This is a guest post by noted NASA climate scientist James Hansen. It has also been submitted to the Observer.
——-
Over a year ago I wrote to Prime Minister Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd, and other world leaders. The reason is this—coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet.
Our global climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear, and there is potential for explosive changes with effects that would be irreversible—if we do not rapidly slow fossil fuel emissions over the next few decades.
Tipping points are fed by amplifying feedbacks. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As tundra melts, methane—a strong greenhouse gas—is released, causing more warming. As species are pressured and exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.
The public, buffeted by day-to-day weather fluctuations and economic turmoil, has little time or training to analyze decadal changes. How can they be expected to evaluate and filter out advice emanating from special economic interests? How can they distinguish top-notch science and pseudoscience—the words sound the same?
Leaders have no excuse—they are elected to lead and to protect the public and its best interests. Leaders have at their disposal the best scientific organizations in the world, such as the United Kingdom’s Royal Society and the United States National Academy of Sciences. Only in the past few years did the science crystallize, revealing the urgency.
Our planet really is in peril. If we do not change course soon, we will hand our children a situation that is out of their control, as amplifying feedbacks drive the dynamics of the global system.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has already risen to a dangerous level. The pre- industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 parts per million (ppm). Humans, by burning coal, oil, and gas have increased carbon dioxide to 385 ppm, and it continues to grow by about 2 ppm per year.
Earth, with its four kilometer deep ocean, responds only slowly to changes of carbon dioxide. So more climate change will occur, even if we make maximum effort to slow carbon dioxide growth. Arctic sea ice will disappear in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear—practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years, if carbon dioxide continues to increase at current rates. Coral reefs, harboring a quarter of ocean species, are threatened, if carbon dioxide continues to rise.
The greatest threats, hanging like the sword of Damocles over our children and grandchildren, are those that are irreversible on any time scale humans can imagine. If coastal ice shelves buttressing the West Antarctic ice sheet continue to disintegrate, the ice sheet could disgorge into the ocean, raising sea level by several meters in a century. Such rates of sea level change have occurred many times in Earth’s history in response to global warming rates no higher than that of the past thirty years. Almost half of the world’s great cities, and many historical sites, are located on coast lines.
The most threatening change, from my perspective, is extermination of species. Several times in Earth’s long history rapid global warming of several degrees occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species went extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine. If we drive our fellow species to extinction we will leave a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world we inherited from our elders. We will leave a world haunted by the memories of what was.
Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 meters higher. Coastal disasters would occur continually. The only uncertainty is the time it would take for complete ice sheet disintegration.
The tragedy of the situation, if we do not wake up in time, is that the changes that must be made to stabilize the atmosphere and climate make sense for other reasons. The changes would produce a healthier atmosphere, improved agricultural productivity, clean water, and an ocean providing fish that are safe to eat.
Actions required to solve the problem are dictated by physical facts, especially fossil fuel reservoir sizes. About half of readily extracted oil has been burned already. Oil is used in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture the carbon dioxide. Oil and gas will drive carbon dioxide to at least 400 ppm. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide, coal, it will be practical to bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm and still lower through improved agricultural and forestry practices that increase carbon storage in trees and soil.
Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world’s oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic, and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick governments play on their citizens is the pretense that they are working on "clean coal" or that they will build power plants that are "capture ready" in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants. The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for extermination of about 400 species—its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm. Of course, we cannot say which specific species should be blamed on Kingsnorth, but who are we to say that any species are worthless?
The German and Australian governments pretend to be green. When I show German officials that fossil fuel reservoir sizes imply that the coal source must be cut off, they say they will tighten the "carbon cap." But a cap only slows the use of a fuel, it does not leave it in the ground. When I point out that their new coal plants require that they convince Russia to leave its oil in the ground, they are silent. The Australian government was elected on a platform of solving the climate problem, but then, with the help of industry, they set emission targets so high as to guarantee untold disasters for the young and the unborn. These governments are not green. They are black—coal black.
On a per capita basis, the three countries most responsible for fossil fuel carbon dioxide in the air today are the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany, in that order. Politicians in Britain have asked me: why am I speaking to them? The United States must lead! But coal interests have great power in the United States—the essential moratorium and phase-out of coal likely requires a growing public demand and a political will yet to be demonstrated.
The Prime Minister should not underestimate his potential to initiate a transformative change of direction. And he must not pretend to be ignorant of the consequences of continuing coal emission, or take refuge in a "carbon cap" or some "target" for future emission reductions. Young people are beginning to understand the situation. They want to know: will you join their side? Remember that history, and your children, will judge you.
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Comments
View as Flat
Ted Clayton Posted 7:51 am
16 Feb 2009
Hansen has personally harangued our new President with another letter of similar intent to this one, expounding on the necessity of his own preference in carbon-control tactics (Carbon Tax), in direct conflict with the President's widely-publicized choice of Cap n' Trade.
To play the role that Dr. Hansen has signaled he believes to be rightfully his, the man ought to run for public office, duke it out with his nearest analog, Ralph Nader, and take his lumps.
You will notice that Obama has given no notice of Hansen's antics (ill manners, conceit, grandeur, etc.).
Dr. Hansen has earned my irritation, and I strongly suspect that is the accord he receives from various world leader who are the object of his puerile attention.
Science does not operate well, as a personality cult, and Dr. Hansen stands as living proof.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:57 am
16 Feb 2009
We Yanks can advocate UK revolution and they can advocate US revolution -- all legal, all good, all necessary if the president and PM can not come to terms for a civilized future.
The enemy is domestic, a clear and present danger.
Mr. President and PM, rsvp.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:58 am
16 Feb 2009
We Yanks can advocate UK revolution and they can advocate US revolution -- all legal, all good, all necessary if the president and PM can not come to terms for a civilized future.
The enemy is domestic, a clear and present danger.
Mr. President and PM, rsvp.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 11:51 am
16 Feb 2009
How much stomach Jim Hansen or Al Gore or other climate-luminaries would have for it, seems doubtful.
And the next Pew Survey, ranking public estimation of social issues, would probably have something to say on climate-change as the set-up for revolution.
Be sure to read some of the many colorful comments on the Observer's post of Dr. Hansen's letter ... before leaning to heavily on your erstwhile British comrades.
Revolution, eh?
Permalink
Anthony Posted 12:04 pm
16 Feb 2009
I like the simplicity of a carbon tax, preferably at the wellhead or mine-head. Cap and trade is complex and therefore has holes. If you raise taxes through a carbon tax or through cap and trade auctions, then other taxes should be reduced.
I am entitled to express my opinion and James Hansen is entitled to express his. Although he does have more creditability. It is because his scientific arguments are so sound that he is personally attacked.
I came, I saw, I cried
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:27 pm
16 Feb 2009
Permalink
christophersj Posted 12:37 pm
16 Feb 2009
My, you're walking on pins and needles aren't you?
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 1:31 pm
16 Feb 2009
Pins & needles? I'm fairly relaxed (and will be off to bed soon): Maybe what is affecting your perception is, that Hansen is an easy topic for me to respond to, since he appears to be reprising Sampson in the Temple (pulling the roof down on Greens' heads) ... and talk of revolution, well how tough is that to take a position on?
I wasn't really a Hippie, christophersj, just as I really ain't a Green, and for largely the same reasons having to do with my temperament & psyche ... but in both cases there are large & important areas of shared interest for me (and you). I will never be an ordained member, but I can be a very useful participant.
The Hippie mantra was, you'll recall, "Peace, Love, Dope". It was fatal to them, ya know - the dope part. Greens likewise have no immunity to folly.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 1:56 pm
16 Feb 2009
I took a walk through a stack of reviews for Dr. Ward's book. I dearly love paleontology, and will spend some more time on Green Sky.
He's doing fine with his geological climate-change theme, until he transfers it to the Pleistocene (Ice Ages). We are clearly in the tail-end part of a conventional (~10,000 year) Interglacial, following a conventional ~100,000 Glacial episode. This entire 2 million year (rather young, brief) Pleisto-period is marked by dozens of radical transitions to colder & warmer regimes. I don't think Ward's interesting deep-geology themes transfer well to the earth's current situation.
Are Dr. Ward's dire conclusions about our current prospects taken as the justification for 'positive action'? I can understand a sense of responsibility, that one act in the face of what he/she believes to be eminent danger ... even to the unwary & dismissive.
However, I think the record shows 'revolutionary' approaches to acute social stressors are less effective or successful than 'evolutionary' processes. Do you perhaps have a further reference?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:28 pm
16 Feb 2009
Ted meet jab, jab...Ted.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 1:47 am
17 Feb 2009
Diversity is a good thing - out in the bushes, and in social circles too. A blog with long, uniform rows of tassle-heads all nodding gently in unison - that's just a people-version of Monsanto's impoverished corn monoculture, isn't it?
Northern Wisconsin I see ... they're still putting out some traplines there, are they? ;)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:57 am
17 Feb 2009
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 2:44 am
17 Feb 2009
Some of those pins & needles, maybe...
Permalink
GreenHearted Posted 3:36 am
17 Feb 2009
I've heard it said that our culture's "terror" in the face of our own death and mortality makes it impossible for most people to face what we're doing to the planet -- what we're doing to all future generations. This then plays out in irrelevant and unloving castigation of the messenger.
As a teacher, I am bound by law (at least in Canada) to report any suspicion of child abuse. It is not for me to decide if the suspicion should be investigated -- I MUST report.
James Hansen's defence (indeed, his gift) is that he is willing to speak out on behalf of the children -- he understands all too well that this abuse is more than suspicion. I call what we're doing "progenycide." And we're either committing it or trying to stop it. Pick a side. You're either for the children (and their right to a healthy and habitable planet when they're our age) or you're against them. It just isn't about James Hansen.
For the Earth, the Future, and the Children of All Species,
Julie Johnston
greenhearted.org
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 4:22 am
17 Feb 2009
I am sure that being involved has more potential - for us individually and as a group - than being a passive reader.
There is of course nothing feeble or warped about my response(s) to children.
Although Dr. Hansen does work well as an inspiration to many - as you testify - he does not appear to work the same way with the President and other leaders. His actions are jeopardizing & complicating the Green-intentions that Obama (and allies) brought to his new Office.
Others before me have noted, that the schism between the Cap n' Trade camp and the Carbon Tax camp raises & reinforces the possibility that the carbon dioxide concern will receive no action whatsoever.
Dr. Hansen's activities - cheering on the Tax-camp in opposition to the President (and carrying his personal campaign around the globe) are the primary wedge opening that schism.
If Obama's administration passes without meaningful action on carbon, I believe the primary explanation of that failure will lie in Dr. Hansen's highly inopportune amateur-political interference.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 5:42 am
17 Feb 2009
"David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the shape of its capitol. Rockefeller was born to it, and has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy , he considers just a circumstance of life and just another days work...In the words of David Rockefeller it is hard to see where the business ends and the politics begin." Bill Moyers
For more than a century ideological extremist at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are a secret cabal working against the best interest of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalist and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it. David Rockefeller, from his own book, "Memoirs"
It is nice to watch the new age flower children come on here and blow environmentally friendly smoke up each others butt. In reality you need to figure out how to influence the multinational Financial elite or see if their plan for the future jives with yours.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:49 am
17 Feb 2009
"Aim low, shoot low, because all you can ever get is a watered down policy anyway".
You know Ted, a few weeks ago I may have been tempted by your seemingly pragmatic warning, but something happened between then and now. One was the NOAA Susan Solomon paper, and the other was the globally authored statement from ocean scientists about acidification, The Monaco Declaration.
They both said this: [my paraphrasing]
"You damned well better hurry with your CO2 reductions because wherever you stop it, there it will stay for thousands of years. And whatever ill effects that come packaged up in a bow with that particular level of CO2, will stick around too".
"No 100 year turn-around or 'healing' for good behavior. Not gonna happen".
So the stakes are even higher than before. And so are our goals and demands.
This arrow is pointed as high as it will go. Hold on. I hope your not afraid of heights.
Permalink
Curtis Moore Posted 6:50 am
17 Feb 2009
One scientist willing to speak out can have an immense impact. Hansen's testimony alerted the entire world to what is now recognized as a grave and imminent threat to human survival. Before Hansen, F. Sherwood Rowland had the courage to say publicly that the industrial chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons--better known by the name given them by their developer, DuPont, as Freons--were destroying stratospheric ozone.
Before Rowland, Clair Patterson of CalTech had the courage and tenacity to review the history of lead dating back to Roman times, to demonstrate that all of humanity, indeed, the entire planet, had been irrevocably contaminated by lead, principally due to its use as a gasoline additive.
(One of the great ironies of history is that the same DuPont scientist who developed CFCs, Thomas Midgely, also developed the ethyl additive. At the time, DuPont effectively owned General Motors, which later dismantled over 500 rail and streetcar systems in the United States. The company also managed the projects to develop the fission and fusion nuclear bombs, generating immense amounts of still dangerous waste in the process. For an exhaustive review of these and other DuPont-related events, go to my book, Saving Ourselves at http://www.saving-ourselves.com/.)
When Patterson was awarded the Tyler Price in 1995, he was lauded for "His systematic and far reaching research on the pathways by which lead finds its way into the environment and into living organisms is a paean to the impact of one person's persistence and precision."
One of those lethal pollutants, by the way, is black carbon, a cause of global warming second by some estimates only to CO2.
Each of the four was viciously attacked by industry in attempts to destroy their credibility, and each managed to survive. Patterson, sadly, was hurt most by the fact that the assault on him was led by a former student Jack Schmitt, a former NASA astronaut and U.S. Senator.
What makes Hansen's case different from those of Rowland, Patterson, Dockery and Schwartz is the persistence of the critics and the remarkable success they have had in creating an appearance of uncertainty where. Industry has employed tactics developed by the tobacco industry and, especially, its public relations firm APCO, a subsidiary of the Washington, D.C. law firm, Arnold & Porter. In an attempt to deflect growing public concerns over the effects of passive smoking, the industry--especially Altria, the owner of Phillip Morris--founded The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Knowing that TASSC efforts would be less credible if it were a single-issue group, the global warming naysayers were recruited. (Again, if you want to know more about this, see my book, Saving Ourselves.)
The result was a critical difference: in the cases of leaded gasoline, CFCs and fine particles the attacks were transparently mounted by the industry with a vested interest in the outcome. In the case of global warming here is no such transparency, and TASSC appears to be a group merely seeking outcomes driven by "sound science."
The point is that these people had the courage to speak out. Their science was good and their conclusions have been vindicated over time, despite industry-funded assaults on their credibility.
With respect specifically to Hansen, another climatologist has concluded--
"My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model's consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/han ...
My suggestion is that everybody who reads this get off of Hansen's case and starting heeding his warnings. There is not, nor can there be, any credible dispute that global warming has not only begun, but is racing toward a dozen or so tipping points, or positive feedbacks. Thankfully, the world heeded Patterson, Rowland, Dockery and Schwarz, and we would do well to do the same with Hansen.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:11 pm
17 Feb 2009
My perspective is that Hansen had a noble idea in just saying "no" to new coal powered electrical generation units (EGU), and when 17 were planned for Texas a few years ago we went after them big-time and won - we the protesters in Texas that is and Hansen was not to be found anywhere. But the fact is a couple were allowed to proceed even in our case, since it was obvious that clean alternative power could not provide reliable base loads. How much clean power does it take to equal two or the 250 MW EGUs?
Then I think it would be fair to mention that China and India burn some fairly sizable amounts of coal - like scary statistics that a new coal powered EGU is built every day in China or something gross like that. Great Britain as the worst offender? That's pretty amusing.
Meh, no big deal. There's all the same old talk about tipping points, feedbacks, and the Armageddon scheduled for tomorrow at 5 o'clock. Nothing new, or to counter the persistent and annoying "global dimming" and global cooling crowd. Perhaps it just sounds like old science mixed with an unhealthy dose of political vindictiveness. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:33 pm
17 Feb 2009
To win, one must acquire "Loon Feathers".
Loon Feathers are awarded for outrageous or alarmist Global Warming statements.
So far, leading contender James Hansen has been awarded 3 Loon Feathers.
Other winners of the Loon Feather will be announced shortly.
Family members of the Texeme.Construct may not apply. Void in Mexico.
"If you ask me, I think it's just another ball of hydrogen!" -- Captain Fraddock, S1E11
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 11:08 pm
17 Feb 2009
I wonder if the Trilateral Commission hands out any awards for environment enhancement. I would love to see what extent the members are invested in coal, oil and natural gas.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 4:03 am
24 Feb 2009
Furthermore, on what basis do you make the claim that science does not operate on personalities? Kuhn and others have argued very persuasively that scientific change is non-linear (like social change, or art or any other significant area of human endeavor) and the great leaps in scientific insight tend to associated with great personalities. I'm sure Copernicus was also the target of barbs such as yours.
I think Hansen has made a compelling, and thus far un-refuted case for the precautionary position on climate. I suspect that you do not approach climate from a precautionary perspective. If you did, then you would probably consider Hansen's public statements to be very restrained.
Ken Ward
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[28]='\"';l[29]=' 103';l[30]=' 114';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 46';l[33]=' 115';l[34]=' 101';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 105';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=' 116';l[39]=' 104';l[40]=' 103';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 114';l[43]=' 98';l[44]=' 64';l[45]=' 100';l[46]=' 114';l[47]=' 97';l[48]=' 119';l[49]=' 110';l[50]=' 101';l[51]=' 107';l[52]=':';l[53]='o';l[54]='t';l[55]='l';l[56]='i';l[57]='a';l[58]='m';l[59]='\"';l[60]='=';l[61]='f';l[62]='e';l[63]='r';l[64]='h';l[65]='a ';l[66]='
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 9:17 am
24 Feb 2009
In my comments here, I fault Dr. Hansen for his untimely, inopportune, and I think events will prove, inept political activities.
I do not take up Hansen's "climate position" in this post.
You then asked: "on what basis do you make the claim that science does not operate on personalities?"
You left off the word "cult", Ken. I said that science does not work well as a "personality cult", which is the mode that Hansen's leadership reminds me of more & more.
In a situation that has become driven by a personality-cult dynamic, the importance of 'the message' has been overshadowed by the importance of a particular personality.
The phenomenon I'm speaking of is like the inverse of 'shooting the messenger': In the case of Dr. Hansen, many climate activists now respond to him as a celebrity, firstly, and as a professional scientist, secondly (if at all).
I suggest making an objective assessment of Pres. Obama's response to the global warming platform, and ask, 'Did Dr. Hansen's efforts in the political arena move the warming-movement's goals forward in the new Administration'?
Far as I can see, Obama simply ignores Hansen, and as repeatedly documented here on Grist, the new President also largely ignores the AGW movement's priorities.
I think another leader-figure, better versed in politics and activism, could achieve more than Hansen.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:49 am
24 Feb 2009
Who? How?
grist.org
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:46 am
24 Feb 2009
right or wrong is irrelevant. like Hansen
the key is the Big O
Does he have a plan? What is it? When will he say, in detail?
That's the game
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 12:51 pm
24 Feb 2009
Hansen's difficulty is not in his science, but his politics. He's an adolescent prone to inappropriate-behavior syndrome. It does not help that he is propped up by his friend & sponsor, politician super-star Al Gore (without whom it is unlike Hansen's name would be known). 'The science' doesn't belong to Hansen - it's not 'his baby' - and others could serve as well (or better) to highlight & interpret it to the diverse communities with a stake in it (i.e., providing the same 'interpretation' to Capitol Hill that one delivers to core membership of the AGW movement is inappropriate).
For a dramatic enhancement of public credibility ... nay, "authority", bear in mind that the military is arguably the real 800 lb. climate-gorilla, not NASA. They have legions of scientists trained in inappropriate-behavior control & suppression techniques ... and the public loves to see them on committees. And unlike NASA, the military talks to the President and the Administration, every day.
How could such a replacement be effected? By the AGW communities. Figures occupying suitable stations should be essentially drafted (coaxed, flattered, bribed..). The need & desire for an authoritative & reputable leadership-body that can rise above the daily fray of citizen-activism should be placed on the most visible environmentalist forums, and the general idea given a good circulation. When the concept has been well-vetted, then go to work on the details.
It is not impossible that Dr. Hansen himself would be a help in such a process. Admittedly, he has an obvious personal investment, and no small political commitment, especially with Vice Pres. Gore ... but it's worth bearing in mind.
It is possible that there are key individuals and small, tight-knit groups in the environmentalism community who could more effectively drive the initial vetting of the general idea to 'replace' Dr. Hansen. Identify such actors and approaching them could comprise another preparatory phase in a leadership-quest.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:59 pm
24 Feb 2009
"Slow down. Take it easy. No need to rush. Baby steps. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. Let's just talk for while. Come on. Sit and chat. Relax. Lets pour over these details in the corner here, and again tomorrow."
Ted, please tell us: why would you wish to see some other person doing a "more effective" job of informing politicians about the science of AGW.
Do you wish for regulation of CO2 to happen "more effectively"?
What is your end-goal? Are you here for choreographed tail chasing, or to help the knowledge and action around human caused climate and ocean change be "more effective".
You have an obligation to reveal your ultimate motivation to Grist readers.
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:29 pm
24 Feb 2009
Having said that, I also know it's true that the climate effort to date has been insufficient. Now, I can't figure out what Ted's talking about, and it certainly sounds like veiled obstructionism.
We of course know the science, and we know what needs to be done. The issue is how to do it. There's no longer any question of fact or principle, but of strategy and tactics.
So the one identifiable thing Ted said, that we need more technocracy and symposia, is exactly wrong. If he had been serious in saying, better activism, he'd be right.
What would constitute better activism? A unified, publicly identifiable movement? Charismatic leadership? Emphasis on bottom-up pressure, not waiting for top-down techno-kingship? (Remember, FDR did not willingly promulgate the Keynesian aspects of the New Deal; he submitted, more or less under duress, to grassroots pressure.)
Unfortunately, none of these are particularly congenial to mainstream environmentalism, and we do have a deficit of charismatic leaders. I guess Van Jones is the best example, but he has a more specialized focus.
Most of all, we have little time to organize anything new.
Well, those are just a few thoughts on the subject...
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:10 pm
24 Feb 2009
and why is all the self-righteous devotion directed to soap opera stuff?
spend your time figuring out WHERE you want grid and WHAT KIND (at least Amzing has a specific view there)
what SPECIFIC mass transit ideas are good
organize a demonstration DEMANDING that the Prez offer a specific, rigorous cap on carbon, and commit to use the CAA aggressively
work on specific steps forward
not the hysterical navel gazing about who is pure enough
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 12:47 am
25 Feb 2009
"Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable, often while proposing technology-focused solutions."
I.e., e.g., Dr. Hansen: Technocrat-in-Chief, currently.
Anthropogenic global warming as it presently exists is a working technocracy. If it possessed the powers it aspires to, it would likely verge into a scientocracy.
Both the stock-in-trade and the modus operandi of the AGW movement are based on science. Science is the justification for AGW's existence, and technology is the mechanism by which it hopes to implement its goals.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 2:03 am
25 Feb 2009
No discussion on the environmental impact necessary, remember this was pre or early environmental consciousness.
Do the same thing again with renewable sustainable energy sources. I was really disappointed with the Economic Recovery Package not putting enough emphasis on this. The bidding process or letting contracts out for government projects should also follow the model they used for Hoover Dam. It come in below cost and over a year early. A fiscal conservative goes into shock with the no bid contracts and waste I see in government.
Continuing along this line of thought if the first 350 billion in TARP funds had been put into commercial banks with interest there would have been more than enough money in the system that actually service loans to free up the credit block they are crying about. This would free up more revenue for alternative energy sources and investment in green manufacturing.
Buying toxic debt or paying for the air derivatives does nothing to free up credit. 350 billion gone and nobody knows where it went. Do you really believe any of the government officials can oversee a smart grid renovation, green manufacturing or mass transit. We have become as empty as those air derivatives and the consumer driven economy based on credit. Educated beyond our intelligence and common sense, even beyond looking at history and cherry picking the formula's that work.
There is nothing to fear but the over inflated ego's of the political elite who are being dupped into making crippling devistating mistakes concerning this economy. The economic jargon not meant to be discernable by the masses or the politicians run out by the Federal Reserve or Ex Federal Reserve and Wall Street has sold us all the wrong choices for fixing the economy.
It also has robbed us of the chance to develop sustainable renewable energy sources and solve the unemployment problem at the same time. The 700 billion we spend every year on foreign energy sources would have to have some positive impact on the economy if we could funnel that money into our own green energy sector.
I am for the economic model that allows for government to step in from time to time in order to save capitalism. The infrasturcture left over from the last time we did this stands as a glaring beacon to what we can achieve if we do it right. It was the commercial banks that were solvent that were saved and refunded and the works programs that were energy infrastructure oriented were well planned and competitive bid. WPA and CCC were put in action first to fulfill the requirement for quick emplolyment thus allowing the time for the planning and contractual concerns of the large infrastructure projects. You get a better end result without the wasted tax dollars someone will have to pay back at some point.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:21 am
25 Feb 2009
Electrifying present rail is the quickest oil saving fix. It can take over from most long haul trucking. Transportation cost savings would drive the switch over.
Walmarts rolling warehouse on electrified freight trains? Why not, computers could organize it all directed by experienced human operators.
Later on HVDC and gifg speed commuet rail could be built out along freeway medians, on key high traffic routes.
Marry up HVDC with electrified rail Barack! Now that's a 15 year public works project with good manufacruting and construction jobs. Railriad jobs would boom as trucking wained. Hire the truckers to work in these new industries, and many more people whose jobs will evaporate when oil prices soar again.
We all rise or fall together. Casino capitalist "investment" bank/hedge fund crooks don't share our fate. When we go broke they take over the world.
Enough is enough! Invest in something real, a nation wide renewable smart super grid and electrified rail is as real as investment gets. A job or pension based on that would be sound for life.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 4:06 am
25 Feb 2009
Have you pressed it to Carl Pope?
He has said something similar, but less detailed (at least what I saw)
Pope has influence. Get him on board
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:46 am
25 Feb 2009
Because I suspect that Ted is derailing the dialog using soft techniques.
Youre 100% right. My pressing Ted has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Except that there are folks who want to slow down the conversation so regulation doesnt happen, and those SPECIFIC things you are talking about will not happen.
I could be wrong. Which is why I ASK Ted about his goals, rather than assume.
Either way, it is no waste of time to remove a splinter from your hand so you can do more practical work.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:47 am
25 Feb 2009
I wonder if he reads it? Might be worth a try, touting electric rail/HVDC as the public infrastructure investment for the next 20 years.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 5:50 am
25 Feb 2009
I think they have been clamoring for a new method of valuation for the debt they have on their books for years. I believe they have made their point and are going to have a steady source of revenue for generations to come.
Back to the point these are all excellent idea's and projects that could raise from the economic ashes of our time and be the sustainable energy projects for the future. If China and Saudi Arabia will only give us the money.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink