Skip to main content

Media Matters created a video mosaic of the dumb bunnies at Foxaganda spouting nonsense on global warming. Nonsense and, of course, simultaneously the company line.

Phil Plait at Salon joins the smackdown:

The moment I saw the first few seconds I was chuckling ruefully. I’ve known for years that the term “climate change” was in fact promoted by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who suggested using it because it’s less “frightening” then saying “global warming.” But as usual, facts won’t stop the talking heads at Fox News, who claim it’s a liberal term. I like how Media Matters (who created the video) put the actual clip with Luntz in at the end.

Ironically, Luntz has a point, though not the one he meant to make. The increase in heat trapped by greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t just make things hotter. It changes weather patterns, and can create droughts in one place and flooding in another. Over a long enough time, it will in fact change the climate, so the term is actually correct.

The cavalcade of nonsense continues in that video, with several claims that the Earth is cooling—errr, no, it’s not—and more. The one that always gets me is how deniers somehow think that global warming means no more cold weather and no more snow. Ironically, global warming can increase snowfall, because warmer air can hold more moisture. The average temperatures are increasing, but it still gets cold in winter, so we still get snow, and in some places there’s more snow to fall.

Climate change, climate chaos, global warming, global weirding. What's in a name? Obviously, switching to "climate change" didn't get the subject more mention by candidates during the 2012 presidential campaign. Didn't give it more time in the traditional media.

For the 240 or so global warming deniers in the U.S. Congress, the label sure doesn't matter. They're determined to block any action that might reduce the growing impact of global warming, to ignore the likes of say, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who speaks on the floor of Senate on the subject every week. Not to mention Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Barbara Boxer of California, who in February introduced legislation to do something about global warming: Climate Protection Act (S. 322) and Sustainable Energy Act (S. 329).

Those two bills have made it to the Senate Environment and Public Works and the Senate Finance Committee, respectively. Because Sen. Boxer chairs the environment committee, the Sustainable Energy Act at least will get a hearing, though its chances of actually emerging from committee are slim.

Some on the left will shrug and argue that talking and introducing global warming legislation is a waste of time anyway because that big cohort of dim bulbs in the Senate and House who get a big laugh out of the Foxaganda anchors and guests will just stand in the way of legislation. Whether the blockers truly believe that cold winters in Montana mean global warming is liberal fakery instead of scientific fact or they're part of the band of Koch-marionettes that is motivated out of pure greed into denying climate change doesn't matter, say the shruggers. With these naysayers in the way, nothing dealing with global warming will pass Congress anyway, so why bother?

Shrugging is always bad strategy.

Progressives, liberals, leftists, whatever the preferred label, ought always to be proposing policy that they would enact if they had the clout to get it enacted. One key ingredient of gaining that political clout is to show voters over and over again what you would do if you had the congressional votes, the political clout to do it. You persuade those voters to give you the clout.

While decrying the buffoonery and Kochfakery of the right-wing climate change-deniers, every Democrat in the Senate ought to be speaking up every week the way Whitehouse does. They ought to be signed on as co-sponsors of the Sanders-Boxer legislation. But they're not.

It's easy to mock the Foxagandists and the Republican deniers in Congress. But action is what's needed. The senators and representatives—most of them Democrats—who say they accept the scientific evidence of global warming but aren't proposing anything to deal with it or sign up with those who are making such proposals, are no better than the dumbasses who think climate change is a hoax.

Delay is denial.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 07:37 PM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots and Climate Change SOS.

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

  •  Tip Jar (176+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir, blueoasis, srkp23, JekyllnHyde, jamess, enhydra lutris, Glen The Plumber, indycam, JayDean, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, joedemocrat, catilinus, martinjedlicka, WarrenS, joanneleon, New Minas, Laurence Lewis, brooklynbadboy, lineatus, James Wells, zerone, annieli, badger, jrand, Roger Fox, jethrock, DeadHead, citisven, wader, asterkitty, Eric Blair, 3goldens, nomandates, Leftcandid, marleycat, Mary Mike, NYmom, John Crapper, Cassiodorus, navajo, Just Bob, kevinpdx, RJP9999, maggiejean, Steveningen, Simplify, SoCalSal, AaronInSanDiego, Zinman, xynz, peregrine kate, northstarbarn, Nailbanger, YucatanMan, Sara R, White Buffalo, begone, LoreleiHI, bwren, RLMiller, wishingwell, Ray Pensador, remembrance, Agathena, Villanova Rhodes, Magnifico, Rizzo, Lorikeet, basquebob, Trix, tmservo433, SoCaliana, LakeSuperior, bsmechanic, peachcreek, JesseCW, helpImdrowning, LaFeminista, humphrey, markthshark, marina, rl en france, eeff, techno, leema, retrograde, roses, sceptical observer, Matt Z, Habitat Vic, cordgrass, Ginger1, OldSoldier99, RJDixon74135, Ginny in CO, Shelley99, willyr, Mosquito Pilot, maryabein, teabaggerssuckbalz, NoMoreLies, sunny skies, Randtntx, leeleedee, Dartagnan, koNko, One Pissed Off Liberal, eagleray, PhilJD, Darryl House, TomP, a2nite, radical simplicity, jfromga, zerelda, drofx, SaraBeth, CA Nana, cactusgal, RunawayRose, gypsytoo, blackjackal, pioneer111, blue aardvark, The Jester, Joieau, hyperstation, orlbucfan, SeaTurtle, greenbastard, dRefractor, Assaf, gramofsam1, jayden, hubcap, RWood, KJG52, jrooth, Words In Action, citizen dan, shaharazade, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Polly Syllabic, rbird, indie17, davehouck, gof, quill, Lady Libertine, pimutant, Involuntary Exile, ninkasi23, k9disc, MJ via Chicago, Jim R, asym, Milly Watt, pat bunny, AoT, countwebb, MKinTN, Pescadero Bill, Angie in WA State, denig, porchdog1961, LABobsterofAnaheim, Sunspots, pvasileff, Smoh, filkertom, Sybil Liberty, Chi, denise b, Eric Nelson, Oh Mary Oh, DSC on the Plateau

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

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 07:37:30 PM PDT

  •  Who's Winning the Debate? (114+ / 0-)

    •  The favorite excuse is that it won't work (48+ / 0-)

      You see a lot of people, including here who excuse inaction by saying

      A) renewable energy can't work (we can get 99.9% of our needs from an large scale integrated system with some storage)
      B) electric cars can't work (I am buying one because it is cheaper to operate than my gas car when all costs are accounted for)
      C) renewable energy is too expensive to work (I pay about $10 a month extra for my 100% renewable energy package)
      D) we don't need to act because emission have declined a few % from peak 2002 levels, even though we are still over 1990 levels and far at above emission that will allow a decline to 350ppm
      E) we can't do anything because poor people might have to pay more (the solution here is to fix our stupid economic system, not screw I've the rest of humanity.  If we want to have regressive tax policy and economic policies, the rest of the planet shouldn't have to pay the price for our stupid choices)
      F) we can't act because china isn't acting (China is outstripping our renewable production, HAS a carbon tax, and frankly the carbon pollution in the atmosphere that I causing the problem didn't come from china, it came from industry in Europe and the US)
      G) we can't haul freight with electric ( we have had electric freight trains for a long time and 60,000 payload trucks are now being built.  Yes, the stupid semi fleet needs to go away)

      Please add the excuses you have heard on dailykos and elsewhere.  Thanks

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:40:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  excuses, excuses (15+ / 0-)
        "I am only 1 person, what can I do?"

        "Surely there are people smarter than me, who know what they're doing."

        "My voice, my efforts, my conservation, won't really matter, will they?"

        "Besides I got my own problems -- I can't worry about what's going to happen 20 or 50 years from now -- -- it's NOT my problem!"

        "Whatever!"

        •  It would by hypocritical to divest (14+ / 0-)

          from fossil companies, as long as you are still driving/flying/breathing.

          See Bill McKibben's excellent article on that line:

          A Moral Atmosphere

          Ecology is the new Economy

          by citisven on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 09:00:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  All I know is that a lot of the men who died (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SaraBeth, kamarvt, gof, AoT

            fighting for the Union (black and white alike) were probably wearing underbritches made from cotton grown by slaves.

            I'm not seeing a lot of people scrawling "hypocrites" on their monuments.

            Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

            by JesseCW on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 11:12:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  To quote from "A Moral Atmosphere" (7+ / 0-)
            "...and it may be providing you with sufficient psychic comfort that you don’t feel the need to do the hard things it will take to get the job done. It’s in our role as citizens—of campuses, of nations, of the planet—that we’re going to have to solve this problem. We each have our jobs, and none of them is easy."
            THIS is getting to the real core of the problem. Few want to sacrifice anything for the common good. People still want the ease and comfort of the world as we have it now. They do not WANT to do anything that is hard...they WANT easy. Madison Avenue promised they would not have to be inconvenienced and that their WANTS were actually NEEDS...and they swallowed that promise hook, line and sinker.

            They are not going to get easy, no matter how much they kick and scream... the future is on our doorstep. And it will not be easy....

            "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey

            by SaraBeth on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:26:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I've read that recently here (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, quill, JesseCW, AoT, citisven

            from one of our centrist neoliberal hawks, defending fossil fuel investments...

            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 Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:23:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you are anything short of perfect (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              I Lurked For Years, citisven

              then you're a hypocrite. If you actually have cut as much carbon emissions out of your life as possible then you're self-righteous and privileged. Not to mention that the fact that people in rural areas need cars to get around so you should never bring up the fact that the vast majority of drivers are alone in their cars. Or even that people should drive less. Or eat less meat, because some people hunt their own, and because some people do that we can't criticize anyone who eats meat.

              And so on.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:18:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Not to go all P90X on you (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          remembrance, citisven, jamess, Matt Z

          But

          "Do your best, and forget the rest!"

          (Yes, I do share a habit with Payl Ryan)

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 09:40:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That it won't work isn't an excuse for inaction (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action, AoT, citisven

        Its a call to choose another course of action that will work.
        The actions that will work aren't going to be band aids like the ones that you list. Consider for a moment that most of our nice clean electricity still comes from burning dirty coal.

        We might for example simply prohibit any use of fossil fuels after 2020 and accept that while most urban populations wouldn't survive that, some people used to living at a subsistence level or clever enough to band together and form coops to develop alternative energy and live off the grid might.

        That's Mad Max territory but we have been aware its out there as a scenario since the fifties. If we don't prohibit their use we get there anyway by means of peak oil by about 2030. Tar sands aren't going to be enough to feed our addiction.

        Alternatively we could go with mandatory birth control and limit new births to a level that would reduce the worlds population by the amount that temperatures rise. I have no idea how something like that would be enforced but I don't think weapons of mass destruction will ever manage to cull the herd the way famine and disease will if we just do nothing.

        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

        by rktect on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 03:15:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are a lot of millenials and GenX (7+ / 0-)

          who have  already chosen not to procreate. 50% of the world's population is under 29 years old. A lot have had their lives derailed due to the economy. Children are a much more careful decision. The longer they wait, the fewer will have as many, if any children.

          The reality of climate change is hitting a lot of people with hotter summers, floods, droughts, changes in flora and fauna, etc. Farmers, gardeners, hunters, snow sport buffs, and more, are unable to remain blind to the changes. The movement is gaining steam in multiple areas. New businesses, new technology, and new demand.

          The US hit parity in new energy sources between sustainable and fossil fuels last year. This year could be another big increase in percent, and Deutsche Bank has predicted world wide parity will probably come in 2014. Companies in India and elsewhere are investing in their own sustainable power sources - without government subsidies.

          Obviously the changes are not enough yet. The accelerating rate of change - with fairly minimal government help- is what I see as promising. Very much like what has happened with marriage equality. The more people speaking up, becoming informed, acting on changing their own habits as much as possible, the faster others are likely to come to grips with reality.

          Even investors have gotten a careful analysis on the increasing risks of fossil fuel investments over the mid term. Money talks.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 04:23:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  population vs resource consumption (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Brooklyn Jim, shaharazade

            this comes up in every climate diary.
            the problem we face is too much CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. Unless carbon accountability is going to measure only exhalation, the use of population as a measure of climate change is deeply flawed, and falsely implies that population control will mitigate the effects of ACC. It's about carbon footprints, and western civilization wears size 35EEE.
            The average morning commute of an American driving a mid size car pumps far more carbon into the air than an entire family in sub Saharan Africa does in a week. And that's if the air conditioner is turned off. Every bit of plastic wrapping, electronic toy, etc is another straw on the camel's back. Look in your trash. That is what needs culling, not the human race.

            The planet can physically sustain far more humans than currently inhabit it, albeit under a very different paradigm. The planet cannot sustain even the population of the US on our current trajectory of resource consumption.

            Furthermore, any kind of worldwide mandatory birth control runs smack up against the single strongest biological impulse of living creatures. It also looks a lot like eugenics to the low-impact peoples of the world.
            IOW, a nonstarter, and not just because it misses the mark.

            What we have already done to the world's climate, coupled with the approach of peak oil, water, and food, will do plenty to cull the world's population. It has already begun to do just that.
            What we must do is find an alternative to extraction, exploitation, and consumption as a worldwide model of how to run a planet. Because, in the end, population will resurge to fill all available niches; it's what nature does. Changing the way we treat our home is something more in our control, and it can be permanent.

            Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

            by kamarvt on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:49:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agree but disagree (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Words In Action, jrooth
              Unless carbon accountability is going to measure only exhalation, the use of population as a measure of climate change is deeply flawed, and falsely implies that population control will mitigate the effects of ACC. It's about carbon footprints, and western civilization wears size 35EEE.
              It is safe to assume that most 1st world post-industrial children that would consume roughly as much if not more as their parents over their lifetime.  A 1st world couple--such as the GenXers or Millennials referred to in the comment above yours--choosing not to have children are not just refraining from creating two more humans, they are refraining from bringing two more humans into the consumer culture in which they were raised and likely still occupy.

              So yes, the use of population numbers has its flaws.  But that does not mean it is entirely meaningless nor does it mean opting not to have children or limit one's reproductive rate to .5 over a lifetime is an entirely wasted effort either.

              •  no, not at all. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, Brooklyn Jim

                I figured out by age 12 that it felt...irresponsible to create more humans, and I'm a tail end baby boomer. I've only firmed up that position since.
                But I feel it important to note that it is our rapaciousness far more than our numbers that is ravaging the ecosphere.
                Another point worth mentioning is that every argument in favor of limiting population is perfectly valid against the use of advanced medicine, the purpose of which is life extension, mostly in high-consuming societies, at great expense and use of resources.

                Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

                by kamarvt on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 09:55:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's fine. You're likely the exception. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kamarvt

                  My hypothesis is that in the aggregate, most Americans will produce culturally American offspring.

                  I am pleased to read that you and AoT consume, in your estimations, markedly less than your parents did.  Few of the people I've met in my lifetime are so extraordinary.

                  Just the same, you both--like I--are here on DKos, corresponding via computer.  You--like I--are plugged in to some degree our streams of energy use and resource extraction.  There is some ecological original sin at play here, more so if you were born in the first world.

                  And to reiterate, I do agree that discussion of population entirely removed from discussion of resource consumption does not accurately reflect the impact of various communities.  But I still stand by my assertion that most people's children do not fall far from the tree culturally.  Most young toddling first-worlders will grow into adults who continue to use indoor plumbing, are plugged into the electricity and telecom grids, who wear garments originally manufactured overseas--partially from synthetic petroleum derivatives, get a majority of their calories from industrial food sources such as restaurants and factory farm supplied grocery stores.  And they will continue to do so until it is no longer the most readily reinforced option in their local environment.

                  In the context of this reality, fewer double-wide strollers and all that comes with it over a lifetime is a good thing.  Especially if that reduced number comes about via voluntary means.  It isn't by any stretch of the imagination the entire solution, but it can be a component.

                  •  Generally speaking millenials (0+ / 0-)

                    consume less than their parents. They are more likely to be vegetarian/vegan and less likely to own a car, or want to own a car. The prime issue is that we have built a capitalist system that not only allows for carbon emissions but rewards them. When more people drive the government builds more roads. The government subsidizes meat production and even advertises it. Despite all this the next generation is doing much better than you think.

                    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                    by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:54:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I don't consume anywhere near (0+ / 0-)

                what my parents consume. It's at least an order of magnitude less. There are systemic issues as well, and those are important, but putting the blame on population size disguises the real problem.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:44:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

              If we can get people to procreate less, as we have already in developed nations, why would that mean that "population will resurge to fill all available niches"?

              All we need to do is keep reinforcing the less procreation meme and providing education and birth control, etc., I think we will keep reducing procreation. I don't see it simply reversing course just because population is dropping. It already is dropping in many developed places.

              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 Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:28:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Things revert to the norm (0+ / 0-)

                the norm for primates is to reproduce aggressively. In some cultures, there are strong, ancient, still valid economic reasons for having lots of offspring in addition to the cultural, religious, and educational factors.

                Once the crisis is past (a big if) the inertia to revert to this state will eventually win out, and it becomes inevitable that the cycle repeats. If you are positing that 'we' could successfully create a near-universal awareness of the responsibilities of a global stewardship, then I'd say problem solved.
                In fact, a lot of problems solved.
                But I think  the chances of that are even slimmer than the chances of creating a new worldwide economic paradigm.

                Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

                by kamarvt on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:15:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The less procreation meme obscures (0+ / 0-)

                the systemic issues by placing undeserved responsibility on individual actions as opposed to group action. Certainly, individual action is important, but the fact of the matter is that we need collective action, not just a bunch of people doing the same thing.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:29:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  The problem with that (0+ / 0-)

            is that if responsible people choose not to procreate what you are breeding for is the idiocracy.

            Bottom line though everything comes back to numbers of people because its people who are putting excessive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere and creating a culture dependent upon exponential increases in fossil fuel energy use.

            If we could stop religions from preaching to us and legislating for us that we should go forth be fruitful and multiply, and never never use birth control or get abortions, that would help.

            I'm not a believer so I can't say for sure, bit if instead our religions preached being responsible and thinking about how we are desecrating a planet that we like to think our gods created for us and which thus exists as a  relic of the creator gods handiwork and should be revered with desecration of it thought sinful that might help more.

            Its not really about carbon footprints because we are the greedy pigs that we are and we aren't going to change as a society to leave smaller size disruptions in our wake.

            The only way we can really change what we are doing is to have fewer people living simpler lifestyles with the accumulation of money and status frowned upon and likely to cause ostracism.

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:18:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is a gross misunderstanding of evolution (0+ / 0-)

              and is simply wrong. Intelligence does not highly correlate to genetics.

              Bottom line though everything comes back to numbers of people because its people who are putting excessive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere and creating a culture dependent upon exponential increases in fossil fuel energy use.
              We could have the exact same number of people and virtually zero carbon emissions. Blaming numbers obscures the fact that we have a systemic problem, not a numbers problem. The system we live under pushes carbon emissions, it doesn't restrict them. In fact, it rewards people for emissions and doesn't punish them. As we speak a whole lot of the "shovel ready" projects from the stimulus are being built, and can you guess what they are? Yep, more roads and more projects to "reduce congestion" on current roads. Of course, that fails every time. It will just mean more people driving and the same amount of congestion.
              Its not really about carbon footprints because we are the greedy pigs that we are and we aren't going to change as a society to leave smaller size disruptions in our wake.
              If you're going to give up then give up and leave the conversation already. You aren't helping anyone by trying to convince us it's futile to try. Catastrophism like this is the worst sort of political motivation. If you need a positive view of how it might happen here you go.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:38:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Intelligence is a polygenic trait (0+ / 0-)

                Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9 (of a maximum of 1.0)

                Heritability of IQ is the proportion of a population's IQ level of variance caused by its genes. This proportion shows the level of importance of genetics versus environment for phenotypic variation in intelligence quotient (IQ) in a population "Heritability", in this sense, "refers to the genetic contribution to variance within a population and in a specific environment".[1] There has been significant controversy in the academic community about the heritability of IQ ever since research began in the 19th century.[2]
                Intelligence is a polygenic trait under normal circumstances
                Intelligence is a polygenic trait under normal circumstances according to recent research.[3] However, certain single gene genetic disorders can severely affect intelligence, with phenylketonuria as an example.[4]

                Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9 (of a maximum of 1.0).[5][further explanation needed] IQ heritability increases during early childhood, but it is unclear whether it stabilizes thereafter.[6] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[7] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[9]

                Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                by rktect on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 06:20:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right. So, anything about the rest of this? (0+ / 0-)

                  We can have high populations without carbon emissions. We might be better of with a smaller population, but it isn't a game over. Are you really giving up? This sort of resignation is what will guarantee that it's as bad as possible. I'd like to think that a hundred years from now people know we tried. Although if.succeed we may be thought of as false prophets. Either way, it's worth the fight and it will continue to be.

                  There's actions at two universities in support of divestment and the blockade in Texas and the Dakotas against the pipe line is still going. These are the already approved sections, including in Texas where civil disobedience can be prosecuted as a felony. And theyre stopping it. And this is just the beginning.

                  You really think there is going to be a record breaking heat wave and drought, two cities ravaged, weather meyhem, and people aren't going to notice?

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 09:39:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We can't have high populations and survive (0+ / 0-)

                    Its a question of too many people doing too many things in too many different places and individually choosing their own directions which often as not are going to create more pollution than the earths air and water and the organisms which share a dependence on them with us can tolerate.

                    By the time that people begin to notice it won't help and by 2050 we will no longer have the necessary communications and control for bands of survivors to get together at meetups.

                    Here is how it will go down.

                    You aren't going to organize enough people in support of divestment and blockades in opposition to the keystone pipeline that it stops the mining of dirty coal in China.

                    Even if you did you still would have to deal with the effects of Clinton's Methane Hydrates act of 2000 and its equivalents in India, Japan, China, New Zealand and Brazil.

                    I suppose you could be planning to just let things proceed until Peak Oil reduces our use of fossil fuels as we run out, and to let the die offs reduce population as everything from the equator to the tropics become uninhabitable; as we use up all our fossil water and the rice bowls of Asia begin coming up empty, as our cities located near river mouths from back when rivers were our highways slip beneath the waves.

                    The problem is that we could be looking at dead oceans and rain forests going the way of glaciers by then so somewhere around 2020 when the sea ice is gone, or 2030 when the cities are drowned or drowning and the storms are like Katrina and Sandy everywhere every year, or 2040 when there is no longer enough money to repair urban infrastructure or enough gas to drive into urban areas to work or shop and there is no food or clothing or tools being manufactured or produced or sold anywhere anyway, the fact that people begin to notice won't help and by 2050 we will no longer have the necessary communications and control for bands of survivors to get together at meetups.

                    After that it keeps getting worse for a period of centuries to millenia and then for several millenia stays bad until gradually the planet either heals itself or boils off its oceans and atmosphere like Venus and Mars.

                    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                    by rktect on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:03:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nope, that's not how it's going to go down (0+ / 0-)

                      We're going to survive this because we're going to work together. You can give up if you want, or you can work toward fixing the problem. If you're going to give up, and apparently you are, then you can just see your way out of the conversation, because all you're doing is making the problem worse with your doom saying.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:12:12 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How do you propose to work together (0+ / 0-)

                        with the people on this planet speaking the 4000 some odd languages you don't speak and are illiterate in?

                        Normally state departments handle that for you. They have people who do speak the language in conversations with everyone from China, and India, to people on a tribal level in Africa and South America.

                        The problem is your State Department isn't addressing climate change at a level where what we have already done and are about to do can be mediated because to do so would be too expensive; Just to move coastal cities out of the way of rising sea levels would take all of our GDP for the next 25 years.

                        If you want some credibility about working together don't tell me what you think, tell me what you have done.

                        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                        by rktect on Thu May 02, 2013 at 09:15:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  what I've done is found various people (0+ / 0-)

                          To help translate different things. I'm not the only one.   We are having conversations with people from china and India. Moving cities will have to happen but your timeline is a bit soon. We've got at least 35 years before we have to really start abandoning major cities. We can deal with that. We have spots like Detroit and other places in the middle of the continent. If we don't give up then we can do it. It means that we're going to have to accept that the government isn't going to fix this and do it on our own, but it can be done.

                          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                          by AoT on Thu May 02, 2013 at 10:17:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  We don't have 35 years (0+ / 0-)

                            We have already had two major urban areas and a number of smaller ones hit for a quarter of a trillion dollars.
                            We can't sustain that year after year.

                            Every major urban renewal or relocation project takes at least 25 years to plan and then another 25 to identify funding for and execute.

                            That's half a century right there. Over the next few decades the things we are planning for are likely to get worse at an increasing rate of increase.

                            For example with the IPCC one mm of rise per year through 2100 which was projected c 1990 would have been 110 mm by 2100. Gradually it increased to 2 mm, then 3mm, and now we are projecting 6m by 2050.

                            Even if the rate of increase didn't increase we would still be in serious trouble with 100 east coast cities over 100,000 people having to be relocated back to the Appalachians ASAP.

                            As for China and India, their coastal cities have just been rebuilt taller and broader and their rivers dammed to provide electricity. I doubt they would be any more eager to discuss their abandonment than Bloomberg would be to discuss abandoning New York and moving all its functions back to Albany.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri May 03, 2013 at 04:29:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  ? (0+ / 0-)
          The actions that will work aren't going to be band aids like the ones that you list. Consider for a moment that most of our nice clean electricity still comes from burning dirty coal.
          No, the predicate is of course that both generation and transportation have to be moved to a non-carbon energy source, so of course, electric cars need to be run from renewables.  That should go without saying, really.

          So, no, these are not bandaids, but are in fact the steps that would need to be taken to reduce emissions by 80% or more from 1990 levels.  Your comment doesn't really make a lot of sense from the perspective of engineering a non carbon economy.

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:43:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd be interested in your critical path timeline (0+ / 0-)

            What actions have to be taken by when in order to keep climate change from destroying our cities with rising sea levels and worsening storms?

            What actions have to be taken by when in order to avoid the extinction of all the species critical to our survival; the organisms regulating the percentage of oxygen in the air we breath for example?

            What actions have to be taken by when to keep peak oil from reducing our ability to commute into cities to work and shop, or to manufacture and produce goods, or to communicate with and control a nation?

            What damage do you consider already locked into your future? Would you allow that melting glaciers are unavoidably going to cause food shortages and famines worldwide? What about flora and fauna migrating north?

            The Maine Lobster is about to become a thing of the past as die offs begin somewhere around 45 degrees and water temperatures in the Gulf of Maine will reach 54 degrees this summer. Will your actions to reduce emissions come in time to save my lobster?

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:22:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Coal use (0+ / 0-)

          Coal use is only 37% of total electricity generation.  We've been below 50% for some years now.  

      •  D and F seem to be in direct conflict (0+ / 0-)

        with each other . . . .

        Just saying, if in "D" you mean the USA - that's with a huge asterisk because of the massive recession of late coupled with fracking that has led to coal being replaced with NG (which reduces carbon dioxide, but might just replace that with an equivalent amount - global warming wise- of leaking methane - IOW, we're not better off).

        And as far as China goes, you really can't sugar coat their absolutely astounding increase in emissions of late.

        •  that's right (0+ / 0-)

          D refers to the US only, and it comes with a giant asterisk, as you note.  Part of what drives me a little nuts.

          And yes, we can't sugar coat China's growth in emissions as that's a massive problem.  HOwever, we can say that politically, China has now shown more political will to act than the US.  

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:45:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  EVs & Solar PV Just Turn Off Rural Folks... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bon Temps

        EVs don't have the range for long rural trips and a day working in the field. Solar PV is seen as the mandate that will bankrupt the local REA power co-op. These technologies will work in some niche applications, but not "out here"... When you try to force them on rural folks, all you accomplish is a backlash that will further set back your movement.

        •  portable electricity storage is the key (0+ / 0-)

          and we have not made the critical discovery of how to make batteries/fuel cells more efficient, though not for lack of trying.

          •  Batteries are a very mature technology... (0+ / 0-)

            So the massive improvements in energy density needed to enable rural EV and PV adoption are unlikely.

          •  except of course (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bon Temps, GeoffT

            for potential advances with graphene batteries or perhaps sodium air batteries not to mention polymer elctrolyte or solid oxide technologies.

            All of these are fairly radical departures from existing technologies.

            Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

            by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:58:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll believe it when I see a product (0+ / 0-)

              The first sentence of that first article says it all:

              Researchers at Rice University believe a hybrid material they have developed combining vanadium oxide (VO2) and graphene could revitalize the use of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries for powering all-electric vehicles.
              They "believe", not have "proven".

              This battery "could"..

              blah blah blah.. we've seen a multitude of these "discoveries" in recent years.. nano-tubes, nano-wire, carbon foam.. I won't hold my breath until I see them work outside the lab.

              •  sure (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                but to suggest taht there are no advances coming is just not accurate.  No researcher is going to say that any statement stronger than that until its in a device, given how scientists approach things.

                To suggest that there are no advances forthcoming however is unsupported.

                Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:59:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  This is what I'm talking about (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, jrooth

          The deliberate spread of misinformation.

          First, PV has dropped so significantly in price that PV is either the cheapest new generation or close to it.  It is marginally more expensive than other forms at most.  So, we can at least mandate that no new fossil fuel sources be built.  No bankrupting happening there at all.  IN addition, rural areas have had significant action in terms of installation of wind energy.  YOu might think it can't work, but actual rural people seem to think otherwise.

          Second, rural American accounts for a small fraction of the US, so it is rural America that constitutes the "niche application"  The money is of course in the urban and industrial centers where most people live and most economic activity and energy use occurs.

          Third, as has been pointed out, there are suitable electric solutions for long range trips.  I'd point out the existence of the serial hybrid Chevy volt, which can deal easily with both short range and long range trips and has significantly better efficiency than any non-hybrid.  

          Fourth, please see G above for the response to the "it won't work under this particular unusual circumstance, therefore do nothing."  Frankly, yes, there may be some applications for which fossil fuels linger, and tractors and combines are a good candidate for that, although frankly I suspect good engineering should be able to deal with this.  As noted previously, it seems that if mining equipment can be made to run on electricity, farming equipment can't be that far behind.

          Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

          by Mindful Nature on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  My children already do (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaraBeth, kamarvt, Words In Action, AoT

      And if other people think theirs won't, they're in for a big surprise. The kids I know are deeply resentful of the adults who refuse to be bothered, as well as those who pretend there's nothing to worry about.

    •  "children"? "one day"? (3+ / 0-)

      Don't know about anyone else, but I'm cursing the stupidity every day for nigh on two decades.

      Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

      by kamarvt on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:28:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes, jamess, I agree 100% and TU MB for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action

      excellent point in your post......

      We Must DISARM THE NRA The next life you save may be ONE OF YOUR OWN!

      by SeaTurtle on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:31:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Inaction", however is not what is happening (0+ / 0-)

      There's a whole lot of  "action".

      1. We converted coal plants to natural gas in unprecedented numbers in 2012.  In 2000 52% of energy produced was from coal.  Last year, coal and natural gas were tied at about 32%.

      2. As a result, emission are at a 20 year low.  This is also due to the recession, better CAFE standards and a big push to wind power.

      3. Wind power increased 28% in 2012, adding over 6000 new turbines.  As mentioned in #2 above, this contributed to lowering our emissions to the lowest point in 20 years.

      So, where the hell is the "IN-action"?  Ahh... on the part of the Chinese and other emerging nations.

      You would have us ruin our economy with carbon taxes, etc. to make up for the inaction of China?

      I have two words to say to that notion: Fuck that.

      We can do better, and we are, incrementally.  Folks like you who believe we are doing nothing at all only make matters worse.  A PR campaign showing how efforts are paying off would, IMHO, pay off with better approval of new and expanded efforts.  This bullshit the-sky-is-falling meme isn't working.. or haven't you noticed?

      •  China is not 'inactive' (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action, Chas 981

        by any stretch of the imagination.

        http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/...

        •  Pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere this year (0+ / 0-)

          than last would be my definition of inaction.

          I really don't give a hoot how much China spends in raw dollars compared to us.  Their economy is booming.  Our consumer dollars are paying for those clean initiatives.  The fact is, however, that 60% of CO2 increases last year came from China.

          But, I noticed you didn't address the main point of my reply.  The US "action" on reducing carbon output has been very real, despite you deniers' opinions to the contrary.

          •  It's real, but it's small and wrong. (0+ / 0-)

            It's accounting fraud or rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

            Our greatest problem is that we can't get a negative ROI policy through our corporate sponsored legislature. That is very problematic.

            Add to that HUGE problem the idea that any movement is going to negatively impact some large business or industry's bottom line, as there are only large businesses involved in critical services to the population, and you have put up two giant roadblocks to anything sensible on climate.

            Moving from coal to gas does a nice job on the direct climate altering inputs to the ecosystem - the burning itself - but leaves intact nearly all of the ancillary inputs - big giant trucks and equipment, shipping, storage and storage facilities construction... it also is in service of a market that is highly connected and has dubious social worth.

            Doing something, IMHO, requires a bit more. I think doing something means not burning things.

            This comes down to burners and builders. We can either burn for our energy, extraction... preperation... and poof! or we can build our energy build... maintain... use.

            There is no reason why we could not have invested a trillion dollars to moving to renewable energy and a sustainable future except for profit.

            And it's not even profit, as there is a shit ton of money to be made creating the future of our self sustaining infrastructure. It's just risky for those entrenched interest who are in control of markets at this time.

            I appreciate your point about doing something, but it's like a bandaid on a brain tumor.  

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:35:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In other words, you want a totalitarian (0+ / 0-)

              society running every aspect of every market.

              Good luck..  most of the totalitarian regimes have gone the way of the Dodo, so I can't even suggest you emigrate to one that would better suit you.  Except for Cuba, of course, which is a lovely place to live if you like driving '57 Chevy's.

              Please don't suggest overturning the entire way of life here in America as a "solution".  It's not.

              You sound very naive..

              big giant trucks and equipment, shipping, storage and storage facilities construction.
              The technology does not exist, nor is it even on the horizon, to switch these from fossil fuels.
              •  If you think we can keep living (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jrooth

                anything like we do then you are sadly mistaken. The precious "American way of life" is based on deep inequity and environmental destruction. It is entirely unsustainable and incredibly violent. The incredibly huge number of people in prison here attests to that. We can't keep up with this life style and not expect the world to suffer worse and worse.

                Your "pragmatism" is hopelessly naive, unless you've simply given in to cynicism and given up hope of fixing the problem. In that case you can see your way out of this conversation. We're interested in solutions that will fix the problem, not that are politically expedient. And we certainly aren't interested in catastrophism.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:33:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  We have a totalitarian society. We can't hit the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, jrooth

                brakes.

                To even suggest so is to institute a totalitarian society. That's some good stuff there...

                What I was saying with the big trucks thing is that switching from coal to gas leaves much of the industry infrastructure intact - they just repurpose it and voila - productivity - the problem is that these kinds of energy infrastructure are a large portion of our energy outputs. I don't know how much, but they have to be significant. They're always running to supply fuel 24-7 365...

                Moving to renewables that are not burned cut out the 24-7 trucks, equipment, shipping, storage, storage facilities - cutting out a massive portion of our energy usage.

                That was the point. While I appreciate the move to gas, it's in the right direction, it's an incremental reduction in output, but it's not significant enough to change our arc.

                There is no reason we couldn't go solar in 10 years residentially. Switch from AC to DC - incandescent to LED. It would be far cheaper than burning in real costs (externalities included) and would create a massive economic boost as we moved over and got the corporate dinosaurs that rule the markets dancing around and competing with our 21st century entrepreneurial mammals.

                Peace~

                Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                by k9disc on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:45:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Modest solar home conversions run $30k... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Bon Temps

                  That's 50 years energy bills and solar cells are good for 30 years at best. We can barely afford our electric bills, never mind solar power that disappears at night!

                  •  That price includes storage fo the night time (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jrooth

                    Still expensive, but not as big a problem as it seems for night time usage. And the batteries are getting cheaper as well so installing will cost less and less. You can also go with leased solar cells in California and some other places as well. Then you just pay monthly. There are really a lot of option.

                    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                    by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:30:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  and.. solar for the home is not 100% anyway (0+ / 0-)

                    at best, a full-roof system will cover a bit more than half the electricity needs of an average home.

                    People that say we can go 100% residential solar in 10 years are dreamers.  They said the same thing 40 years ago.

                    •  To be fair (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jrooth, Bon Temps

                      If we'd started 40 years ago we would have been close enough for most purposes. Or at least closer.

                      On the other hand I just saw this chart showing declining gas sales in the US, which is a good thing.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:44:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  As long as you leave it to the market it will (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AoT

                      never work. Inefficiency is good. It means more GDP. Full Stop.

                      The end.

                      Until ROI gets scrapped and we do something collectively to change we're screwed on energy. There will always be important people making shit tons of money off of it.

                      This is not your father's energy economy. We are just now starting to experience the exponential profits and increase in political and social power of the energy cartels and their financial backers.

                      Passive Solar, LED, DC power ubiquity, passive solar building - all totally untapped and uninvested in by the State.

                      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                      by k9disc on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:24:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I have strong doubts about rooftop solar (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AoT, Bon Temps

                      The reason being that even if costs for reasonably efficient panels fall to zero you still have the costs of installation that are pretty much fixed per rooftop (DC->AC equipment, labor costs, framing, wiring) and they are not an inconsiderable fraction of the capital costs involved.

                      PV installed en masse in low-cloud areas enjoy better average insolation, lower installation costs per kW and benefit from economies of scale and DC->AC volume efficiencies.  They can therefore afford considerable capital for transmission grid expansion & transmission losses before being outcompeted by rooftop solar.

                      Fake candidates nominated by the GOP for the recalls: 6 out of 7. Fake signatures on the recall petitions: 4 out of 1,860,283.

                      by GeoffT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 02:10:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Like I said, there is no reason except for (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT

                    Profit or the Market.

                    That is the only reason we can't do it. It's just not possible because profit and the market say it's not.

                    The End.

                    So long and thanks for all the Fish or some such stupidity.

                    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                    by k9disc on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 02:08:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  "not significant enough to change our arc" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT

                  of course it isn't.  It is incremental as we both agree.

                  What I am saying is that is the best we can hope for given our current level of technology.

                  IF - If you exclude nuclear.  A crash program replacing coal plants with nuclear plants would get us near zero carbon footprint for energy production in 10 years.

                  Those plants would last the 20-30 years it will take us to put renewables in place.

                  But, to all but a few, nuclear is not an option.  To them I say - OK, then all we have is an incremental move away from coal and then gas.

                  •  I support nuclear (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jrooth, AoT, Bon Temps

                    even as unpopular as it is on this site.

                    And yes, China has a much further than we do regarding the scale of CO2 emissions. But they are also moving faster than we are on renewables (and they are building nuke plants too).

                    If things continue as they are, China will dominate the renewable market and we will buy our energy solutions from them along with our clothes, toys, and electronics.

                    The US has the resources to lead, but not the political will.

                  •  It's not our current level of technology. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT

                    It's the current expression of the Market.

                    BP and Shell owning giant swaths of the Solar market is a huge problem.

                    The fact that it is the market that is deciding what is possible for humanity and our future is really scary. Don't you think?

                    It's kind of like a tyranny, you know? The Tyranny of the Market means we must fry the planet. That's what's happening.

                    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                    by k9disc on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 02:13:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  horsehockey.. (0+ / 0-)

                      that is simply not true.

                      Solar is inefficient.  You could fill the entire roof of an average home with solar panels that will take 30 years to pay off and it will only provide half the electricity you need.  And, after 25-30 years, you will have to do it again.

                      BP and Shell have nothing to do with that equation.

      •  There's no reason a carbon tax would (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GeoffT, AoT

        "ruin our economy."

        Sure, there are ways to design a carbon tax that would do economic harm, but there are also ways that would in fact improve the economy.  The simplest is a flat rebate check to all citizens and legal residents.  That would be a net transfer to poorer people (thus stimulating the economy) and would still create an incentive to move away from carbon fuels.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:46:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  silliness (0+ / 0-)

          rebates to the poor equal to the increased tax amounts on goods and services is a net wash.. there is no stimulating.

          But you have harmed businesses, especially those businesses working on a very small profit margin.

          •  Not true. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GeoffT, AoT

            The poorer you are, the more likely you are to immediately spend any cash you have.  It's not a wash at all.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:10:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  duh.. but you have less cash to begin with.. (0+ / 0-)

              carbon tax makes groceries more expensive... heating your home is more expensive.. filling up your old clunker gas-eater is way more expensive.

              A rebate simply gives poor people some of that back..

              It's not extra money!  Whoever sold you on the idea that carbon tax rebates put money into the spending stream is just plain wrong.

              A carbon tax raises prices and loses jobs. period.

              •  Duh right back at you. (0+ / 0-)

                Of course it's not "extra money" - I never suggested anything of the kind.  It's a redistribution of money from people who use more carbon to people who use less carbon.

                I don't buy your argument that it's a net loss for the poor - because they spend less on goods that incorporate a carbon cost than the middle class and wealthy do, but they'd get an equal proportion of the rebate to the middle class and wealthy.  Thus it's a net gain for them (which also translates into some economic stimulus as they immediately spend their gains.)

                Nobody "sold me" on anything - this is pretty simple economics.

                “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                by jrooth on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:30:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  excellent point. inaction is silence in the face (33+ / 0-)

    of the deniers, allowing the deniers' lies and manufactured BS to stand unchallenged. the failure to stand up with the truth of climate change, the failure to co-sponsor legislation, it is the silence that allows the deniers to prevail with public opinion. and it also belittles the importance of addressing climate change now.

    "It is in the shelter of each other that people live." Irish Proverb

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 07:55:24 PM PDT

  •  I agree we need to introduce legislation (21+ / 0-)

    and have conversations even if it won't pass because that's how we get correct information into public view to increase public support so one day we can pass legislation.

    For example, the Sanders-Boxer bill you mention and have written about in the past..

    Also, I wish somebody would introduce a full employment or at least large jobs bill that would address both unemployment and the environment with the same dollar getting a 2 for 1..

    As a member of Courtesy Kos, I am dedicated to civility and respect for all kossacks, regardless of their opinions, affiliations, or cliques.

    by joedemocrat on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 07:58:50 PM PDT

  •  Great post (18+ / 0-)

    meaning well without doing well is meaningless.

    An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. -Benjamin Franklin

    by martinjedlicka on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 07:58:59 PM PDT

  •  My Often Repeated Phrasing is That Denialism (7+ / 0-)

    is identical whether it's denialism of the phenomenon or denialism of remedies.

    But I disagree that progressives should centerpiece this issue because it is impossible for our system to assemble the power to address it to the degree necessary in the time frame science says is required. It took 45 years for the rightwing to take over the country with the backing of scores of billionaires. For a scientifically responsible movement to do it with the backing of one and only one of the planet's billionaires could take half to 2/3 of a century.

    If the US is to respond as needed in time, it must be accomplished through some other means than government. Our government is built from the ground up to hamstring the power and authority required.

    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 Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:02:32 PM PDT

  •  and there are no compromises (35+ / 0-)

    doing some good here, while allowing some bad there, is just another form of delay, hence denial. and in some ways that's even worse. those who have some understanding of the crisis have no excuse not to be doing everything they can.

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

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:04:38 PM PDT

  •  Please Help to Support Diaries (24+ / 0-)

    ... about Climate Change and the environment.  Thank you.

    Help Us Spread the Word About Climate Change



    For those of you on Facebook and Twitter: Please help to spread the word by hitting the FB and Tweet links at the top of this diary and if you have time, join the discussion with comments.  Share such postings with friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances.

    Thanks, as all of this helps build the Climate Change movement as well as introducing critically important ideas about renewable sources of energy.

    Please use hashtags #climate, #eco, and #climatechange to tweet all diaries about the environment.



    "Green Diary Rescue" is Back!

    After a hiatus of over 1 1/2 years, Meteor Blades has revived his excellent series.  As MB explained, this weekly diary is a "round-up with excerpts and links... of the hard work so many Kossacks put into bringing matters of environmental concern to the community... I'll be starting out with some commentary of my own on an issue related to the environment, a word I take in its broadest meaning."

    "Green Diary Rescue" will be posted every Saturday at 1:00 pm Pacific Time on the Daily Kos front page.  Be sure to recommend and comment in the diary.  

  •  Right on, MB. Co-sign, again and again and (17+ / 0-)

    again.

    Those who chose to ignore AND those who acknowledge but fail in commitment to mitigate, rationalizing their willful dereliction, are worse in my opinion, than the truly ignorant deniers.

    Of course, worst of all are the purveyors of half-truths and lies who know very well their intentional deception and what it means to the future of mankind.  But those who know and chose not to act also contribute to the same end.
    And unless there are exceptional circumstances involved, they ARE lower than the genuinely ignorant.

    This diary is an automatic recommend for the title alone which ought to be obvious to any clear thinking person, but unfortunately multiple prominent examples in our society prove otherwise.

    “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 Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:08:37 PM PDT

  •  The worst part is that I know so many people who (21+ / 0-)

    don't bother with even simple steps because they just don't have the sense of urgency - that we all need to do something, we all need to start making these changes.  If it was really important, surely the government would be telling us to do something, right?  But if they don't act like it's a problem, why should we act as if it's a problem.

    w.t.f.

    And twenty years from now, they'll whine and wonder why no one told them to change what they were doing.

  •  delay is all about the profit stream (sic) (14+ / 0-)

    and even more waste is created with Greenwashing / PR Spin

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:12:28 PM PDT

    •  I think so too.. (6+ / 0-)

      The fossil fuel industry is just too powerful a lobby.

      This has happened in so many industries where powerful corporations have taken on media campaigns to convince Americans what harms them is somehow good. That's happened not only with the environment but with health care and economic policy too.

      I wish we could come up with an effective strategy to combat this kind of thing. It is like we got blindsided by it instead.

      As a member of Courtesy Kos, I am dedicated to civility and respect for all kossacks, regardless of their opinions, affiliations, or cliques.

      by joedemocrat on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:39:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And equally questionable, are those who repeat... (5+ / 0-)

    ...the same failed rhetoric over and over and over and over and over, thinking that magic works.

    It's 2013, some 60 years after the invention of the solar cell that some people - not me - wanted to bet the planetary atmosphere on, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, euros, yen and yuan.

    How's that working out?

    Well, here's one opinion:

    Just a few weeks ago, in the scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology authors from a subset of humanity known as scientists, published a paper speculating that the solar industry, as late as 2010 was a net energy consumer, and that doesn't count all the servers that ran to tell us how great the solar industry is.

    Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 3482−3489

    The authors write:

    Our analysis found that the PV industry was a net electricity consumer as recently as 2010, and in 2008 the PV industry consumed 75% more electricity than it produced.
    2013 is coming in as the worst year ever observed at Mauna Loa for increases in carbon dioxide over the previous year.   In this case, the previous year was 2012, which was the worst year since 1998, when the anti-nuke Joe Romm was running the climate office.

    Of the five worst years ever observed at Mauna Loa, four of them have taken place in the last ten years.   Since February 2013 and March 2013 were both the worst February and March ever observed, we can expect that trend to continue.

    I'm sure that it's only a coincidence that two major industrial nations shut all of their nuclear power plants in a festival of fear and ignorance over their concern that a major earthquake and tsunami might cause a radiation death eventually, even if it hasn't done so yet.

    At the same time, no one talked about shutting, say, the
    NIEDERAUSSEM coal plant
    that kills people whenever it operates, which it does continuously.

    In fact, according to the famous climate scientist Jim Hansen, the plants shut by Germany and Japan are probably responsible for saving lives, with nuclear plants, by his calculation having saved something like 1.8 million lives.

    Jim Hansen, Environ. Sci. Tech. ASAP 2013:  Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power

    He writes:

    We calculate a mean value of 1.84 million human deaths prevented by world nuclear power production from1971 to 2009 (see Figure 2a for full range), with an average of 76 000 prevented deaths/year from 2000 to 2009 (range 19000−300 000). Estimates for the top five CO2 emitters, along with full estimate ranges for all regions in our baseline historical scenario, are also shown in Figure 2a. For perspective, results for upper and lower bound scenarios are shown in Figure S1(Supporting Information). In Germany, which has announced plans to shut down all reactors by 2022 (ref 2), we calculate that nuclear power has prevented an average of over 117,000 deaths from 1971 to 2009 (range 29,000−470,000). The large ranges stem directly from the ranges given in Table 1 for the mortality factors. Our estimated human deaths caused by nuclear power from1971 to 2009 are far lower than the avoided deaths.
    Globally, we calculate 4900 such deaths, or about 370 times lower than our result for avoided deaths. Regionally, we calculate approximately 1800 deaths in OECD Europe, 1500 in the United States, 540 in Japan, 460 in Russia (includes all 15former Soviet Union countries), 40 in China, and 20 in India. About 25% of these deaths are due to occupational accidents, and about 70% are due to air pollution-related effects (presumably fatal cancers from radiation fallout; see Table 2 of ref 16).  However, empirical evidence indicates that the April 1986 Chernobyl accident was the world’s only source of fatalities from nuclear power plant radiation fallout. According to the latest assessment by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),17 43 deaths are conclusively attributable to radiation from Chernobyl as of 2006 (28 were plant staff/first responders and 15 were from the 6000 diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer).
    Apparently he thinks that anti-nukism kills people.   So, by coincidence do I, especially when one considers the post-Fukushima acceleration of the collapse of the atmosphere to unprecedented rates in the last two years.

    Noting, as I do, the consistent opposition here to the world's largest source of climate change gas free energy, I'm a little surprised to hear a sudden clarion call to "do something."   Especially when I'm fully aware that the "something" in question will be to repeat the same damn rhetoric that's been consistently failing for more than half a century, some delusional bull about how so called "renewable energy" will save our asses if only we chant about them a little bit longer.

    Guess what?

    Renewable energy didn't save our asses.   All it did was to entrench and expand the dangerous fossil fuel industries.   The combined solar and wind industries, after 50 years of cheering and sucking money out of a planet where two billion citizens have never seen or operated a toilet bowl, never mind a magical Tesla electric car, don't produce even 2 of the 520 exajoules of energy that humanity produces.

    But I fully expect that your call will be more of the same, coupled maybe with some happy talk soothsaying about how  future generations will magically do what your generation didn't, and provide for you nicely when you're 104.

    Actually the kids who will be bearing the weight of the world in 2050 are screwed out of the planet that they might have inherited, were fear and ignorance not so popular.   They won't have the resources to provide for themselves, never mind for senile old fart centgenarian wannabes from the bourgeois delusional baby boomer generation.

    The greatest minds of the 20th century, men and women like Glenn Seaborg, Enrico Fermi, Eugene Wigner, Darleane Hoffman, Lise Meitner, Hans Bethe, Alvin Weinberg gave us a gift by which we might have saved the world, and we pissed it away.

    We're done.   We're cooked.   Nothing can be done.   It's, um, a little too late to start opening science books to find out what's in them.

    Congratulations.  Heckuva job.

    Have a nice week.

    •  From the abstract in your first link: (19+ / 0-)
      However, there is a >50% that in 2012 the PV industry is a net electricity provider and will “pay back” the electrical energy required for its early growth before 2020. Further reducing energetic costs of PV deployment will enable more rapid growth of the PV industry. There is also great potential to increase the capacity factor of PV deployment. These conclusions have a number of implications for R&D and deployment, including the following: monitoring of the energy embodied within PV systems; designing more efficient and durable systems; and deploying PV systems in locations that will achieve high capacity factors.

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

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:42:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, there's a 50% chance that the tiny, (0+ / 0-)

        expensive, toxic and unsustainable solar industry, which has never produced half an exajoule of energy on a planet that consumes 520 exajoules, might have a small net positive.

        This after 60 years.

        I guess, we're saved.   No?

        I guess what we do about climate change still involves, faith, hope and gambling.

        From where I sit though, since I actually read scientific literature, I think we're screwed.

        I have no doubt that the solar industry will shrug off its poor results and continue to dump the powerful greenhouse gas NF3 into the atmosphere now that world governments are regulating the other powerful greenhouse gas SF6 that they used to dump in their useless exercise.    Atmospheric NF3 levels have risen by 800% in the last 5 years since the useless, epxensive, toxic solar industry started using it.

        Heckuva job.

        Enjoy the week.

        •  Opinion noted, numerous times. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crider, Words In Action, AoT

          I actually have plenty of concerns that you may well be right. Not for all the same reasons. I just don't care to give up without trying.

          Since you are convinced we will fail no matter what, how about leaving us to the distraction and comfort of effort?

          Surely there is something constructive or entertaining you could do with your time, intelligence and effort.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 05:00:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As long as the effort is put in the right place (0+ / 0-)

            which should be something like an ever-escalating carbon tax (e.g,. 25 cents a gallon, or gallon equivalent for coal and NG each year, every year - i.e., $0.25 this year, $0.50 next year, $2.50 ten years from now, etc).

            That would wean us off fossil fuels in 2 or 3 decades, not nearly fast enough to prevent the cataclysmic change that is coming, but it could at least provide resources to do something about it (e.g., move Miami's residents to Kansas where they won't be way underwater . . .. ).

            But to sit around pretending that the problem can be averted by symbolic efforts like opposing KXL is sheer and total lunacy.

            •  You are still missing the point ... (3+ / 0-)

              ...about opposition to KXL. Nobody who opposes it thinks this will remedy global warming, and if you read what those  objecting to it have said in this regard, you would know that.

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

              by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:43:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If it has no impact on global warming, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BvueDem

                which it doesn't, then why even bother?

                Why waste all this effort on nothing?

                But you are factually wrong about saying that nobody thinks that stopping KXL will remedy global warming - that has been said over and over and over.   Even right here at DailyKos.  Often coupled with "game over" rhetoric if it is built, with the unmistakable flip side that if it is not built, the game will be saved (or some such idiotic thing).

                Seriously, the "boy who cried wolf" story totally applies here - how long/often do you thing you can get people's efforts invested in this type of thing once they realize they are dupes and their "game over" efforts actually have zero impact on the game?

                Sure, the GOP has played this game for decades with abortion with their base, but progressives tend to be just a tad more savvy than that.

              •  Ah, I see. The point is to burn lots of coal... (0+ / 0-)

                ...and gas and oil to argue a point that has nothing to do with anything meaningful.

                Point well taken, but, actually, given what goes on around here, so obvious as to need no statement.

        •  You've taken the wrong lesson from your link (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Meteor Blades, jrooth, Eric Nelson

          The chart, yes, shows an energy deficit for the industry as a whole.  But what it also shows is that the energy payback time for 2010 installs was less than 2 years and that it's only the extremely rapid acceleration of installation that is keeping the industry's balance negative.

          Since solar cell installs that are 30 years old seem quite destined to keep on pumping out the amps for at least 10 more, the EROEI for new solar is >20.  Which puts it on similar ground to new fossil electricity generation.

          The principal reason, then, why it's still more expensive is a combination of discounting and socialization of costs.

          (Personally I don't mind nuclear, but it suffers from the same discounting issue as renewables do what with O&M being a minor cost component).

          Fake candidates nominated by the GOP for the recalls: 6 out of 7. Fake signatures on the recall petitions: 4 out of 1,860,283.

          by GeoffT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:12:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you only looked at the pictures... (0+ / 0-)

            ... butI am used to people hearing only what they want to hear.

            You provide no reference for your dubious claim about 30 year old solar cells, there's no point in debating this point, but I think it's basically garbage.   The solar industry was insignificant thirty years ago - although some people were willing then to bet the planetary atmosphere on it back then, and helped to do so.

            I note that on my block, in 2012, just after hurricane Sandy, there were smashed solar panels that had been placed there only last year.

            Whatever...

            In 2013, the solar industry - fortunately I think, since it's a toxicological nightmare - is still insignificant, despite decades of balderdash about it's "exponential growth."

            The paper is fairly balanced in the text, but I do regard it as something of a "solar rah-rah" paper overall, since it's filled with some wild eyed soothsaying that always accompanies solar hype, but unlike the usual solar "rah-rahs" who have destroyed the planetary atmosphere with wishful thinking and with activism to destroy the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy, there are moments of realism among these conditional statements, such as:

            As such, policies aimed solely at rapid deployment in areas with low insolation, without increasing net electricity yield (by either decreasing CEeD or improving PV performance), might not be beneficial for the energy sector as a whole.
            Might not...

            I do note that the view that the paper gives not as futuristic soothsaying, but as historical evaluation, conflicts with all the earlier soothsaying of solar aficinados who caused hundreds of billions of dollars and euros and yen and yuan to be thrown down this rabbit hole.   History is always more accurate than soothsaying.

            How many "solar will save us" advocates were running around in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and 2000's saying that solar energy might be a net consumer until 2010?

            I would be amazed if you could find one.   On the contrary, they tried to get humanity to bet the farm - all farms actually - on this scheme, which, it would appear humanity did, with the result of the bet now being obtained.

            The paper indicates that it is possible, using the wildly optimistic soothsaying that has been going on for 5 decades while never actually be realized, that solar energy might produce 1.5% of world electricity by the year 2020.

            However, it also assumes that 89% of the electricity invested will be consumed, by the solar industry.

            I note that the mystic Amory Lovins wrote in 1976 that solar energy would be producing 18 quads (roughly 18 exajoules) of energy in the US "by 2000."   On the entire planet, in 2013, it produces not a half an exajoule.

            The atmosphere is collapsing in 2013, and solar didn't show up, but no matter, Lovins is collecting lots of "consulting fees" from Suncor - which is not the company that produces solar miracles - but is the company that works the tar sands.

            The paper makes no reference whatsoever to the well and widely understood chemical effects on the atmosphere that semiconductor manufacturing causes, particularly in inorganic halide species, all of which will remain in the atmosphere for many tens of thousands of years unless destroyed by exposure to radiation - or other intense energy fluxes - in the lower atmosphere:   All of these gases have high molecular weights, and, as a result of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution reside primarily in the trophosphere.

            It also makes no reference to all the coal, oil, and gas burned by bourgeois wishful thinkers to run servers and computers to tell us all how wonderful the solar industry is.

            Viewed in this way, I expect that solar energy will never pay back what it has cost.

            A far more sophisticated paper, cited by the climate scientist Jim Hansen on his recent publication about the millions of lives saved by nuclear energy is this one:

            Historical and potential future contributions of power technologies to global warming

            It's a soothsaying paper, but it doesn't show solar energy being a signifcant form of energy in the lifetime of anyone now living, with the possible exception of some infants, and toddlers although it claims that it might be a significant, if marginal, contributor by 2100 - assuming humanity survives in large numbers, something I doubt, as fear and ignorance are still running wild.

            It does report as follows:

            Currently, only nuclear and hydropower generate significant low-carbon portions of global electricity.
            I note that almost to a man and woman, the front pagers on this website, oppose 50% of technologies that currently work.  

            And then, to make it even more amusing (or maybe more dire) almost 100% of the front pagers whine about, get this, climate change.

            But no matter.    I had my fun in this unintentionally highly ironic blathering diary, wherein the sort of person who has caused this disaster via continual application of lazy thinking decries the result of, um, lazy thinking.

            You can't make this stuff up.

            It would be funny, were it not for the accelerating rate of collapse of the atmosphere and what that portends for all humanity.

            Have a nice evening.

      •  but what of NNadir's point on the ironic idea (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrooth, northstarbarn, NNadir

        that progressives are largely responsible for bringing about global warming by killing expansion of the nuclear power industry in the 70's and 80's and now progressives are the ones lecturing everyone else about global warming?

        I have two big problems with nuclear power, and I was against expanding nuclear power back in the day, but I can't deny the ironic truth of what has happened.  And progressives of today refusing to acknowledge progressives' past responsibility for today's global warming hurts our credibility.  Who are we to lecture anybody and condemn others for disbelieving global warming and/or believing it but not acting on it as we prescribe or demand, if we don't first admit our own part in this mess?

        And I've read FishOutOfWater's diaries and each one depresses me more than the previous one, and I get the feeling that it's too late to do anything.  But rather than go along with the consensus here, that "future generations will condemn today's political leaders for climate change", I think that instead future generations will make a FULL accounting of what happened, so their condemnations won't be reserved for politicians, but for many others, including anti-nuke liberals of the 70's, 80's, and 90's like me.  

        This issue is why I reopened my mind regarding nuke power a few years ago, but the damage has been done.

        •  The problem of course (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson

          is that even here people agree that nuclear power plants from that time are dangerous. Everyone who argues for nuclear power here says that we shouldn't worry because the plants aren't dangerous anymore. The idea that we would have thousands of nuclear power plants and the same rate of failure is incredibly scary.

          If proponents of nuclear power hadn't constantly lied about safety then we might not be in the position we are in.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:55:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes and no ... (0+ / 0-)

            Sure nuclear power plants of that era were dangerous.  And no, I don't claim modern designs aren't also somewhat dangerous, albeit less dangerous than before.

            But if we're going to consider the risks of nuclear it behooves us to take the same dispassionate look at the risks of the alternatives.  Coal mining is hardly safe.  Nor is oil drilling.  Neither is breathing the byproducts of burning fossil fuels. And so on ...

            I used to get in some pretty big arguments with my fellow environmentalists over this issue back in the day.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:48:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are one of the few people here (0+ / 0-)

              who admit that modern plants may be dangerous. According to every other comment I've seen by supporters they are perfectly safe. And I would be rather surprised if they weren't safer than older plants. Either way, we've been told constantly how safe they are and it always turns out to be an exaggeration. That's why nuclear just isn't going to fly anymore.

              This is also why there is more and more skepticism of science from the left, because of these sort of lies being pushed on a regular basis. Some industry or other has a lock on research in some subject and nothing negative comes out about it. GMO is one of those, or appears as such enough for people to be extremely skeptical. Not to mention the fact that the real arguments against it, the dangers of monoculture and pesticides, are ignored and instead only the crazy conspiracy theories are addressed.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 02:02:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well I think it's pretty silly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                northstarbarn, Tony Situ

                to pretend there are no dangers.  But it's also pretty silly to insist there be no danger before one will implement a technology.  There are always dangers.  

                And I think it's a valid argument that in completely rejecting nuclear power for the last three decades we by default extended and expanded alternatives that are actually worse in the long run.  I think that was an unfortunate byproduct of just how bad we humans are at assessing the relative threat of rare but catastrophic risks vs. pervasive low-grade risks.

                “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                by jrooth on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 02:39:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Dangerous compared to what? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            alain2112

            The only people who are lying here, are the people who claim that "nuclear power is dangerous" and the air pollution that kills 3.3 million people per year is "safe."

            If nuclear power killed in its 60 year history as many people as will die in the next two hours from air pollution it would still be saving lives.

            This point was made eloquently by the great climate scientist Jim Hansen in the current issue of Environmental Science and Technology:

            Jim Hansen:  Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power

            I'll tell you what's dangerous.   What is dangerous, what has effectively killed the planet, is people running around insipidly claiming, in defiance of any sense of reality, that "nuclear power is dangerous."

            These people are responsible for millions of deaths over the last 60 years, never mind the mass extinctions going on this planet because of "safe" things like, um, climate change.

            •  Where was it that I claimed coal was safe? (0+ / 0-)

              Could you point that out for me please, because I certainly don't remember saying that.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:09:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nice evasion, but it's the implication of the... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alain2112

                ...absurd statement that "Nuclear power is dangerous."

                If you can't fucking tell me - using scientific publications and not crap from some shit-for-brains website in the great circlejerk of anti-nuke websites - how many people "dangerous nuclear power" killed in the last 20 years, without comparing it to any form of energy that has produced equal or more energy in the same period, you're just one more squirmy apologist for the very, very, very, very, very, very, very dangerous fossil fuel industry.

                Nuclear energy provides about 30 exajoules of primary energy per year, making it, by far, the world's largest source of climate change gas primary free energy.

                You whine, insipidly, "It's dangerous" with no fucking comparison to far more dangerous things, all of which operate because nuclear energy isn't operating.

                I note, with due disgust, that the majority of people who will die from the destruction of the nuclear reactors at Fukushima that anti-nukes like to prattle on about will die from the fossil fuels that replaced them, and not radiation.

                In fact, the coal, oil and gas that was burned to run servers and computers so that anti-nukes could carry on insipidly about Fukushima on the internet will kill more people than the radiation leakage that took place because of that natural disaster.

                And the coal, oil and gas burned so people could prattle on about how great solar and wind energy are, will cause more deaths than they - insignificant and trivial as they remain in 2013 - have "saved."

                Quick:   Identify one, any one, form of 10 (or more) exajoule per year scale energy that has killed less people than nuclear energy in the last 60 years...

                You can't, because none exist.

                It follows, as Jim Hansen certainly implies from where I sit, that anti-nukes kill people by application of their ignorance and selective attention.    

                This is not saying that nuclear power is perfect or risk free.   It is merely stating the irreproachable fact that nuclear power is better than all forms of energy on its scale, and that the use of any other such form of energy than nuclear energy is, um, quite simply murder, since nuclear energy saves lives.

                Have a nice squiggly and giggly evening.

                See my sig line below.

        •  I don't know what Mr. Nadir was doing... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson

          ...back in 1975 or so when the nuclear industry had just emerged from claiming fission-generated electricity would be "too cheap to meter" and was then claiming that the chances of accidents like Three Mile Island had one chance in a million  operating-years of occurring. Foes of nuclear power continually ran into industry lies about their safety records and repeatedly found evidence of close calls in terms of catastrophic accidents.

          Not a few of people opposed to nuclear power were also opposed to coal-burning and argued against Jimmy Carter's version of "clean coal" as well as subsidies for syncrude, including coal liquefaction and oil shale (not to be confused with shale oil).

          Anti-nukers can only be blamed for the "ironic" situation we're now in if the idea of 6,000 nuclear power plants planetwide sounds like a good idea.

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

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 06:36:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not _quite_ as many as 6,000 (0+ / 0-)

            Well, obviously depends upon the designs you'd use as well as the duty cycle you could get out of them, but according to the wiki, in 2010 437 reactors represented 380GW of capacity.

            Conservatively guessing an 80% duty cycle is in line with the 2008 estimate that nuclear accounted for 13% of worldwide electricity generation.

            437 x 100 / 13 = 3,362.

            Are you assuming that since the marginal cost of each nuclear kWh is so low that current reactors sell nearly everything they can produce and it would thus take a few thousand more reactors run at varying duty cycles in order to cover peak demand times?

            Fake candidates nominated by the GOP for the recalls: 6 out of 7. Fake signatures on the recall petitions: 4 out of 1,860,283.

            by GeoffT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:07:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nukes would not just have to replace... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GeoffT

              ...current levels of electricity generation but future needs from not burning oil and bringing the less-developed world up to a modest electricity-consuming standard to run not just lights, computers, televisions and air conditioning, but also surface transportation.  

              Right now, worldwide consumption of energy (not just electricity) is about 500 quads. (A quad is a quadrillion British Thermal Units. It takes the annual output of the equivalent of 15 1-gigawatt power plants—burning any kind of fuel—to produce a single quad. Expectations are that over the next 25 years worldwide consumption will rise to at least 770 quads.

              Currently, 100 of world consumption of about 500 quads is produced by non-fossil fuels. About 25 quads are produced by the 435 operating nuclear power plants.

              If we went all nuke for the remainder of the 400 quads— those now being produced by fossil fuels (about 40% of which come from oil)—and we stipulated that each nuclear reactor added would be capable of an output of 1 gigawatt, we get an equation: 15 x 400 = 6,000.

              Of course, if we actually do see demand rise to 770 quads (and those predictions are always iffy and frequently way off base—see EIA's lousy wind power predictions over the years), we would need 10,050.  

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

              by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 09:12:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Still not _quite_ that bad (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Meteor Blades

                A lot of the energy consumption there is just for low heat, and so you don't need the ~40% efficiency of turning (nuclear) heat into electricity and back into heat again.  You could use combined heat and power.  For each of those 1GW reactors you're going to have roughly 1.5GW of waste heat.

                Having said that, I've not heard of nuclear power being used for CHP but at least there's no technical reason why not.

                (Your 1GW/reactor is a little on the high side of average, and don't forget that duty cycles of reactors is commonly about 80-90% depending on type, increasing the number you'd need).

                Fake candidates nominated by the GOP for the recalls: 6 out of 7. Fake signatures on the recall petitions: 4 out of 1,860,283.

                by GeoffT on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:28:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  yes, I did go for the high side on average... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  GeoffT

                  ...of nuclear power plants, although most now under construction are 1.1 to 1.2 GW. But many pro-nukers are arguing for smaller, modular units. And, the capacity factor/duty cycle has an impact as well. So, yes, lots more than 6,000.

                  As for cogeneration, the problem with using waste heat in the U.S. is that most big power plants, especially nukes, have been built too far away from population centers where it could be productively used. Worldwide, of course, if people would accept having these nukes nearer, that cogeneration factor could easily be major.

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

                  by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:35:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  And then you have ineffective action. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, Words In Action, shaharazade, AoT

    Here we should blame everyone who didn't end the capitalist system.  They "acted," but not effectively.

    "Do something pretty while you can" -- Stuart Murdoch

    by Cassiodorus on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:40:13 PM PDT

  •  All R and most D politicans will not take any (3+ / 0-)

    action on this unless there is a way to profit from it.

    Figure out a way for them to make a profit while saving the planet and there is a chance.  Counting on them to do the right thing just because it it the right thing is suicide.


    Past --------------------------------^-------------------------------- Future
    The middle class was just a speed bump for the Plutocratic Overlords

    by Fruitaholic on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:47:30 PM PDT

    •  Or (0+ / 0-)

      unless they are forced to do so. That would literally take a non-violent revolution spearheaded by millions of people on the street in one or two locations and supported remotely by tens of millions of other people.

      Unfortunately, that means lots of complacent and/or complicit moderates would first have to be miraculously radicalized...

      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 Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Go beyond politics and focus on divestment! eom (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mimi, Words In Action, Tony Situ

    If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

    by John Crapper on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 08:54:04 PM PDT

    •  I support divestment, but the idea that it... (9+ / 0-)

      ...isn't politics is something I don't agree with unless you're confining the definition of politics to electoral politics. Divestment that helped bring down apartheid was definitely political action.

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

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 09:26:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point - It's a phrase I use that refers to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action

        doing an end around on the log jammed political reality we are now facing.  I tend to be too brief in comments.  All action has it's political ramifications.  I just see divestment as getting the most bang for the buck at least until after the mid terms.  

        If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

        by John Crapper on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 10:19:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Divestment was directed against a distant country (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fishgrease

        not the biggest industry in the world. As far as I know, the tobacco industry is profitable and the US arms industry is the biggest in the world. IOW, this probably isn't going to work at all.
        Dumb, ineffective political action is a step back not a step forward.
        Trend toward permanently higher energy prices and government regulations are pushing Big Energy away from coal. Cafe standards are reducing oil consumption. These
        things are working.
        Divestment is a confusing distraction or even just wrong.
        If you disinvest from XOM which invests in expanding natural gas production, you may be helping the economics of Big Coal and Big Nukes.

        •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

          Taking your chips off the table means a smaller game for those remaining. If we get enough institutions to join us in doing so, it will at a minimum become a public meme, such as the 1%, and at a maximum cause fossil fuel giants to adjust their strategies vis-a-vis renewables, efficiency, conservation, etc.

          It NEVER hurts to pull your support from people and institutions that are harmful.

          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 Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:42:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or you simply self-marginalize, become irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

            Been there, done that.

            •  You certainly aren't going to be more relevant (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades

              just by investing in the industries driving global warming. In all honesty, pulling money from industries that drive climate change is a really good investment from any angle. If those industries aren't curtailed and they don't go out of business then we're going to see massive global warming and your investment won't mean anything. If you divest and we do fix the carbon emission problem then they will take a huge financial hit and you're better off for not being invested in them. So worse case scenario you're no worse off than you would otherwise be.

              Either way, you are not marginalized. It isn't as if investors have a chance to stop oil companies from pumping oil. You just make a few extra bucks off of the oil the would be pumping anyway.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:44:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  How do people with no investments divest? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ginny in CO, hester

      Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

      by JesseCW on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 11:23:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Work on getting investors to do so. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action

        Public and government investors. Organizations, pension funds, etc.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 05:03:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those with all the money - and a I mean all the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          money - think they can always buy their way onto the lifeboat.

          There is no solution here that does not require that we disempower them.

          Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

          by JesseCW on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:12:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Activism for privileged college kids. (0+ / 0-)

        It makes sense since Green Corps and Sierra Club seem determined to keep the movement in the hands of those who come from wealth and expensive private colleges.

        •  Or people who want to engage local government (0+ / 0-)

          Do you have anything useful to say or are you just going to shit on everything?

          Divestment campaigns target schools, municipalities, pension funds, etc. In no way is it just for privileged people.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:45:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's being pushed (0+ / 0-)

            primarily at college campuses. The big green groups have a class privilege problem. That's a strategic organizing issue worth talking about because it's hurting the movement.

            •  It may be being pushed at campuses (0+ / 0-)

              but it isn't a solution that is restricted to privileged people.

              The big green groups have a class privilege problem.
              This is true of every large group in the country, regardless of what issues they work on. The destruction of the working class civil society is the biggest political organizing hurdle of our time and most people don't even recognize it as such. This was part of the whole point of Occupy.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:47:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  There is one small action everyone can take (9+ / 0-)

    by tomorrow: Action Alert: Public Comments on Enbridge Tar Sands Oil Pipeline Expansion Due Tomorrow M 4/29.
    Please see the diary for the explanation.
    Thanks, MB, for all you do to keep the focus on this vital issue.

    Some DKos series & groups worth your while: Black Kos, Native American Netroots, KosAbility, Monday Night Cancer Club. If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

    by peregrine kate on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 09:21:02 PM PDT

  •  I just discovered an former college friend (6+ / 0-)

    that I met through mutual friends while in graduate school, is now a meterologist wtih Accu Weather. I turned on the TV to the PA Cable Network to discover that he is a global warming denier. And worse yet, he goes around giving speeches to conservative groups and Republican groups through the northeast and elsewhere on his theory.  He brings all these charts in his lame theory that climate change is cyclical.

    Ugh !!  He was rather religious in college , that I knew, but apparently he is heavily involved now in an Evangelical church. As he ends his talks with.

    As a Christian, I cannot believe that God would ever allow our planet to be destroyed. And I believe God can renew the earth and God is in control and we must trust his power to renew our resources.
    So he says global climate change is something we need to debate further and examine more closely.  I told my husband who sat theres in shock that I do not believe this guy even has a PHD and he is not a climatologist. That I know for sure.  

    What I remembered that he was an excellent ball player and my dad coached him in softball for a while but he was a bit eccentric, according to Dad...wish Dad were alive to see what eccentric and strange turned into.  Yikes !

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 09:48:49 PM PDT

    •  This non-destroyer would be the same god ... (6+ / 0-)

      ...who drowned all but eight people in the Flood, including toddlers and infants, because of their evilness? Or was that some other god?

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

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 11:24:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Although it didn't work the first time... (0+ / 0-)

        My guess is that god would do it again, and again. Just fits his general MO.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 05:08:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This mindset is frightening: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, GeoffT, wishingwell
      As a Christian, I cannot believe that God would ever allow our planet to be destroyed. And I believe God can renew the earth and God is in control and we must trust his power to renew our resources.
      What an incredibly lazy and selfish attitude. Sit around on your ass and do nothing because god is going to fix it all for you? People like this are pathetic and their beliefs are irresponsible and dangerous.


      Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

      by jayden on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:04:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A few tips for personal, direct action (14+ / 0-)

    I'm a big believer that some level of personal action pays in.   So, here are a few things that I would mention:

    * If you drink bottled water, remember all of those plastic bottles still get produced, shipped and processed.  Even if you recycle, the waste of the plastic bottle is pretty incredible.   So, refill your plastic bottles if you can.. get a water filter/etc. you'll often find your tap water through a filter is AS good if not BETTER than most bottled water... it actually has to pass tests every 6 months, that generic bottled water doesn't.

    * Use your own bags at grocery stores.  They will often give you a small discount.  And don't bag things that don't need to be in a bag.   Save time when you can.

    * Avoid heavy pesticides in your yards.  All that run off goes somewhere.

    * Speeding in your car burns far more gas and creates far dirtier waste because many cars simply don't process as well at a  high volume.   So, if you're a speeder and you want to complain about pollution and environmental damage...

    * Turn your lights off at night, or use short lights.  Full power off equipment that will go unused for a while.  These little power vampires both cost you money as well as burn energy you don't need.

    * If you've got money and resources, consider upgrading your HVAC to more efficient.. better for you and the environment AND consider solar and other options where possible.. if you're using buried ground wire to power yard lights, etc. replacing them with solar is a good way to save money and pretty up your yard.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 10:41:03 PM PDT

    •  Geez, our local grocery stores have (6+ / 0-)

      quit giving discounts for bringing your own bags! The economy or something.  Mine has just remodeled completely. The frozen food units all have doors. All the units that have doors, the interior lights are hooked to motion detectors.

      I have been encouraging the apartment complex I moved to a year ago to develop a long term transition plan from the standard lawn to one of the desert grasses that are now available. They need much less water and little or no mowing.

      "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

      by Ginny in CO on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 05:20:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The county next to me (7+ / 0-)

        Mendocino County banned plastic grocery bags starting in 2013 and mandated a 10¢ charge for paper grocery bags. Problem solved.

        Some people complained at first, but now are used to it. Paper grocery bags last quite a long time, stop after stop at the grocery store!

        "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

        by Crider on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:20:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks! (4+ / 0-)

      I like people who focus on what each individual can do. Legislation is critical...but so is personal responsibility.

      I almost never use plastic bottles. My family does, unfortunately, and I don't think they generally refill. At least I am getting my son to do better.

      We use our own bags at our store. Including reusing bread bags for produce (we just cross off the bar code).

      No pesticides in our yard.

      We don't own cars.

      We turn our lights off but have to admit the little power vampires are still active.

      In addition we purchase all wind power through our utility.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. NYC's Progressive/Reform Blog

      by mole333 on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 06:26:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As all Americans know; a bubble gum chewing, (5+ / 0-)

    flag waving superhero  will step forward and save the planet from the evil scientists and their temperature trends. Some foreigners might get damp, but by god, home made apple pie will triumph, there will be a happy ending!

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Sun Apr 28, 2013 at 11:18:18 PM PDT

  •  If you're expecting Washington to fix this --- (0+ / 0-)

    It wasn't the Republiguns and the Tea Party that stuck all the excess CO2 into the atmosphere. It wasn't Fox News, or even EXXon.
    It was 10,000 years of every human being who lived clearing land for agriculture, destroying fertile soil by bad land use (thus eliminating vegetation to reduce CO2), burning everything  from charcoal to tar sand oil, wiping out species for monetary gain, destroying and maiming whole ecosystems, launching an endless series of wars that wasted and destroyed resources, careless manufacturing, dredging waterways, and overpopulating. And much much more.
    Ten. Thousand. Years. Of. It.
    If you think passing a few laws will erase that immense debit, you are crazy. Not unless all humanity commits to doing hundreds of years of remedial actions (and ending the bad ones) will it have any hope of saving the climates and ecosystems which it vitally needs to thrive. I don't see that happening no matter how "active" concerned people become.
    Ultimately, our time as a "dominant" species is over.

    Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

    by fourthcornerman on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:11:09 AM PDT

    •  Um, it really has become much of an actual problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT

      until the last couple of hundred years...

      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 Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:45:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, eat, drink and be merry for... (2+ / 0-)

      ...tomorrow we die? I love all the arguments for doing nothing, ranging from "we don't have 60 votes in the Senate" to "it's too late we should have done something 50 years ago."

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

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 02:18:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that it's too late -- but ALL MANKIND (0+ / 0-)

        has to partake in solving this. That's a big order. And even if everybody outside the US committed to reducing greenhouse gas, all that effort would just delay the inevitable end if the US doesn't do its part.
        Fighting WW2 was a big effort for the US, a universal effort. Yet roughly 40% of Americans even then didn't think we should have been in the war. You think that for some vague future disaster the entire US population will unite and commit? Only 15% of recyclable aluminum cans produced in America today are actually recycled, despite so many convenient disposal sites and even home pick-up.
        So if you can convince me that you have some way to get everybody on the planet working to reduce carbon use significantly (and to reduce the CO2 levels we have now, not just maintain it) and not have them excuse themselves from it because want/need/have jobs, lifestyles, transport, kids, homes, or leisure habits that use massive amounts of carbon, show it to me.
        Until then I'll be eating, drinking, and merry.

        Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

        by fourthcornerman on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 04:09:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  WHAT WOULD HAYEK THINK? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ginny in CO

    F. A. Hayek would disapprove of these denialist clowns:
    This is an excerpt from his paper "Why I am not a Conservative" in The Constitution of Liberty (1961):

        Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life simply because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irreverent or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position.  

  •  Hey Meteor Blades (0+ / 0-)

    What action are you proposing that will keep emissions of greenhouse gases below 400 ppm now that we have passed that milestone? Are you going with carbon caps or just prohibiting the use of fossil fuels altogether after say 2020?

    To have any hope of keeping the option of making a difference we are looking at actions that might take twenty five years and hundreds of trillions of dollars plus planetary cooperation to accomplish even as what we project for twenty five years out makes those actions too little too late.

    We are already locked into climate change that we can no longer hope to hold below the tipping points that take the decision making process about what is to be done out of our hands.

    The hope had been that we could hold global warming somewhere below 2 degrees C until 2100 and find some sort of a solution by then.

    Even with that rising sea levels were on track to take out 100 major cities with populations over 100,000 on the Gulf and East coasts not in centuries but in decades.

    I try to imagine relocating a third of the US back from the east coast to the Appalachians while the Tethys sea is reestablished up the Mississippi River valley and wonder if you are aware that parts of the West Coast also have low lying urban areas.

    Now we may see 4 degrees C by 2050 and 6 degrees C before the end of the century.

    In that scenario the planet becomes uninhabitable as far north as the tropics, the poles melt rapidly and it becomes difficult to imagine even nuclear submarines being able to maintain contact with any survivors in the south in Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand or Antarctica.

    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

    by rktect on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 02:55:47 AM PDT

    •  Seems to me if you understand peak oil, we're (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crider, Words In Action, GeoffT

      headed towards 25 yrs and hundreds of trillions anyways.  We can try to arrange an orderly transition or ignore and then watch out.  I'm frankly glad I probably won't be around to see it.  Ain' gon' be pretty.

      The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

      by helfenburg on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 04:06:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Before we can address climate chaos (5+ / 0-)

    or any other problem of any significance at all we must address the  capture of democracy by corporate interests.  
    Until we do that, corporate greed will continue to destroy our earth, loot our wealth, enslave our people, and make war on others.  If you care about any of those things, first you must address the fact that we have lost our republic.  To reclaim our republic is the first necessary step toward addressing climate chaos, too big to fail banks, and the other problems that beset us.

    We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

    by Mosquito Pilot on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 04:09:29 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. (4+ / 0-)

    It's a matter of what we do:

    Personally.
    Professionally.
    As a society.
    As a world.

    We can act on all levels, but generally in that order.

    [Not a sigline. You are hallucinating.]

    by koNko on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 05:26:56 AM PDT

  •  Amen and A-women, brother. . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan, Words In Action

    I've been preaching this same message for years, which always gets me aghast looks from friends and strangers. In short, IF YOU'RE PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEN YOU'RE PART OF THE GODDAMN PROBLEM. And for some reason, this entire global swinging/warming issue tends to turn most people off because (in my not so humble opinion) most people are just too f'n lazy to do anything for anyone for any purpose given this grave matter that affects all of us. Not trying to steal your thunder, Meteor Blades, because your diary says what it has to. . .but let's find a way to kick some asses and get things rolling in a positive direction away from this ongoing negative stuff that's happening to our planet. Thanks for an enlightening diary. Obviously, with me you hit a raw nerve.

    Treat the world (yourself, and others) as part of a living organism. Everyone and everything will benefit.

    by richholtzin on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 06:29:54 AM PDT

  •  Future generations will spit on the graves of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden

    the deniers in Congress.

    And the sooner, the better.

  •  I just wish someone would explain (4+ / 0-)

    to these idiots that the difference between "weather" and "climate" is time.

    "Weather" is atmospheric conditions over a short period of time. Weeks at the most.

    "Climate" is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

    "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey

    by SaraBeth on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:04:40 AM PDT

  •  Inexhaustible energy from the sun. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan, jayden, javan, richholtzin

    Inexhaustible stupidity from mankind.

  •  I'm going to disagree with your title (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action

    There are several sorts of people delaying action.

    There are those who sincerely believe there is no problem.
    There are those who sincerely believe we can adapt to the problem because it will be small.
    There are those who believe it is a real problem but don't think the political will exists to do anything.
    And then there are those who believe that it is a real problem but lie because money.

    This last group is almost entirely responsible for the existence of those in the other three. They are by far the most evil, bear by far the most blame, and are in fact worse than the others. Much worse.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:25:25 AM PDT

    •  Both. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      What MB said, what you said (about the people "choosing" purely for personal financial reasons, whether in terms of the careers they choose, the activism they will/won't engage in--for fear of offending bosses, peers, subordinates, neighbors, family members, colleagues, vendors, customers...), the consumption they engage in, and the conservation they pursue...).

      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 Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:49:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like the straight-up carbon tax method (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, jrooth, Eric Nelson

    in the Boxer/Sanders bill because cap-and-trade is just neoliberal market based solution nonsense.

    "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

    by Crider on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:32:26 AM PDT

    •  A tax has the advantage of predictability (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth

      If someone's trying to decide between converting their coal plant to gas or not, they don't have to attempt to bet on where the future carbon credit market is going to go.

      On the downside, if a critical tipping point X is identified then a cap can be more easily tailored to account for it.

      I wouldn't mind a tax with some rules for sliding it up or down in order to target a desired emissions curve.

      Fake candidates nominated by the GOP for the recalls: 6 out of 7. Fake signatures on the recall petitions: 4 out of 1,860,283.

      by GeoffT on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:31:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And, last question: what do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action

    we do with all the sadly deluded who believe in nonsense like the Rapture/Second Coming? T and R!!

    Some people make u want to change species! --ulookarmless, quoted w/his permission: RIP good man.

    by orlbucfan on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 07:50:05 AM PDT

  •  Another # in the L column means that you at least (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, shaharazade, Words In Action

    suited up and played the game. Republicans have how many losses on issues they have moved over the last 4 decades?

    Progressives, liberals, leftists, whatever the preferred label, ought always to be proposing policy that they would enact if they had the clout to get it enacted. One key ingredient of gaining that political clout is to show voters over and over again what you would do if you do if you had the congressional votes, political clout to do it. You persuade those voters to give you the clout.
    I believe Naomi Klein got it right when she talks about the 'things lying around' when crisis hits. We need some things lying around, and we're not going to have them if we don't try to do something...

    Republicans have been ascendant because their rhetoric and policy meet their values. Democrats have been running away from their values with their policy and rhetoric - so much so that a mandated participation in private medical insurance markets is touted as some kind of huge accomplishment.

    etc...

    Great piece, tk.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:17:17 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm ... (3+ / 0-)
    Progressives, liberals, leftists, whatever the preferred label, ought always to be proposing policy that they would enact if they had the clout to get it enacted.
    Be careful ... do that too often around here and you'll be accused of wanting a pony.

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:17:40 AM PDT

  •  Thank you. (3+ / 0-)

    YES: Delay Is Denial.

    And our moderate Democrats are all about delay whether through outright appeasement/capitulation or insulting, ineffective incrementalism.

    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 Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:20:59 AM PDT

  •  Like it or not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, northstarbarn

    "all of the above" is a death sentence for our habitat. If we keep burning carbon, we are writing our own dooms. We don't have time for "all of the above" anymore. Maybe it would've worked 40 years ago. But we have to drop carbon, now!

    "Today is who you are" - my wife

    by I Lurked For Years on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:38:58 AM PDT

  •  Like Mary Landrieu (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth

    There's no question that environmentalists should do nothing to help her re-election. There's a good argument for recruiting a primary or third party candidate against her, even if it means losing the seat to a Republican.

    A freshman backbencher Republican would likely do far less damage than Landrieu as chair of the Senate Energy Committee. It would also be beneficial long-term to teach the DC party establishment that they must nominate candidates who want to deal with climate change, or they don't get to elect candidates at all.

Bob Johnson, SME in Seattle, Grassroots Mom, JekyllnHyde, Angie in WA State, Trix, Chi, filkertom, Radiowalla, lowkell, teacherken, glitterscale, badger, Danno11, NYmom, mimi, RunawayRose, Pescadero Bill, hyperstation, eeff, xynz, hubcap, silence, Zinman, srkp23, Agathena, Pithy Cherub, mole333, retrograde, roses, denig, bwren, navajo, wader, pollwatcher, Eric Blair, pat bunny, DSC on the Plateau, Steven Payne, Calidrissp, piniella, Chris Reeves, zerelda, JayDean, Mosquito Pilot, Sybil Liberty, drofx, humphrey, kbman, 3goldens, NoMoreLies, denise b, LakeSuperior, basquebob, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, SaraBeth, Sara R, Burned, techno, Ginny in CO, mightymouse, Jim R, begone, RJDixon74135, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Milly Watt, rl en france, koNko, AoT, Magnifico, kck, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, A Siegel, PapaChach, sceptical observer, justiceputnam, CA Nana, Cassiodorus, WarrenS, shaharazade, bstotts, markthshark, One Pissed Off Liberal, Habitat Vic, JohnMac, ninkasi23, Dartagnan, FishOutofWater, Mary Mike, Matt Z, dclawyer06, joedemocrat, davehouck, jayden, SeaTurtle, pioneer111, Assaf, TomP, VelvetElvis, Roger Fox, zerone, Sixty Something, Mr Stagger Lee, Involuntary Exile, brooklynbadboy, KJG52, jamess, palantir, LaFeminista, maggiejean, maryabein, rbird, JesseCW, dRefractor, AGH42, asym, kevinpdx, Shelley99, sfarkash, jfromga, Randtntx, citisven, Leftcandid, porchdog1961, catilinus, Words In Action, Just Bob, rb137, The Jester, gramofsam1, David Harris Gershon, jethrock, UTvoter, Polly Syllabic, sunny skies, RJP9999, cordgrass, samanthab, Lady Libertine, Betty Pinson, orlbucfan, ericlewis0, Oh Mary Oh, soaglow, Onomastic, annieli, asterkitty, marleycat, Lorikeet, Muskegon Critic, gof, enhydra lutris, peregrine kate, PhilJD, cactusgal, blue aardvark, SoCalSal, Sunspots, RLMiller, livingthedream, quill, DeadHead, greenbastard, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, pimutant, a2nite, Ginger1, martinjedlicka, Darryl House, northstarbarn, peachcreek, radical simplicity, New Minas, LoreleiHI, Glen The Plumber, Kayjay, James Wells, ShoshannaD, Ray Pensador, nomandates, John Crapper, countwebb, remembrance, Neapolitan, gypsytoo, unfangus, helpImdrowning, Smoh, solarbay, k9kiki, richholtzin, Kombema, grubber, eagleray, OldSoldier99

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site