserve some form of order through it, and come out on top.

  •  Mad Max time. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Or Resident Evil, sans zombies.

    Either essentially total breakdown, or government overpowered by corporations.

  •  James, this really is the best overview that I've (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, ladybug53, Lady Libertine

    seen on the cause/effect analysis of climate changes in a warming world.

    The site needs more writing like this.

    Although it probably doesn't seem like it too often, you will have an impact on people's depth of understanding about the reality that we're facing and until more people reach that level we can't make much progress in mitigation.

    That most people don't understand what is coming with either austerity or climate change is evident in so many diaries or comments that I read here that are based on the assumption that somehow the future will revert to the past prosperity or that values or climate change will have no impact on what will be possible in every aspect of life in the future.

    If people here won't or can't accept the realities of the present, then there is no hope that they can constructively work to create a future that will be based on the action or inactions that are occuring today.

    When it all comes together as it does here, you have the spirit of renaissance with your poetic-infused reason.  It speaks to the necessity to combine emotion with reason which has always been historically characteristic of the most progressive times in civilization.

    Strangely we are living in a time when propagandistic forces are destroying both.  That is perhaps T. S. Eliot's depth of meaning in the image of the hollow men.

    What we do about it?  How can we save the world?  Nobody knows because the solutions are obvious but the power holders don't want to even consider them seriously.
    But the only way is in people uniting, solidly, strongly.  Whether or not that will work if it can be achieved is highly questionable, but there's pretty much a certainty that nothing will change without the unity.

    “April is the cruellest month, breeding/ Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing/ Memory and desire, stirring/ Dull roots with spring rain." T.S. Eliot

    by blueoasis on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 03:24:21 PM PDT

    •  thank you blueoasis (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53, blueoasis

      that is fine praise.

      thank you for recognizing the interwoven aspects of my work.

      I strive, as often as I can, to weave together, mind, heart, and emotion,

      into to that backdrop of our common reality.

      Hopeful it effects real change.

      Most of us already have the facts, it's just that we often have yet to connect them to the realities unfolding around us, year after disturbing year.

      thanks again for the comments, i will file them, for future efforts.

  •  What kind of future do I forsee (0+ / 0-)

    Ever seen Mad Max?

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 04:34:26 PM PDT

  •  The future I see is inspiring, not bleak at all. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I see people coming together on every level, not just government, to heroically address growing problems intelligently, boldly, and creatively.  There will be strige, and disagreement, and neglect, and ineptitude along the way, but you cannot walk a thousand miles without stepping in something unpleasant at least once.  We are experiences the pangs of a transition to a new energy infrastructure that is the foundation of civilization for the next thousand years.  I hope people appreicate the significance of these unfolds.  Someday the post-scarcity economies imagined by socialists and science fiction authors will becme possible because these initial changes.

    Going faster miles an hour, with the radio on.

    by Troubadour on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 02:03:09 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site