How shall we run the 21st century?

A lot would have been 50% reduction of 1990 levels by today. But denialists like you avoided progress. I'm curious, how do you plan to pay for your years of stupidity ?

 

I unfortunately unblocked you since you have been replying on this thread a great deal.

Do you have trouble reading at a 4th grade level? I have helped promote both solar and wind and am responsible personally for a great deal of wind being installed in texas. I am not a member of congress, but like Hansen thought the pork laden pro coal tax and cap plan was flawed. It locked in more coal pollution than we are likely to see now without it. Since it failed in congress, the US has reduced ghg emissions at a greater rate than predicted if the law had passed.

What in the hell do you think is "denalist" about working for a better environment. How much wind or solar have you gotten business or people to install? How many environmental conferences have you attended. If pointing out failures of reason makes me a "denialist" how do the advocates do it? There is no reason to have to believe in 6 meter sea level rises by 2100 to reduce coal pollution, and install renewables. There is no reason that you have to believe that the himilayan glaciers will all melt in 35 years, to try to help push fracking to be more environmentally responsible. When I was at the environmental conference SXSW eco 2 weeks ago no one told me I was a denier, but people did ask me what we could do to roll out some good programs to other states Hmm, I guess your idealogy just makes you advocate for more pollution. Didn't you say that you weren't going to install solar because it might cost you a little more money?

How in the hell did I screw up the world so much in 1993? The government in the 70s passed laws to favor building coal, the most coal favorable, was under a democratic president and congress. In 1993, I was interested in the environment, but much too young to vote. My grandfather was planting thousands of trees to green the earth. Clinton/Gore were running the country with a democratic congress. Yet somehow not fixing the problem then was my fault? Not the Democrats and Republicans in congress, and that were presidents? Not the people of at least voting age? A kid growing up who later volunteered for environmental organizations in high school and college is the guy responsible for building all the old coal plants, and their pollution? If I deny this clearly distorted view of the world you have, I guess I am a denier.

I guess what you hate is that I am libertarian, with the desire of some government to provide egalitarian opportunities, and am not a democrat or republican. I don't like the idea of goldman sacks and duke energy making money to not reduce ghg as fast as they should. I guess if I was installing coal plants but supported cap and trade that would make me a better person in your eyes, because its belief not action or facts that are important.

I can understand why you may not have time to work with environmental groups or with government, but do no criticize those of us trying to make a difference because we don't believe fairy tales. I do not believe that if the congress had passed kyoto that it would have prevented Sandy. I do believe that the european cap and trade is a failed system, but there are ways to fix it. What do you believe, that if you are a democrat, you help the environment? OK you are back on my ignore setting, but please tell the others what you have done to reduce ghg in your community, state, or world.

 

I don't agree with the metaphor
snopes.com: Slow Boiled Frog
....... but I agree with the premise.
What I find frustrating is that both polarities continue to worry about carbon dioxide. If we simply use less carbon fuel we don't even have to worry about carbon dioxide. CO2 at a minimum are agreed upon by both polarities as being collateral to burning carbon fuel . Both sides want to have as much ammo against the other side though ... and so carbon dioxide continues to be a focal point. Imo, CO2 is simply a red herring that we refuse to get past .... just like so many other issues. Use less carbon fuel and you don't have to worry about co2. But we can't even get the former correct.
That said - back to the op .... " how Shall we run the 21st century".
History shows exactly how we will run it. The Incas - Egyptians - Babylonians - Romans - Greeks etc .... Given enough time, history repeats itself. How many times have I heard the rhetorical question said here on PC, "are people so arrogant to think that we can effect climate? "
Who cares. All you gotta do is look at all the great cultures / civilizations of the world to realize that we can't even affect our own behavior very much. So based on our predecessors the obvious answer to the OP is, " more of the same ". It doesn't mean I give up just because the game is rigged. It doesn't mean I can't be a good cheerleader for morals that I know are correct and good. Now, on that happy note ... where did I put those pom poms.

 

No. I think I mentioned that I have:

• invested $15k in PV equal to about 5 kW;
• that I have reduced my home electric to about 100 kwh a month;
• that I pay a surcharge to my local utility to supply 90% of my electricity from green energy over and above the state RPS;
• that I encourage interior light conservation at work that saves a couple hundred kWh a month;
• and that I am well on my way to reducing my home NG use over 50% this year.
• that my wife is vegetarian and I am vegan.

All told, my clean energy production steps make me ~ net carbon neutral compared to our carbon use in home, diet, and transport.


I think it is time for you to repeat kindergarten.

 

Absolutely Hill, absolutely. When we put this as we need to do this to prevent the next hurricane sandy (billionare bloomberg's message) or NYC going under water (super rich gore), this can be debunked, by misinformation - all the warming is natural (billionaire koch brothers), all we have to do is use biofuels to stop warming (ADM). They all buy politicians to put out their message.

There are 6 major sources of power coal, oil, natural gas, biofuels, nuclear, renewables. There is wide disagreement about biofuels, natural gas, and nuclear, but wide agreement about coal, oil, and renewables. Instead of a ghg message, the easiest thing to do politically would be to reduce oil and coal. These are clean stories if done by themselves.

Oil - not only is it getting more expensive and scarce, but it is controlled by a cartel that does not like the american way of life. Reducing it, enhances both economic and national security.

Coal - not only does it produce the ugly smog that you can see, it has unhealthy exhaust full of carcinagens like mercury and small particulates as well as NOx and SOx.. If you are selling reducion of coal this way though, you need to allow new plants that reduce these pollutants enough, and that probably means coal tax ($50/ton) and epa regulations.

People are so arogant to believe they will have cheap resources forever. People are so arrogant that they allow awful health consequences just so a few people can profit. I'm looking at you dead former klansman and huge coal advocate Senator Bird. He was one of the worst in government.

1) If you act like a model, some people will follow you - Hill with your solar panels and bev, you seem to be doing your part. I'm sure you have gotten at least some in your circle to advocate for less ghg in electricity, and for plug-in cars. If everyone takes small steps, we can move the world.

2) Pachurri and Gore could be as bad for the environmental movement as the koch brothers. Be constructive and not destructive. If someone doesn't believe solar should be subsidized they are likely right, but... the government seems to hurt it with its other hand by regulating it to be more expensive, lets get rid of the subsidy and the red tape, but as long as there is red tape, don't fight the subsidy. When they talk about the subsidy for your plug-in and get mad, ask them about the subsidies for oil. Don't fight over ghg, especially if you can talk to them about how great electric driving and solar fuel is.

3) Compromise. 350.org was great at getting grass routes and young people involved, but many look like the tea party, fighting everything, and getting nothing done but symbolic protests that hinders progress. How about keystone and an oil tax? How about safer fracking instead of no fracking? There is a lot of common ground out there.