Skip to main content

In an extraordinary statement, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nations' group of climate scientists, said on Monday that humanity can no longer be content kicking the can down the road when it comes to climate change. €œWe have five minutes before midnight,€ he emphasized:
€œWe may utilize the gifts of nature just as we choose, but in our books the debits are always equal to the credits.

€œMay I submit that humanity has completely ignored, disregarded and been totally indifferent to the debits? Today we have the knowledge to be able to map out the debits and to understand what we have done to the condition of this planet.”

Pachauri made these remarks as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepares to release its fifth assessment report, which I wrote about here.

Leaks from the report, uncovered by Reuters, state that without significant intervention we are heading toward 9F degree temperature increase by the end of this century. New leaks indicate that the assessment will cover the threat of sea-level rise and refute the news of a warming slowdown, which has been seized upon by climate change deniers.

Pachauri says nations worldwide need to rethink their approach to economic growth.

€œWe cannot isolate ourselves from anything that happens in any part of this planet. It will affect all of us in some way or the other,€ Pachauri said.
It's way past time for each of us to become part of the solution. There are many ways to participate to affect policy change and to make the necessary personal changes.

 

Originally posted to beach babe in fl on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:11 AM PDT.

Also republished by Climate Change SOS, Kitchen Table Kibitzing, SciTech, Meatless Advocates Meetup, and Daily Kos.

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 (131+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LinSea, LaughingPlanet, WarrenS, remembrance, Gooserock, cotterperson, citisven, Shockwave, mudslide, limpidglass, Lefty Coaster, northerntier, JayDean, anodnhajo, FloridaSNMOM, pfiore8, boriskamite, Tool, eeff, basquebob, Glen The Plumber, DEMonrat ankle biter, mofembot, Wino, thomask, Pescadero Bill, Sylv, The Marti, blackjackal, Jason Hackman, Rosaura, James Wells, asym, Oaktown Girl, Ramoth, greenbastard, marleycat, I love OCD, SoCalSal, Keone Michaels, psnyder, Assaf, Paul Ferguson, onionjim, Catte Nappe, DefendOurConstitution, Powered Grace, RonK, smokeymonkey, surfbird007, Lujane, 714day, petulans, poligirl, Throw The Bums Out, radarlady, Turbonerd, Rogneid, aravir, rat racer, Ageing Hippie, TomFromNJ, Laurel in CA, leeleedee, yet another liberal, quagmiremonkey, maryabein, millwood, petral, soarbird, corvo, Danno11, Mary Mike, Frank In WA, bbctooman, angelajean, KJG52, elwior, jfromga, Matt Z, hubcap, envwq, IndieGuy, marina, joedemocrat, slowbutsure, blueoasis, wordwraith, thea lake, Torta, BeerNotWar, Christin, grollen, raines, muddy boots, No one gets out alive, belinda ridgewood, JerryNA, carpunder, radical simplicity, HeartlandLiberal, denise b, Betty Pinson, SoCaliana, martinjedlicka, Grandma Susie, Thomas Twinnings, beverlywoods, LSmith, akmk, sailmaker, AZ Sphinx Moth, rogeopa, dandy lion, Crider, certainot, Debs2, kpardue, bythesea, DontTaseMeBro, Magnifico, julesrules39, pdxteacher, sillia, Oh Mary Oh, RunawayRose, Regina in a Sears Kit House, daeros, RightHeaded, Land of Enchantment, parse this

    Macca's Meatless Monday

    by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:11:06 AM PDT

  •  dire warnings (44+ / 0-)

    are sadly usually ignored by those overcome by hubris.

    Our species, well, this country especially, is lost in a sea of self-important arrogance. That we have failed and continue to fail in spectacular fashion on climate change is our cross to bear.

    And it looks like it will be the 1st sentence of our epitaph.

    Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

    by LaughingPlanet on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:17:16 AM PDT

    •  Just like I've been saying for many years.... (5+ / 0-)

      ...and people here called me "alarmist", "Doom & Gloom", "science will figure out an answer -you're an idiot"....

      Well.... where is it?? I don't see a single country making ANY significant reductions in GH gas emissions to make a difference.

      In fact, if every human being dropped off the face of the planet tonight, the planet would continue to warm for at LEAST 50 years. Long enough for many more species to go extinct.

      We must ADAPT or DIE. The single most important issue facing us is potable water. If we do not find a way to re-sequester water and recharge our aquifers, a process which takes hundreds, even THOUSANDS of years for nature to accomplish, the American Breadbasket will be one huge desert. After that, say goodbye to your genetic legacy unless you are extremely wealthy or extremely lucky.

      "Wealthy the Spirit which knows its own flight. Stealthy the Hunter who slays his own fright. Blessed is the Traveler who journeys the length of the Light."

      by CanisMaximus on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:30:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Big Dog, I hate to say it; but you are right. (0+ / 0-)

        Nine degrees is much higher than the worst case scenarios I've seen (for six degrees by 2100).  Policy makers need to get on board now.

        Can someone please ban these people putting ads in the comments?  Yes, Janis121.  I'm speaking about you.

      •  It's not potable waters (0+ / 0-)

        The single most important issue facing us is our unchecked population growth. The water issue is just a subset of that larger and looming problem. Each and every individual contributes to the gasses that cause global warming. We may cut our per person gas emissions in half, but if the population doubles again, as it is certain to do, then we will have made no progress whatsoever.

        And, if you think things are bad in the middle east, if you're concerned about increasingly unstable governments all over the world and the proliferation of horrible weapons and the development of new weapons we can scarcely imagine, just wait until that world population doubles again and face the prospect of the world after that.

  •  Nations Don't Have the Power to Act. (16+ / 0-)

    He needs to take this to global ownership. Only they can give governments the power to act.

    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 Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:20:50 AM PDT

    •  nations can reduce their own consumption... (15+ / 0-)

      that task seems to be difficult enough

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:24:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kill Global Ownership should be item #1 (5+ / 0-)

      on the action list.

      Then maybe they'd say Hey, no, we'll cooperate, please don't kill us.

      /snark or is it.

      •  not easy to do but easy to reduce our own (11+ / 0-)

        consumption

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:50:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure (11+ / 0-)

          but how much impact is that really going to have?

          Not that we shouldn't. I do, and my husband and I live frugally in an environmental and consumer sense.

          But I've seen charts which list types of pollution in the US. Agricultural pollution, etc. etc. all seem to be extremely high. We can reduce our consumption as individuals - but corporations also need to take a lot of responsibility. I'd love to see a breakdown - how much pollution is caused by individuals? How much by corporations?

          Because it seems to me that, as in many other things, we citizens are shouldering the burdens belonging to corporations.

          •  doesn't matter who solves the problem... (8+ / 0-)

            as long as it's solved.

            Macca's Meatless Monday

            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:40:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Long been debunked (15+ / 0-)

              If I quit my job, lived in the woods, and used no fossil fuel, the problem would not be solved.

              We have to get the resource giants to quit digging and mining. If you believe people will voluntarily stop driving, when we don't even have a decent public transportation system, well, sorry.

              The problem has to start with Exxon, BP, coal diggers, tar sands companies, and many other huge mining interests.

              They take the material out of the Earth without paying for it. Its not their earth to destroy, but they will if we don't stop them.

              Supply and demand dynamics will not function in this context. Our government is subsidizing big oil to the tune of billions a year. It has got to start there.

              A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

              by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:21:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can do all that, 100 of us can do (5+ / 0-)

                all that, and not come close to counteracting the impact of one leer jet asshole.

                "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

                by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:32:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you're advocating that people do nothing... (6+ / 0-)

                  that is the problem

                  Macca's Meatless Monday

                  by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:31:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, that's not what he's saying (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueoasis, DawnN

                    VL, you're putting words in his mouth. Nowhere does Jesse say that people should do nothing.  What he DOES say is that people should do something that will actually help to solve the problem.  Reducing one's consumption is not a bad thing, but it will not solve the problem. Building a movement will.  

                    FYI, you seem more interested in reducing meat consumption than in solving climate change.  That's fine if that's your priority, but if so then I think you should be upfront about that in any climate change diary.  

                    •  you didn't even look at the video right? the (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Crider, julesrules39

                      same UN chief scientist who made the remarks made the video

                      Macca's Meatless Monday

                      by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:22:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Reducing meat consumption is not anywhere near (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueoasis, Pescadero Bill, DawnN

                      as important for the individual to do as reducing direct consumption of energy in all of its forms....

                      Saying that meat consumption is the most important thing a person can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions impact is just plain wrong and unscientific advice.

                      •  You keep on saying this (4+ / 0-)

                        but VL Baker provides quie a bit of evidence to support her claim. If you have a factual rebuttal with links why keep it to yourself? Prove your case!

                        "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                        by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:04:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  yes, LS is in disagreement with Dr. Pachauri too (3+ / 0-)

                          in video Dr. P says that reducing meat consumption is most effective way for individuals to reduce personal greenhouse gases.

                          Macca's Meatless Monday

                          by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:20:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  James Hansen agrees with Dr. Pachauri too (3+ / 0-)

                            so Lake Superior disagrees with both lol

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:25:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think LS disagrees with climate change. (3+ / 0-)

                            He's been trolling your diaries for some time. Engaging in debate is one thing. Sewing the seeds of doubt is quite another. I've already contacted the admins and I encourage others to do the same so we can sort out what team he's on. As your diary points out we no longer have time to mess around with people who continue to ignore the facts.

                            Time for LS to put up or shut up.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:37:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It doesn't make any difference what Lake Superior (0+ / 0-)

                            thinks - his opinion doesn't change the fact that appeals to authority are fallacious, especially when authorities are talking out of their ... field.

                            And I'd be happy to put up rather than shut up when I have some time to write a diary, because the diaries about ag and climate science are almost entirely based on either ideology or a narrow - not wholistic or system-wide - examination of the issues.

                            I'm sorry you feel so threatened by another poster that you have to try and get him/her censored.

                            No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin

                            by badger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:32:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's all I'm asking for (3+ / 0-)

                            If you can factually prove from objective sources (not industry lobbying groups) that this UN report which concludes that meat production causes more greenhouse gasses than cars is total BS then I'd love to hear it. This is a reality-based community after all. The user I'm referring to doesn't do that and seems ultimately concerned with sewing doubt, not engaging in a debate about the facts.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:54:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here is what EPA states as the sector contribution (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill, DawnN, Sarenth

                            to emissions of greenhouse gases here in the United States from agriculture:

                            http://www.epa.gov/...

                            The entire agriculture sector contributes 8% of United States greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalents.  

                            Of all of the economic sectors of electricity production, industrial production, residential and commercial and transportation, the entire agriculture sector produces the least greenhouse gas emissions of all United States economic sectors show.   Transportation and electricity produce far more CO2 equivalents than agriculture does.....and this is a result that contradicts the conclusions of the UN report, at least for purposes of agriculture in the United States.

                          •  So your rebuttal to the UN Report is a pie chart? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, julesrules39

                            If what VL Baker is asserting is so far out of the scientific mainstream there should be a mountain of evidence refuting her rather than a mountain of evidence support her, right? You can do better than that, can't you?

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:04:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The pie chart showing all of agriculture as only (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill

                            contributing only 8% of all emissions of greenhouse gas CO2 equivalents is summary information from the final EPA emission inventory for the United States published in 2013.

                            When confronted with EPA's depiction of the present reality of what United States agriculture sector emissions are, you're proclivity is to engage in an act of science denial in rejecting the final findings of the primary U.S. Government agency responsible for tracking CO2e emission inventories in the United States.

                            You make this rejection without any ability to cite a valid reason for your rejection, which is solely motivated by your political/ideological view against meat and not as a scientific finding of emissions determination.

                            This is the best data available describing the actual physical reality of emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States from human-caused sources.  

                            At a very minimum, use of a 2013 U.S. greenhouse gas emission inventory is preferable to using a 2006 emission inventory and calculation for decisionmaking purposes.   If you have a reason that a 2006 emission inventory is preferable to using a 2013 emission inventory, I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for that, if you have one.

                             

                          •  Apples v. Oranges comparison (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julesrules39

                            Did you even read the UN report or are you just content to regurgitate industry press releases? You're comparing US numbers with worldwide numbers by the UN. When did the EPA do a study of global greenhouse gas emissions and the associating factors? Show me that and you have a valid comparison. Until then you're just doing what you've always done: sewing the seeds of doubt about climate change facts.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:01:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please see my downthread comment about (0+ / 0-)

                            the UN report using an inflated value for energy per kg of body weight at sale for beef...compared to actual data recorded at the US Department of Agriculture Agriculture Research Service facility in Nebraska explicitly tasked with determining the energy impacts of typical animal agriculture systems carried out under USDA NRCS standards and practices.   In addition, the UN data is not for the most recent emission inventory year.

                            Agricultural research carried out by the USDA and published by that agency are not industry press releases and are valid agronomy scientific work products.   Of course that won't mean anything to you if you're a denier of agricultural science.

                          •  Have to disagree with you again. You are (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            stating that the research published is not done so with any influence from the industries and is totally unbiased?  In reality, part of the government's job is to weigh the public good along with the economic impact.  BigAg is a huge factor in the US economy.

                            The US industrialized food systems were developed for mass production, not from a sustainability perspective.  They are in many ways influenced by the industries that make monies from livestock production.  For example, 80% of the antibiotics sold in the US are for animals raised for livestock.  About 40% of the corn grown in the US is for livestock feed.

                            Here's what Wikipedia says about Michael Taylor (Deputy Commissioner of the FDA:

                            "Taylor is featured in the documentaries The Future of Food and The World According to Monsanto[23] as a pertinent example of revolving door since he is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA."

                          •  I guess your position is that the US Dept of (0+ / 0-)

                            Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service does not practice science.  

                          •  The UN report was written by scientists (0+ / 0-)

                            so how does using it to prove my point make me a “science denier”? Show me where I even "denied" the data you’ve provided? You have failed to show how the USDA’s controlled study and the EPA’s assessment of greenhouse gasses apply worldwide. I’ve questioned that and you haven’t provided any additional data in response or any further rebuttal to the findings of the UN Report. The only person denying science here is you with your denial that the UN Report is valid, and you’ve attempted to do so with invalid comparisons and assertions not backed up by evidence (links). For some reason you have a strong bias to believe that everything in the report is false even though you have no scientific reason to believe that is the case. In fact, you have no way of proving that the UN Report is invalid since there isn’t another study of its scope that disputes its findings. Admit it and move on.

                            And, yes, you did provide a meat industry website as part of your evidence against the UN Report. Probably since they're the only other entity that reached the same mistaken conclusions you did. Did you forget that inconvenient fact?

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:38:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If the EPA did a study, it would probably be done (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            by a consultant to a chemical/GMO company or a meat integrator.  

                          •  You're totally wrong on this, Lake Superior. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            for reasons that the EPA's website partially states.  Their number is totally understated as I've described above.

                          •  Your position that the EPA greenhouse gas (0+ / 0-)

                            emission inventory is wrong does not have any basis.   You are not stating why the EPA emission inventory is wrong.

                            All of your objections to the EPA emission inventory and the 8% share of greenhouse gases generated by agriculture in the United States are without any specifically stated objection to the methods and data published in that report.

                            In declaring the EPA emission inventory to be wrong, you are engaging in politics and ideology....not science.

                            If it were science, they you would be able to say why the EPA emission inventory is wrong as published.

                          •  Come on, Lake Superior. You're not that stupid. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, sillia, Jason Hackman

                            The EPA website you reference provides a totally understated number for agricultural GHG emissions, by their own admission.  If you look below the pie chart to the detail, next to the Agricultural data, the site clearly states:

                            Addresses anthropogenic emissions from agricultural activities (not including fuel combustion and sewage emissions, which are addressed in the Energy and Waste chapters).
                            Not including fuel combustion and sewage emissions??? Pretty huge oversight.  That's like saying we can grow corn without using a tractor or any mechanized equipment.  We can move a couple billion cattle without any trucks.  We'll just herd them across the country ... We can call Scotty and beam that meat up to market in China or the EU.  We know that we don't do that;  but, we'll just pretend that we do.  Do you know how many times GMO fields have to be irrigated to ensure that all those lovely chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers) get into the practically dead soil and into the roots of that corn?

                            By the way, land clearing for crops (deforestation) is another huge gap in their numbers.

                            Why is that number produced to look smaller?  Hmmm ... how much lobbying monies are spent from the pharmaceutical, chemical companies and meat integrators?  How many subsidies and tax shelters are utilized in those industries.

                            I do agree with you that the number one thing from a policy perspective that must change is energy, not the total consumption, they type of energy.  Fossil fuels should be way more expensive reflecting the harm that they cause to property, health and the planetary systems.  Using sustainable energy should be the norm, not the exception.

                          •  Lake Superior appears stupid because.... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Jason Hackman, julesrules39

                            he has no common sense. So here he is auguring in a diary where the chief UN climate scientist says we have about 5 minutes to save humanity.  He needs some kind of intervention..how embarrassing for him. In the meantime he harasses.  How totally sad to have to be an industry shrill working against solutions to the greatest crisis humanity faces.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 04:39:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not so sure (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, julesrules39

                            that he's an industry shill, but

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:44:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ... he does seem more concerned with (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, julesrules39

                            refuting the findings than trying to understand them.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 08:48:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no common sense for sure... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Jason Hackman, julesrules39

                            it's not that he's in disagreement because he's not supporting his case very well..he's trying to be disruptive.
                            I don't deserve his harassment none of us do. Maybe that's his life...pathetic.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:00:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you trying to perfect the technique of a (0+ / 0-)

                            'non-insult' insult?

                          •  You said: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill, CanisMaximus

                            First of all, I am not a troll and I don't make troll comments.    I realize that you may be part of the 'everyone who disagrees with me is a troll or shill' contingent sometimes here on DK.

                            On this....

                            I think LS disagrees with climate change.
                            ...you're deliberately distorting my position saying that using the terms 'climate change' to describe our problem is not a good idea when the best description is of our problems as "global warming" problems.

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

                            Time for LS to put up or shut up.
                            What I'm saying is error are statements claiming that the cessation of eating meat is the most effective thing that a typical meat-eating individual can do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions as compared to all other actions that can be taken.

                            Let's start with the USDA report which can be fairly characterized as reflecting the environmental footprint of typical beef cattle CAFO-feedlot operations in the United States:

                            http://www.ars.usda.gov/...

                            The GHG impacts were:
                            10.9 kg of CO2e/kg Body Weight

                            The energy impacts were:
                            26.5 MJ/kg BW

                            To convert to lbs of meat from live weight as sold, we need the dressing percentage which we'll assume to be 59%

                            10.9 kg CO2e     kg BW
                            --------------- *   --------------  =   18.5 kg CO2e/kg meat
                            kg BW                 0.59 kg meat

                            26.5 MJ/kg BW     kg BW
                            ----------------  *  ------------------  =  44.9 MJ / kg meat
                            kg BW                   0.59 kg meat

                            Let's convert these to lbs  

                            18.5 kg CO2e
                            --------------    = 18.5 lbs CO2e/lb meat
                            kg meat

                            44.9 MJ      0.454 kg
                            ---------  *   ------------    = 20.4 MJ / lb meat
                            kg meat         lb

                            Let's assume a diet of eating 0.5 lb of U.S. grown beef per day annually or 183 lbs of beef consumption per year.

                            If that consumption was produced by typical U.S. CAFO beef production methods (not grazing beef cattle):

                            18.5 lbs CO2e / lb meat   *  183 lbs  =  3386 lbs CO2e/yr

                            This does not include energy for processing, transport and refridgeration.

                            However, let's say you drive a 23 mile per gallon vehicle  10000 miles per year for 435 gallons of gasoline consumed.

                                          0.125 mmbtu     71.35 kg CO2      2.2 lb
                            435 gal *  ----------       *   ------------   *    ----
                                            gallon               mmbtu               kg

                               =   8530 lbs of CO2e

                            If you cut driving by 20% and bought a 35 mpg vehicle, you would generate:

                                          0.125 mmbtu     71.35 kg CO2      2.2 lb
                            229 gal *  ----------       *   ------------   *    ----
                                            gallon               mmbtu               kg

                            =  4493 lbs of CO2e  for a difference of 4037 lbs of CO2e reduction from driving less and using a more efficient vehicle....and an amount exceeding the GHG emission reduction achievable by not eating U.S. beef.

                            Similar exercises can be carried out on personal electricity consumption and natural gas consumption.

                          •  Not flying anymore will be far more effective than (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill, Sarenth

                            ceasing the eating of meat in reducing an individual's greenhouse gas emissions.

                          •  not everyone flys and not everyone drives... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SoCaliana, julesrules39

                            but everyone eats, even children who don't drive.  so that is the difference and you said us beef you didn't mention other meat.  

                            Please write your own post and correct everything you want sure it will be of great interest.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 03:51:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What does this have to do with the UN Report? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            That's what you were going to offer a rebuttal to if I provided it to you, right? See link below.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:51:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The UN report uses an estimated energy use of (0+ / 0-)

                            51 MJ per kg body weight when USDA uses a figure about half as much and which has been determined in actual field operations to within 1% of the actual value.

                            This would dramatically affect the calculations of emissions in the UN report describing emissions from United States beef operations (not in grazing management).

                          •  Appeals to authority (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LakeSuperior

                            even to credible authorities, don't replace facts, and as far as I can determine, both sources you cite are right about climate (it's their specialty) and wrong about agriculture (in which they have no particular expertise).

                            The IPCC, for example, which has assembled ag expertise to evaluate the situation, doesn't come up with any recommendations about meat consumption. They do recommend that all ag practices need remediation to reduce GHG emissions.

                            No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin

                            by badger on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:18:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Badger, the man in the video claims to be the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker

                            current head of the IPCC, and he is recommending reduced meat consumption as a way to be healthier and fight climate change.  

                            The USDA's food pyramid has been updated to reflect that Americans should eat less meat and dairy that previously recommended.  Here's that link.

                          •  RealClimate.org (4+ / 0-)
                            All of this is well-intentioned stuff, none of it denies the central importance of CO2, and I’m sure there are many benefits to be had from reducing soot emissions sooner rather than later. Given the large agricultural component of methane emissions, keeping these emissions from growing in the face of a the need to feed a growing number of people is a serious challenge that must ultimately be met. But still, these proposals tend to convey the impression that dealing with the short-lived forcings now will in some way make it easier to deal with CO2 later, and that’s wrong. In this post, I will explain why.

                            http://www.realclimate.org/...


                            "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

                            by Pescadero Bill on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:22:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The problem is not personal (0+ / 0-)

                            Its systemic, and plutocorporocratic. Honestly, if you believe that personal habits modification will solve climate change, that may actually be an obstacle.

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:39:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so you advocate waiting for plutocorporocrats to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julesrules39

                            modify your behavior..because modifying personal behavior has to happen whether it's done individually or by waiting for governmental/corporative decree.  We have lost precious time waiting for 'something' to modify our behavior.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:53:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I advocate doing something that will work (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julesrules39

                            Like getting our energy policy changed. Why don't you read the comments I already put on this thread? I don't like to type the same thing over and over.

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:11:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you didn't click the diary link in last paragraph (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julesrules39

                            above the video that explains solutions.  there is a reason for links

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:15:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes the article is well meaning (0+ / 0-)

                            But as far as taking us into the future, "we have to rid ourselves of oil addiction" does not cut it at all. Bill McKibben is more on the game. I would ride a gas hog truck to an anti-tar sands demonstration, despite the irony. Otherwise I might not be there, right?

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:35:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you either didn't read the piece or didn't (0+ / 0-)

                            understand it.

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:40:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is a third option (0+ / 0-)

                            which you did not mention

                            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                            by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:37:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, we must advocate for policy changes with (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VL Baker, sillia

                            respect to emissions and any other type of pollution that harms us.  If dirty energy remains cheaper than renewables, then people will keep using them.

                            Yet, we cannot divorce ourselves from the lifestyle changes that we can make to be part of the solution as well.  

                            Eating less unsustainably produced meat and dairy does reduce emissions significantly.  Vegans have a much lower carbon footprint (given all other variables are the same).

                            No one disputes that to my knowledge.

                        •  To do that rebuttal effectively I have to have (0+ / 0-)

                          that entire UN Food and Ag report and it is not available at the link provided.    That meat institute link suggested that portions of the UN report have been withdrawn.

                          In the meantime, here is information from tax-payer-financed USDA research on energy and other environmental footprint of at least beef grown by USDA technical methods in the United States in a typical industrial agricultural (CAFO/feedlot-style operation):

                          http://www.ars.usda.gov/...

                          The amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that a person is responsible for  as a result of their personal consumption is measured in tons per year (i.e. energy for space and water heating, for producing electricity consumed, energy for transportation, etc.).

                          The amount of greenhouse gases generated from production of beef by a person eating a typical beef-consuming diet will far, far less than the amount of GHG gases released as a result of energy utilization for space and water heating and to generate electricity.

                          •  You Said: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            radical simplicity, VL Baker
                            One of the problems with the UN Food and Agriculture report is that it is not very useful to evaluating energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing beef as it is predominately carried out in the United States.
                            And then provided me with a report from the USDA, which doesn't mention the livestock we consume that is produced outside of the US? I'm pretty sure you haven't bothered with the UN Report, which I found easily using the google right here.
                            http://www.fao.org/...

                            Here's a teaser

                             

                            “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.

                            When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

                            And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

                            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:55:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please see again this rendition of the situation (0+ / 0-)

                            in the United States showing the agricultural sector to have the least greenhouse gas emissions of all United States sectors and, in particular, agricultural emissions that are far behind emissions from electricity generation and transportation:

                            http://www.epa.gov/...

                            Agriculture is only responsible for 8% of all emissions of
                            CO2 equivalents.

                          •  sorry LS....IPCC was more accurate and (0+ / 0-)

                            thorough in their global assessment of emissions from livestock sector:

                            aggregating emissions throughout the livestock commodity chain - from feed production (which includes chemical fertilizer production, deforestation for pasture and feed crops, and pasture degradation), through animal production (including enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide emissions from manure) to the carbon dioxide emitted during processing and transportation of animal products.
                            http://www.fao.org/...

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:42:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What exactly and specifically about the 2013 EPA (0+ / 0-)

                            emission inventory for greenhouse gases in the United States
                            do you deem to be in error and what is the basis you have for making the objection?

                            And, how specifically are you interpreting IPCC reports to be at variance with EPA's CO2e emission inventory?

                            Emissions inventory determination is a scientific process and participants in that scientific process always have a basis for statements saying that another participant's workproduct is wrong.  

                          •  please write your diary supporting your views (0+ / 0-)

                            your comments don't do it justice.  I dare you

                            Macca's Meatless Monday

                            by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:55:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Evidence. (0+ / 0-)

                          http://www.realclimate.org/...

                          Check it out, seriously.

                          Carbon reduction and scrubbing should be the number one goal of individuals and governments alike.


                          "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

                          by Pescadero Bill on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:12:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I am advocating (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueoasis, DawnN, Sarenth

                    that people wake up to the facts. It has got to change with the corruption in DC. As long as the president appoints industry hacks to run the energy policy, it won't change.

                    Until the leverage applied to our elected by the Koch brothers and the oil and coal industries, it won't change.

                    Tim DeChristopher did something.

                    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                    by onionjim on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:18:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Our whole contemporary society (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marina, radical simplicity, Sarenth

                is set up such that you often have to drive to get anywhere; thus forcing a continued dependence upon fossil fuel.

                There is an increasing trend of people using electric carts to get around their immediate area, which is promising and probably should be widely promoted.

                The only way to kill this beast is by starving it, and that is something all of us can contribute to.

                THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. -- L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88

                by xenubarb on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:14:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Shove it, Gandhi! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VL Baker
                “We must become the change we want to see in the world.”

                "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

                by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:16:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Carbon taxation is an option that works. The one (0+ / 0-)

              that British Columbia put in around 2008 has led them to the lowest emissions and taxes in Canada.  It is progressive, in that it increases over time, allowing people to adapt as they are able; but, it gives incentive to do so sooner than later.

              If the US, China, India, Brazil, the rest of Canada and the EU could agree to that, it would go a long way toward a sustainable, livable future.

          •  I think that individuals have had a huge impact (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sillia

            already.  Just a few years ago, I couldn't, for example, buy organic beans at Kroger.  I could hardly find a restaurant that I could somehow get to serve me something vegan.  Increased availability means that vegetarianism is a viable choice for more and more people.  And then people try some veg meals (say at a party, or when a group goes out to lunch at a veg place to accommodate some co-workers) and realize that they can really taste great.  People like Bill Clinton make a public case for veganism being healthy and not some freaky fetish, and something that a good host should accommodate.  Huff post just had a story with a pretty impressive list of vegan celebrities.  Say what you will (both about celebrities and huff post), but "stars" are role models in our culture.
            I remember people smoking in the building I worked in back in the 70's.  Seriously.  I find that hard to imagine today.  But like smoke-free buildings, vegetarianism is slowly becoming much more mainstream.  Be the change you want to see, as they say.  Activism exists because most problems will never be solved from the top down, since "the top" are the most threatened by change.

      •  "Kill[ing] Global Ownership" has nothing to do (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, Sarenth

        with gaining emission reductions greenhouse gases  necessary to address our global warming problem, so declaring that to be your number 1 objective seems pointless.

      •  Please, no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radical simplicity

        Not even in jest.

        Help stop gas drilling in Pennsylvania's Loyalsock State Forest!

        by marina on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:07:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  ? just the opposite, bt governments have forgotten (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, JesseCW

      they have the power and not the multinational corporations

      Its time for governments of the world to unite and do what needs to be done even if it involves confiscating funds and property from the oligarchs, jailing quite a few of the oligarchs, etc

      •  Too many governments are corrupted by their (9+ / 0-)

        greedy elite.

        Greedy, wealthy, and probably assuming they and their heirs will be able to buy their way out of at least a centuries' worth of discomfort.

        That, or most of those greedy usurpers think 'those that day with the most are the winners'.

        We're a crazy and still primitive species I guess.


        "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

        by Pescadero Bill on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:29:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It appears that committed individuals may (12+ / 0-)

        have the power.  It really is time to stop being dependent on the entities we're so infuriated by.  

        Boulder, CO activists "publicized" a private electric utility by VOTING for a public utility.  Excel Energy is fighting back hard because if Boulder wins many other communities will follow suit.  The activists didn't target Big Oil or Big Coal, they took back their town with a splendid plan for creating all power with wind and solar facilities.

        We can keep grumbling about weak politicians and the immense power of 1000 billionaires or we can get off our asses and take control.  That requires effort, of course, and planning.  I hope we have the energy to work on our own behalf.  

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:58:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, they did target Big Oil and Big Coal. (6+ / 0-)

          They did it effectively and creatively.  The long term goal is to destroy them.  

          It's a war for survival.

          Do you actually know any of the people involved?  I mean, have you even heard any of them speak publicly?

          We can keep grumbling about weak politicians and the immense power of 1000 billionaires or we can get off our asses and take control.  
          Because they do plenty of grumbling about weak politicians and predatory billionaires, while fighting them.

          "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

          by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:36:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I'm not a friend, just an admirer. And my (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sarenth

            point is that they didn't send stern petitions to Big Coal and Big Oil, or write harsh LTE's, they educated and registered voters and won an astonishing win.  And they're still fighting Excel's highly funded campaign to nullify that win, they aren't caving in because it's too hard to fight corporate money.  I'm suggesting them as role models for the rest of us.

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:55:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah. Almost all of them *did* and still do (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity, Sarenth

              those things.  LTE's and arguing on-line and calling their State Reps and Congressperson.

              You're assuming an either/or where none exists.

              "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

              by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:27:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Get a grip, Jesse. Everything doesn't have (0+ / 0-)

                to be deathmatch determining degrees of rightness.  

                I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:15:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Nations DO have the power to act (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VL Baker

      The same argument could be made about individuals.  Individuals acting is where collective action begins.  Individuals not acting is how tyranny and oppression thrive.  In this world of nation-states, the exact same is true of nations.  Indeed, and unfortunately, ONLY nations have the power to act.

      For those that say nations cannot, look at the Montreal Protocol to limit ozone-depleting gasses in the late 1980s.  It was unquestionably pretty damn successful, if not perfect.  WE must make OUR nation act.

      And on this - regardless whether China currently puts out more GHGs than we do - it is the USA's action that will begin to save the future... if we make us all undertake the changes that the future demands of us.

      If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. Thomas Paine

      by WestCider on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:17:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The warning signs... (22+ / 0-)

    ...have been ignored, for decades now.

    We are in the ending period.  It is hard to keep moving beyond the waves of grief.

    Will we make this the Greatest Story Ever Told?  Or will it be the Saddest Story Ever Told?  I fear the latter, and while I fully intend to go down fighting, I have resigned myself as much as possible to the likely fate of our species.

    My daughter is eight.  She doesn't know yet that she may not see an adulthood where her children can play.

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

    by WarrenS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:23:48 AM PDT

    •  i will be with you fighting Warren...we just (9+ / 0-)

      need more to join us.

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:27:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can only keep thinking ... (9+ / 0-)

      I remember first hearing warnings about global warming -- then referred to more as the Greenhouse Effect -- something like thirty to thirty-five years ago.

      And NOTHING was done.  For over thirty years.  Until now it is at the "too late" point.

      In the last thirty years my idealism about the human race has plummeted.

      •  I'm 40'ish. It was clearly explained in (5+ / 0-)

        my 8th Grade science text.

        "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

        by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:36:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I had good science teachers (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VL Baker, JesseCW, niemann

          who taught about this problem in the early 1970's. That means 40 years ago!

          This exact same process of denial went on for decades about smoking. The facts were known (intuitively if not statistically) over 50 years ago. In the early 1990's I was still working in a building that allowed smoking inside! With no windows that opened, recirculated air. Jeez.

          Two things that prevent (or slow down) change are Big Money, and addictions.

          Where in the Constitution does it say: "...on behalf of corporate interests" ???

          by sillia on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 06:42:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The facts were clear in the early 50's on smoking (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            niemann, sillia

            I'm talking multiple long term studies.

            "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

            by JesseCW on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 09:04:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Amazing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VL Baker

              I was circulating a petition against smoking in our building and was called a Nazi (and other bad things behind my back) 40 years after the facts were clear!!!!!!?????!!!!!!!

              I didn't take it personally, nor did I think these people were ignorant, I knew they were so addicted that nothing else mattered. It took the government (in this case, the state gov't) stepping in and mandating smoke-free buildings--this was a SCHOOL by the way--to change this.

              Now, how do we deal with the oil addiction?

              Where in the Constitution does it say: "...on behalf of corporate interests" ???

              by sillia on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:47:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Not exactly nothing (6+ / 0-)

        Just not enough. And especially not enough here in the US. Other countries, including China, are eating our lunch in some respects.
        However, things have changed.

        The elective car used to be an eperimental concept, now it's a viable consumer choice.
        More and more power is coming from wind and solar.
        "Car culture" is eventually going change drastically. There's already buzz about the dramatic decline in car ownership by younger demographics; and concepts like Zipcar and Uber and going to have a huge impact.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:38:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not "nothing", exactly. In 1978 the widely-adopted (7+ / 0-)

        ban on fluorocarbons was enacted.

        Starting October 15, 1978, manufacturers of bulk fluorocarbons can no longer make them for use in most aerosol products. The other steps in the phaseout are an end to the manufacture of spray products containing fluorocarbons on December 15, 1978, and a ban on interstate shipment of existing stocks of these products on April 15, 1979. Products already on the shelf or in comercial distribution after April 15, 1979 may continue to be sold until depleted.
        That also encompassed refrigerants (e.g. Freon) and other materials.

        So there was a degree of awareness, and thankfully no tea-bagging psycho-kooks like Michele Bachmann leading the "FLUOROCARBONS = USA FREEDUMZ" charge.

        If Rahm gassed Springfield would we bomb Daley Center?

        by here4tehbeer on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:42:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          here4tehbeer, WarrenS, niemann

          Forgot about those. And your comment also sparked recollection of the changes with light bulbs we've been through.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 01:58:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I laughed after I posted my reply and the page (5+ / 0-)

            scrolled up to reveal your previous "Not exactly nothing" subject.  We were obviously thinking along the same lines :)

            I remember the freon / aerosol ban well.  The media portrayed it as a gaping hole in the ozone layer that would either "let all the bad stuff in" or "let all the good stuff out" depending on what channel you were watching at the time.

            Also around that time -- I think a few years earlier -- was the switch to unleaded gasoline (part of the Clean Air Act as I recall).

            And don't forget things like "Acid Rain" that plagued Ohio / Michigan / Pennsylvania / West Virginia, etc.

            Lots of good times back in the Nixon era :)

            If Rahm gassed Springfield would we bomb Daley Center?

            by here4tehbeer on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:20:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  BTW... (8+ / 0-)

    ...I corrected tags to reflect the right spelling of Pachauri's name.  When you get a chance you might do that in the text also.

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

    by WarrenS on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:30:21 AM PDT

  •  Making "Meat" the number one issue is (11+ / 0-)

    not going to get you taken seriously.

    Also, feeding the livestock better, and recovering methane as best you can in the process, can greatly reduce the impact of "meat" while still allowing people to get their protein.

    Meantime, back at the coal fired power plants, and gasoline vehicles, we have alternatives to reduce/eliminate the CO2 problem which accounts for the bulk of our negative impacts.

    Electric vehicles, solar/wind/geothermal heating/cooling of homes and buildings, sequester CO2 exhaust from power plants, alter our agriculture and livestock methods combined with seeding the upper atmosphere with particulate pollution to block a % of the Sun's energy globally..... we have an array of actions that we can take to stop and reverse the trend... but the time has come.

    If Exxon/Mobil and the others and their politician pets refuse to act, then they have to GO.

    •  click the link for 'many ways' will help you (10+ / 0-)

      to understand

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:47:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What I'm really worried about (11+ / 0-)

      Even if we make deep cuts in civilian consumption, the world's militaries will still be drinking deep of oil and gas.

      I don't know how to stop that.

      The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:58:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, we have to work to change policy but (7+ / 0-)

        while we are working to do that we can change our consumption which in turn influences market and policy. Walk and chew gum at the same time is what we have to do now.  Being part of solution helps with anxiety

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:03:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The bottom 50% have some 13% of the income. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soarbird, RichM

          How it's spent doesn't do much to alter markets or policy.

          It's very, very dangerous to think that "little personal steps" can alleviate the problem.  Sometimes, anxiety serves a purpose in making us confront real dangers, and forcing us to take serious risks to remove them.

          "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

          by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:49:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, then take major steps (5+ / 0-)

            The point VL Baker is trying to make is that this problem isn't going to solve itself. Get off your ass and do something. Do a little thing if that's all you can do, but do something! No use sitting around waiting for a revolution to save the world when the whole world is crumbling all around you.

            It's amazing the amount of finger pointing people will do to save themselves from having to take one bit of personal responsibility. IMHO that's what's dangerous.

            "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

            by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:08:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  One of the easiest 'do somethings' (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VL Baker, LakeSuperior

              is 'not doing' -- not eating as much meat. There's absolutely no downside!

              "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 Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:22:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Time to put the military and war on a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Jester, SouthernLiberalinMD

        greenhouse gas emission budget.

      •  the US military (5+ / 0-)

        is doing more than the private sector.  They are serious about waging war, and they know logistically, the places they need to fight, they need to be able to fight without long supply lines of incredibly expensive fuels.

        •  I'm aware of this, actually. and kudos to them-- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VL Baker

          but they're starting from, uh, a very long way from where they need to be. Not really their fault; they're a late 20th-century military, for the most part. That means lots of oil.

          The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 06:39:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  we are all starting a very long way (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SouthernLiberalinMD

            from where we need to be.  The real difference between the US military and the private sector, is they have started.  By and large the private sector is talking about starting.

            Each year our military will use less oil, major solar installations are going in to provide bases with power, many vehicles, planes, ships are converting to other means of fuelr, field equipment runs on solar to some extent already. Other than being starved out of buying power, can we really say the same for consumers, and major industries?

            I think it is a symptom of being left behind.   Less money, less education, less technology, less of everything for ordinary people who will become increasingly impoverished while our military, mercenaries to the multinationals, and a select fewothers,  move on.

    •  Environmentalists can't deny that meat is part (12+ / 0-)

      of the problem. A huge part of it. From Forbes Magazine.

      A widely cited 2006 report estimated that 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions were attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs and poultry. However, analysis performed by Goodland, with co-writer Jeff Anhang, an environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, found that figure to now more accurately be 51%.

      Consequently, state the pair, replacing livestock products with meat alternatives would “have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations — and thus on the rate the climate is warming — than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.”

      Anyone serious about the environment can no longer ignore the massive role meat production plays in contributing to climate change. A UN report concluded  that it produces more greenhouse gasses than driving cars. People can get protein in much more efficient ways than 20lbs of grain  and 1,800 gallons of water per pound of beef.
      Extensive cattle ranching is the number one culprit of deforestation in virtually every Amazon country, and it accounts for 80% of current deforestation (Nepstad et al. 2008)
      Here's what that looks like just over a 10 year space of time:

      To refuse to believe that meat production is not an important part of climate change is a good way to get yourself not taken seriously. You're just ignoring the evidence.

      "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

      by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:22:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Feeding grain to cattle is stupid. (6+ / 0-)

        We can eat grain.

        We can't, however, eat grass.

        "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

        by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:57:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do not believe anything the World Bank says (0+ / 0-)
        ...Jeff Anhang, an environmental specialist at the World Bank...
        The WB thinks "pushing labor markets down and workers out" is "essential in all areas of the world." A tool of the vampire capitalist superpowers, the intention of its policies is to impoverish billions and enrich its cronies. All through the magic of "free trade" which they won't admit isn't free; it's rigged. Anything one of the WB's specialists says should be looked upon with many grains of salt.

        I thought I was poor because I owned no shoes; then I met a CEO who owned no Congressman.

        by Mike732 on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:37:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about when they agree with climate scientists? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VL Baker, Crider

          Are we just supposed to pretend that they're wrong all the time based on your say-so? If you have evidence to disprove my link please show it.

          "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

          by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:09:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That UN report you linked to with the UN Food (0+ / 0-)

        and Agriculture does not provide access to the complete report.   The link only provides the table of contents and
        summaries, not the full report.

        Also, there is this from the American Meat Institute:

        http://www.meatami.com/...

        One of the problems with the UN Food and Agriculture report is that it is not very useful to evaluating energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing beef as it is predominately carried out in the United States.

        •  The UN link provides a article with a summary (4+ / 0-)

          of the findings. I'm sure you can find the report if you're interested in diving deep into it, but I doubt that is your aim if you're counterargument is a link to a the meat lobbying organization the American Meat Institute.

          Your consistent attempts to punch holes into any argument for climate change are duly noted. Correcting inaccuracies is one thing, but implying that a UN Report is less reputable than the American Meat Institute is laughable. Maybe the admins can sort this out.

          "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

          by Jason Hackman on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:33:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm inclined to rec this, but... (5+ / 0-)

      Meat should be #1, or at least in the top 5.

      Agriculture dominates the way mankind relates to the ecosystems we need to survive. And modern industrial agriculture expends entirely too much energy producing food for animals kept in unnatural conditions. To produce this much "food" (much of it not even digestible by the intended recipients), modern agriculture destroys ecosystems on a scale last seen by glaciers.

      Getting meat "right" by deprioritizing its production in favor of utilizing domesticated species in integrated agroecosystems for the services they can provide is absolutely important.

    •  It's one of the largest factors in climate change. (8+ / 0-)

      Why wouldn't one take it seriously? If you're going to be intellectually honest about what's causing climate change, you can't ignore it.

      Feeding livestock better and recovering methane would help, but those steps would only make a small dent in the problem. Besides methane production, some of the main reasons that growing animals for meat leads to climate change include:
      * deforestation and re-purposing of land to grow animals,
      * deforestation and re-purposing of land to grow grain for animals,
      * diversion of water to support animals,
      * diversion of water to grow grain crops for animals,
      * energy-intensive production of fertilizer to grow grain crops for animals,
      * pollution from animal operations disrupting other parts of the ecosystem.

      •  Growing animals for meat doesn't always (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Jester, DawnN

        lead to disaster.

        This is exactly what The Jester is talking about.

        Raising animals industrially for a culture that demands high quantities of meat more than once daily (daily is already too much) causes problems.

        Raising animals in integrated agroecosystems does not.

        Research has shown:

        Overall, methane emissions from bison, elk, and deer in the pre-settlement period in the contiguous United States were about 70% (medium bison population size) of the current emissions from farmed ruminants in the U.S.;
        Emphasis added.

        If we were to allow wild herds of ruminants to return to their former numbers, we would still be facing a "methane bomb" or whatever it is folks want to use to scare others about livestock ALWAYS causing damage.

        I've also written extensively here about how livestock are not always a problem and how raising them in other ways can reverse every single one of the items you listed as them always causing.

        Which is in no way a "small dent."

        •  Yes, thankyou. We KNOW how to do it right.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DawnN, FinchJ

          Corporations taking short cuts and just not giving a shit are at fault here.

          It is a shining example of what REGULATIONS and laws are for, to force the otherwise cheapskate businesses to do the right thing the right way.

          Sure, the costs will go up, but not by enough to be an impediment. Just raise and feed the livestock correctly using our best concepts.... we can meet our need for food while being responsible to the environment.

          But corporation control and self-regulation has proven they can't even keep e-coli out of the vegetables or fruit, never mind minimize CH4 production.

          It may mean doing things a different way, but humans are very flexible, so long as we still get fed. :P

        •  Pre-settlement period, it said (0+ / 0-)

          A rather important distinction, doncha think?

          "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 Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:29:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How so? (0+ / 0-)

            Those that intend to end the raising of livestock will do what with the grasslands they came from?

            Should the grasslands be left devoid of ruminant herbivores to avoid methane emissions?

            What do you do with the land once the animals are gone?

            Do you know what happens to grasslands when they are devoid of ruminant herbivores?

            Also, you may want to check out what Bill McKibben said about raising animals this way. Or what the UN has to say about agroecology. Or pay attention to the farmers all over the world who are using these methods to restore ecosystem services on small to massive scales.

    •  Going after meat will doom us without doubt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chancew, Susan G in MN

      Telling people to relearn life without a dependence on fossil fuels is going to be hard enough. To tell them no meat would be to confirm almost every stereotype about those who are the most environmentally conscious and ensure allies become enemies.

      If you don't want to eat meat, fine. But stop trying to dictate other people's diet. It is already hard enough for many folks to eat a proper diet.

      The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

      by sebastianguy99 on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:10:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I truly hope his clock is not slow by 5 minutes (11+ / 0-)

    Otherwise we will go back to the stone age or worse.

    But heck let's use our proverbial hammer to hit the Syrian nail.

    I'm sure the Koch brothers have a plan for when the clock strikes midnight.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:48:06 AM PDT

  •  We have five minutes? (13+ / 0-)

    This is actually good news to me.

    Which should tell you about the shadow that lies on my heart every morning.

    The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:56:20 AM PDT

  •  Alas, I do not believe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    txcatlin, maryabein

    that the movers and shakers of this world — the corporate profiteers and their political lackeys — will give a rat's ass about this pronouncement. There's still short-term money to suck up, privileged enclaves to build… damn.

    •  they want it to happen (4+ / 0-)

      once the rest of us die off, there will be more wealth, more natural resources, for them.

      They're planning to hole themselves up in private fortresses, with private stocks of food, water, air, medical care, and all the creature comforts, while they pit the rest of us against each other in a battle to the death for the scraps of the scraps of the scraps. And after the 99% have whittled each other down sufficiently, the 1% will come out and remake the world in their image.

      Climate change is the ultimate opportunity for the disaster capitalists, and they've already figured out how to make the most of it.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:21:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So Many People WON'T Believe... (6+ / 0-)

    Just today I read a post by an individual who was a consultant out of Dallas who claimed the oceans are not rising and linked to all these fringe websites that interestingly never provide citations for their frantic denials and claims of conspiracy.

    There are many many people whose minds are so small, they cannot understand how small and fragile our earth is.  In all the pictures taken from the space station, you see this little haze above the earth -- that is the whole atmosphere, that thin layer (as Al Gore said, like the skin of an apple).  

    They also do not understand how frail and dependent on favorable conditions our human civilization is.  

    -9.00, -5.85
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

    by Wintermute on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:36:38 AM PDT

  •  I am not surprised when (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, boji, marina

    "low information" tv viewers parrot Fox News, but it is really disheartening when I hear intelligent and well educated people affirm that there is no climate change, or if there is it is  not caused by human activity.  The period from 2008 to the present has been really devastating for pushback and disinformation from the fossil fuel barons and people who represent them.

  •  Major plank in GOP platform....Climate Change is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boji

    BUNK!

  •  It would appear that the major powers are (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boatsie, marina

    willing to "shed" a sizable portion of the population.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:58:53 AM PDT

    •  If the population keeps being (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      the fan man, VL Baker

      helpless and hopeless they are collaborating in their demise.  I cannot believe the level of apathy here- it's toooo laaate. They're toooo powerfuuuul!  Fine, start building your bunker.  

      Thank God there are still people with the energy to act.

      I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

      by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:04:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, but I also agree it's too late to save (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        I love OCD, maryabein, DawnN

        "everyone". We're all ready losing numbers in extreme CC weather events. So the question is: do we work together to make this transition as compassionate and inclusive as possible or leave it to govts to make draconian decisions.  (You'll have to excuse me for the pessimism, recent world events have me thinking we do not have it together enough to act appropriately. I'm working on "realistic optimism".)

        Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

        by the fan man on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:20:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm going for irrational exuberance. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          the fan man, DawnN

          Really, we have the numbers and the expertise, all we lack is the will.  I'm done with "We're doooomed!"  So we're the Cuyahoga River, Lake Michigan, and San Francisco Bay.  Committed individuals are restoring all 3.  If there's a dirty river in your town, clean it up.  If private utilities are making 35 million a year off your town, stop them.  If you live in a sunny state install solar panels and force your utility to buy power from you.  It's not easy but it beats the hell out of moaning and waiting for some Savior.

          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

          by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:43:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In fairness I have to say I'm (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            the fan man, DawnN

            blessed to live in a town with an active community, so it's easier to stop Big Box stores, huge developments, and water thieves.  I am currently organizing a local push for solar, and rainwater catchment.  No one in Texas should be dependent on any power but the sun, everyone should be catching rain and recycling gray water.

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:47:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  population contribution to climate change (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, CupaJoe, marina, denise b

      always the elephant in living room in negotiations.  population dynamics and impact on biodiversity are so key to sustainable development and yet yes, some ways it feels as if they see this unparalleled disaster as the answer to cutting back on our GHGs

  •  for some countries midnight has already passed (5+ / 0-)

    and the saddest thing is that these are the poorest with the most 'inconsequential' voices.

    Even now that the battlecry is gaining momentum in the US, now that impacts of climate change are being felt in the US, that doesn't have any impact on how the US will act in internatinal negotiations which call upon us to put in our part towards helping least developed countries and small island developing states adapt (unless of course we can find a way to make some money through some complex corporatized mitigation scheme) ...

    The major powers are all about making money out of a crisis. That mind set just hasn't become obsolete ...

    Watched film about the birth of the universe and parallel earths the other night and seeing the big picture, well....  god only knows who is informing their decisions.

  •  Eat less meat. And if you do eat meat, (4+ / 0-)

    do what you can to source from farmers who are working with integrated agroecological systems.

    Hell, if you eat, try to source from farmers who are working with integrated agroecological systems.

    It has been estimated that even as little as a 2% increase of global soil carbon would remove nearly 100ppm of carbon from the atmosphere.

    And 2% soil carbon is easy.

    I understand that for many, many people it is impossible to do otherwise than buy from the bottom shelf. I get that. But we need to have a comprehensive overhaul regarding how we relate to natural systems.

    We have the know how. What we don't have is increased government support AND the cultural shift that says we need to be willing to pay for good farmers to do their work.

    I've written here about a number of solutions- global and local (like, if you have a lawn, tear that shit up and change if you seriously think we have 5 minutes left)- that are cheap, effective, and win all around for humans and the ecosystems we rely upon to survive.

  •  population biology teaches us that populations (10+ / 0-)

    will grow exponentially when they have a surplus of food. Then when they consume it all, or if they produce too much waste, the population will crash and there will be a mass die-off.

    Human beings are just organisms like any other. And that's what's going to happen to us--what is happening to us--with respect to the climate crisis.

    Our folly lies in our vestigial belief that we are an order apart from the animals. It's reflected in religions (i.e. God created man in his own image, etc.)

    Humans are another kind of animal. The laws of biology apply to us too, and our belief that we are exceptional is what's keeping us from facing climate change with the urgency it demands.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:13:40 AM PDT

    •  For every population explosion.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CanisMaximus, too many people

      ...of any species that's happened, there's always been a correction to follow.

      Wait for it........

      I'm really pissed off this time

      by suspiciousmind on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:51:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, as I've said in NUMEROUS comments.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      too many people

      ...on the environment and climate:

      We are no better than a bacteria in an agar cup. As soon as we consume our resources, we die.
      I'd say we haven't come THAT far in 3 1/2 billion years or so. We're actually WORSE than bacteria. We can see what's coming and we mindlessly continue to "spend your weekly paycheck, and turn your eyes away."

      "Wealthy the Spirit which knows its own flight. Stealthy the Hunter who slays his own fright. Blessed is the Traveler who journeys the length of the Light."

      by CanisMaximus on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:46:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We will have to change the power grid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, DawnN

    in it's entirety, among other things. Moving to non-polluting alternatives definitely requires governments. I fear that by the time they get on board - only post costly catastrophic events - we're already cooked.

  •  One day, advocates will come to understand that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DawnN

    ...all of these dire warnings only resonate with the choir. For everyone else, it's an excuse to do nothing because it is already too late according to the people coming out with these warnings.

    A change in strategy is needed and it needs to be implemented before it really is too late. Play to what the public will accept in order to be more effective. The pro Keystone lobby sold it by selling jobs. It will not produce meaningful jobs, but that was the impression put in the public's mind and now the pipeline enjoys broad popular support.

    Learn from our enemies. Instead of selling climate change-sell jobs, energy independence and security. All the brainpower on the Left and we still haven't figured out that we have to be clever and market policies to a public that really doesn't want to make the effort.

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:18:26 AM PDT

  •  another war or two (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, AZ Sphinx Moth, DawnN

    ought to push us nicely past midnight.

    On to Syria!

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:35:12 AM PDT

  •  It's simultaneously 11:55 and 12:05 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DawnN

    We live in a world in which the powerful are primarily concerned with either getting (re)elected or protecting the Almighty Stock Market.  Anything that causes short- to mid-term sacrifice, for the sake of longer-term consequences, is shot down.  D.O.A., politically speaking.

    It is heartbreaking and maddening to see this unfold the way it is unfolding, but I truly believe it.  We are not, and will not be, the kind of species that gets it together and pulls a 11:55pm preventive heroic measure, self-sacrificing, together, for the sake of the next generations.  Even modest changes in this direction will be a huge political struggle.

    So if they are saying 9F temperature increase within the next 90 years, then that is likely what will happen.  And it seems like we're already moving (in progressive circles) toward a two-level conversation about climate change: the 11:55 conversation and the 12:05 conversation.  The need for preventive action and yet, also, the need for acknowledgment that the train has already left the station, that a continuation of the status quo is more likely, and the need to start planning accordingly when it comes to agriculture, urban planning, public health/disease, disaster relief, construction guidelines, and much more.  The 12:05 outlook.  I am sad to say this, both for a selfish reason as well as a global consciousness reason; selfish because the beaches of Cape Cod are one of my favorite places on Earth.  

    •  I like Mike Ruppert's analogy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Torta

      There are 3 types of people:
      1.  There are those who believe the Titanic is un-fucking-sinkable.

      2.  We have people running around in a panic/depression who are have given in to despair and will do nothing despite the sinking ship around them.

      3.  There are those who are saying 'let's build lifeboats'.

      We have too many 1 and 2s.  

      Honestly, while I would like to see an 11:55pm sudden break from what we've been doing for the last 40 years I doubt it is going to happen.  The best I can do, while the engine of destruction merrily chugs along, eating natural resources, and life in general as it goes, is to do my best to prepare for what comes after.

      I'm just getting involved in my Transition Town movement.  If we're going to survive I don't think trusting my fate to those who've ran every good thing we've had into the ground is going to cut it.  I've lived where I am a good chunk of my life, and it seems to me that while we all can and should fight the good fight to stop the destructive practices, stand up to corruption, and so on, building local resilience is no longer a quaint notion but a means of survival.

      "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

      by Sarenth on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:44:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why I'm pessimistic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DawnN

    Climate change effects lag the increase in CO2 by many many years. If we reduced CO2 emissions to the equilibrium point immediately, the CO2 already added will continue to increase the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere for decades to come and we will still feel the effects. Those effects include feedback loops that once triggered will cause mass extinction beyond our control.

    To prevent this catastrophe we likely need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But we aren't even talking about stopping the increase in CO2 levels for decades. Doing so would take a global effort that there is no evidence will take place. And that herculean effort is probably not sufficient to save us from the reaching the tipping point of positive feedback loops.

    We need to explore carbon sequestration and fund it like our lives depended on it. We need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which means sequestering more than we produce. Additionally, we need to develop a plan for reflecting the sun's energy out of the atmosphere to reduce heating. Painting rooftops white, covering Alaska with sheets, I don't know, but we're not going to make it if all we do is try to reduce emissions.

    There's a difference between a responsible gun owner and one that's been lucky so far.

    by BeerNotWar on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:02:13 PM PDT

  •  An extraordinarily-simple inquiry.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker, DawnN

    The planet is warming up.

    It is warming up because we are absorbing solar heat faster than we can get rid of it --- and this is because of the mess we've already made:  Of the air; of the water; of the land.

    Are the climatologists actually suggesting that things like "carbon neutrality" and the like will reverse this process?  That "refraining from drilling more holes in the leaky boat will stop the inflow of water?"

    As I look at this, the only rational conclusion I can come to is that stopping every last detrimental act against this planet's environment will not reverse the current rate of deterioration.  If what we've done, to-date, has precipitated a warming rate that will --- by century's end --- put us at +9*F, then the only way to reverse that trend is to "negatively impact" the damage we've done.  That requires acid-extraction of the world's oceans, toxin-extraction from the planetary potable water supplies, atmosphere, and soil, and --- mathematically speaking --- tripling the Earth's current population of fully-mature deciduous trees.

    Making that happen, when those who depend on the status quo of the current global economy for their livelihoods are in the way, necessitates a singular course of action: Kill the global economy, and destroy all artificial value.

    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 03:01:44 PM PDT

  •  my superstition is that institutions are the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DawnN, OHeyeO

    malefactors - that systems like corporations & churches, & governments, evolve & become better at self-perpetuation. And that, therefore, the people that make them up are not necessarily morally blind or corrupt, but just tools or cogs, more or less formed &/or selected to fill the positions the system requires, at that time - if the institution needs executioners, there can always be found a willing hand for the trigger (or, when useful, bishops who will shuttle around priests who are bad for the churches' image).

    But this is a hopeful supposition, in that it indicates the fragility of the "higher" system. Just as bricks must be stronger than walls, & atoms stronger than molecules, the individual human is stronger & capable of more things than his/her particular niche in some hierarchic entity might show or suggest. Although those who rise to some rank in a hierarchy have power, it's borrowed power, & is only usable in the context of the organization. The individual is protean, & his energy is many-faceted.

    So the action taken by those citizens who leapfrogged over their power company, & forced their city to go to renewable energy sources, is exactly the mode I'd think could be the most fruitful. It will be almost impossible to beat the institutions at their own game. What is needed is the attitude that will take us beyond their structures - maybe financing co-ops that will help build or retrofit super insulated solar homes, locally made renewable source power, more conservation, public transit, advertising & P.R. work, etc.

    And eating less meat is also a way to avoid cancer.

     

    "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." - Isaac Asimov

    by greenotron on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:31:26 PM PDT

  •  Getting rid of meat? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think so.  However I think we can produce meat in a better way to reduce the damage to the environment.

    "Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine

    by liberalconservative on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:33:23 PM PDT

  •  Coudn't agree more! Single most powerful thing we (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker, Crider

    can do. The carbon footprint of Beef is ~30-40 fold that of lentils and wheat. Chicken still ~10 fold.
    http://www.treehugger.com/...
    Going veggie would dramatically cut down on carbon consumption. It would also dramatically increase overall health. Most infectious diseases are also due to the consumption of meat and could be eliminated by going vegetarian.

    •  Even going without meat 1, 2, or 3 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VL Baker, tari

      times a week brings a huge benefit to one's health in addition to cutting carbon emissions.

      "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 Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:47:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's how you get those asshats' attention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    Save the Beer!

    http://t.nbcnews.com/...

    "I Welcome Their Hatred." - FDR

    by dehrha02 on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:53:00 PM PDT

  •  the human species (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    is not intelligent, ethical, or moral enough to do the right thing when it comes to climate change, only when it is way too late will enough people on earth agree to act and the death warrant will have already been written.

  •  New diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:18:38 PM PDT

  •  RW radio, main denier, depends on universities for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    community credibility and ad dollars.

    the custom of universities taking a bit of money to allow those stations to stick their sports logos on the megaphones that yell denial all over the country cannot be tolerated in a country that MUST have a rational discussion about climate.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:27:40 PM PDT

  •  I know Maine is actually rising up out of the (0+ / 0-)

    Ocean.  It is still rebounding.  It is rebounding slower than the oceans is rising but that's a different story.

    During the last ice age the accumulated weight of the glaciers and ice caused the crust to subside.  So now with no glaciers and only seasonal snow the crust is rebounding upward.

    Soooo.

    What happens to the land mass under the Antarctic ice as it melts?  Is there likely to be any seismic activity created by such a large mass of land losing such an enormous weight in such a short time?

    Also too.  I would suspect that there will be a huge amount of silt and glacier dredged debris dumped into the very fertile seas around Antarctica.  What will happen to the krill and the food chain they nourish, etc.?

  •  I hope we have that long....n/t (0+ / 0-)

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:40:21 PM PDT

  •  Gotta Love The Passion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker, sillia

    of this discussion.  

    I always remember what David Brower said many years ago.

    "think globally, act locally".

    Unless we happen to be a member of the power class in society that is the least we can do. Can we agitate, cogitate and anyothertate we want and all are helpful, but don't ever feel hopeless or helpless about what we as individuals can do.  

    Don't stop doing it.....

    don't give up.......

     ever.  

    All of tonight suggestions will help also one way to act locally is to plant tree's the best C02 sequestration system EVER devised.

    Life is not a problem to be solved but an adventure to be experienced.

    by DarkHawk98 on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:12:30 PM PDT

  •  Environment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker, belinda ridgewood

    If we don't stop destroying the earth, all else won't matter.

  •  Pure propaganda is what most U.N _______ all offer (0+ / 0-)

    The worldwide global temp data as recorded by satellites has remained statistically level for last 12-15 years despite the steadily accelerating rise in CO2 levels.  Everyone acknowledges this fact, and the IPCC climate models have no wiggle room capability for explaining (fudging) this fact.

    Clearly the projected theoretical hypothesis for the coupling of CO2 levels with rising temps is not such a tight and oversimplified relationship as the IPCC brainwashed us into believing.  They are not tracking in lock step by any means, and no warmalarmists have produced plausible explanations for how this could be.

    All of a sudden we are hearing about things like increased northern hemisphere diesel engine soot deposited on arctic ice as a possible cause for accelerated melting.  We are hearing that the estimated numbers of ocean bottom volcanoes has recently been revised upward by an order of magnitude, and their activity has been increasing significantly in the Arctic and Greenland areas, which could be melting more Arctic ice from below.

    We are learning about the earths magnetic poles  showing signs of rapid and significant displacement heading toward possible rapid total pole reversal.

    So, the sky may not really be falling as fast and immanently as the U.N. Scientists suggest.  Sure we need to end our overuse of fossil fuels, yet how many of you know that Cold Fusion megawatt power generators are already  in production and being sold, which have ZERO CO2 footprint, ZERO toxic radiation, and yield energy at ~1/8 the price of fossil fuels?

    This is the most suppressed and most important news story in the world right now, that nobody has heard about.  The world needs launch a massive program to subsidize the transition to safe, cheap, cold fusion energy generation.

    http://coldfusionnow.org
    ECAT 1MW cold fusion plant =>
    http://ecat.com/...

    RRLedford

Meteor Blades, Thumb, Ed in Montana, Sylv, memiller, RF, grollen, Christin, Maxlongstreet, Gooserock, Danno11, Powered Grace, surfbird007, karlpk, alicia, Shockwave, Pescadero Bill, Wintermute, CupaJoe, kpardue, cotterperson, liz, eeff, dsb, hubcap, Creosote, silence, raines, 714day, Wee Mama, Agathena, Ignacio Magaloni, Torta, fumie, thea lake, Cedwyn, psnyder, i dont get it, yet another liberal, wordwraith, Oaktown Girl, JayDean, BoogieMama, marina, radarlady, corvo, basquebob, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, Tool, sillia, Alan Arizona, Land of Enchantment, Paul Ferguson, Keone Michaels, bastrop, The Wizard, Magnifico, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, A Siegel, Ashaman, gpoutney, Rosaura, boatsie, Turbonerd, onionjim, WarrenS, BeerNotWar, pfiore8, Debs2, Margfh, aravir, Wino, FishOutofWater, Mary Mike, HeartlandLiberal, Matt Z, certainot, joedemocrat, mudslide, millwood, carpunder, Assaf, poligirl, Sixty Something, Thomas Twinnings, limpidglass, bythesea, elwior, KJG52, Lujane, envwq, mofembot, petulans, doppler effect, maggiejean, soarbird, bleuet, Throw The Bums Out, DontTaseMeBro, nchristine, LinSea, don mikulecky, tari, maryabein, DefendOurConstitution, petral, asym, jfromga, citisven, parse this, LaughingPlanet, The Jester, angelajean, beverlywoods, Betty Pinson, Oh Mary Oh, soaglow, slice, Onomastic, annieli, I love OCD, slowbutsure, SoCaliana, marleycat, thomask, akmk, muddy boots, Grandma Susie, peregrine kate, Crider, SoCalSal, blackjackal, Regina in a Sears Kit House, SouthernLiberalinMD, DEMonrat ankle biter, No one gets out alive, Frank In WA, Laurel in CA, DawnN, anodnhajo, greenbastard, IndieGuy, AreDeutz, FloridaSNMOM, martinjedlicka, LittleSilver, belinda ridgewood, pdxteacher, New Minas, Glen The Plumber, Ramoth, RonK, AZ Sphinx Moth, James Wells, ShoshannaD, remembrance, Dan Schapiro, northerntier, boriskamite, Jason Hackman, martianexpatriate, julesrules39, Stentorian Tone, gnosticator

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site