Where there's a will, there's a way; where there's a Samuelson, there's a whine

We have what we need to beat global warming 12

One of the consequences of lazy, defeatist mainstream discussion of climate change (see: Robert J. Samuelson) is goofballery like this piece in The New York Times. Michael Fitzgerald argues that because we don't yet have a weapon that can totally and awesomely kick global warming's ass, we should spend billions of public dollars on giganto-technologies like carbon sequestration and space-age masturbation aids like light-reflecting space particles.

This is stupid. We have dozens, hundreds of ways of cutting GHG emissions available right now. We have technological tools; we have social, economic, legislative, and regulatory tools. I'd bet we could get the U.S. to zero (or trivial) emissions by the last quarter of this century, especially if we spent all those billions wisely. And we'd improve our quality of life doing it. Once we start doing it, other countries will follow.

Maybe we couldn't get all the way there with today's technology. But the distance between "where we are" and "where we could get using today's technology" is chasmic. While we're traversing that distance, technology and civil society will not be standing still. By the time we get where we thought we could get, we'll be able to get much farther. I very much doubt there will ever come a time when we stop and say, "we've reduced our greenhouse-gases the maximum amount possible with our existing technology."

In other words, the thing to do is just get fvcking started, in earnest. Throwing up our hands in despair and waiting for a deus ex technologica is comically, grotesquely premature. It's like deciding you'll never finish the marathon before you're done scratching your ass in front of the bathroom mirror.

The lack of means is not the problem. The problem is the lack of collective will.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 5:18 am
    14 Aug 2007

    We Need A Bigger Bulb

    You could look at this point in history as a time when we should all tighten our belts, and cede power to some regulating Central Authority that will ration out the last scraps of beef and oil.
    Or you could see it as us being in the middle of birth pains.   That's right -- maybe it's not the End, it's the Beginning.
    The Beginning of the Fusion Era.   The reason we're in so much trouble is because we've grown beyond our existing energy resources.   It's not that they are running out -- it's just that they suck...royally.   We're a bunch of cave people burning up stuff to boil water.
    It's freakin' embarassing.   Like if some intelligent suave alien came down, like the Klaatu master, I'd make sure not to show him any turbines.   Here...look...a nanotube...we can do that...no, don't look at those automobiles.
    What we need is a 100x scaled up energy resource...something to get us through the next hundred years or so.   That's why it's all so difficult...we can't "cut back", we gotta move on!



    John Bailo


    Supratext:

    Permalink

  2. A Siegel Posted 6:33 am
    14 Aug 2007

    Samuelson has been disgusting ...for years in this vein. It is an old line that he continually peddles.  
    My piece last year was "J'Accuse! Distorting Reality in "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/5/132135/3121). It began:
    the Washington Post published an outrageous column by Robert J. Samuelson. In this travesty of a column, Samuelson argues the futility of trying to do anything re Global Climate Change other than new research.
    Samuelson's Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth has factual errors, misleading statements and conclusions, and provides a counterproductive path for thinking about and achieving change for a better future.
    You dealt with it here:  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/16/104655/313

    Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

    Permalink

  3. scubastevesw Posted 6:37 am
    14 Aug 2007

    Nice...Well said.
    "space-age masturbation aids" - now that's a phrase.

    Permalink

  4. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 7:17 am
    14 Aug 2007

    Scuba"You're soaking in it"

    Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

    Permalink

  5. trock Posted 11:03 am
    14 Aug 2007

    he gets paid from oil, gas and coal companiesHe doesn't write this stuff because he believes a single part of it.  He writes it so he can make everybody believe there is just no way to solve the Carbon/Global warming problem except wackoness.    Everybody is way beyond any of those suggestions, so don't even try.
    This isn't imcompetence.   This is malicious.   He means to be stupid.
    Some of the solutions could be as simple as elimanating property taxes for most primary residences, and businesses and make that up with a carbon tax.    How scarey can it be to Reduce the taxes on the home a person lives in and solve problems at the same time.

    Permalink

  6. trock Posted 11:08 am
    14 Aug 2007

    how can that happenAt least it is funny to read incompetence spelt wrong.   I'm going home now, I don't feel so good.

    Permalink

  7. tharrison Posted 9:40 am
    15 Aug 2007

    Right on: stop seeking the silver bulletA friend believes that he need not give up his SUV because it wouldn't make any difference, really.  He's right, of course, but this seems a hugely important aspect of our society, that we all act on our own.  Where is our sense of community, responsibility and even shared benefit?  Gone.  For any of us to act, we must be able to calculate direct, and usually immediate, benefit.  Oh, and by "benefit" I mean money.
    Or fame.  So the guy that comes up with the "co2 nuclear bomb" will save the world in one simple shot.
    So, there's no need for anyone to do anything potentially uncomfortable ... I mean unless it costs more.
    Fortunately, emitting carbon is free, so let's get on with it.

    Tom H

    http://www.fivepercent.us/

    Permalink

  8. trock Posted 10:14 am
    15 Aug 2007

    so true, it's got to be an emergencybefore Dec 7, 1941, nothing could get people to prepare for war.   nothing.  because people didn't want war which makes sense, but at least do the reseach to make better bombs and planes.
    But after Dec 7, they could change everything.    In 1940, they didn't have withholdings from paychecks.    Every March 15, people would have to come up with the money for federal taxes.   Well, lot's of people spent it all, which I could imagine.   banks would loan, them money or not, it was a problem for a lot of people.  
    The government realized, if we are going to make war we'll need alot of money and if people are having problems now, how will they cope if we take 2, 5, 10 times more money from them.
    What happened after Dec 7, 1941, they had a tax "forgiveness" of one year.  nobody had to pay taxes for that year.    But, they would start withholdings immediately for the next year.  People were so happy to not have to pay taxes for one year, they quickly argreed to withholding.  

    That's how withholding started.
    We need something like that now.    Carbon Tax Trade is the best way I see of how to help solve the problems of Global Warming and Fossil Fuel Depleation.    If we could trade taxes from Property, Social Security, Sales and Income taxes and pay them with Carbon taxes we would have a chance in hell.  
    But without that big changing moment, like the twin towers falling or getting attacked by Imperial Japan on Dec 7, people will not get motivated make the system different, especially if it means pain to rich fossil fuel companies and employees.

    Permalink

  9. zacaroni Posted 3:44 am
    16 Aug 2007

    no such thing as a collective willI object to your wording.  There's no such thing as a collective will, sir, only individual will.  The "will of the people" should be defined as a broad and common interest in a desired end.  We cannot think, nor can we act collectively, as these actions are a process that is limited to the mind/body of an individual.  That's what makes coming together as a team/group so amazing: we are a collection of separate minds and separate personalities, and we have highly diverse (and unique) motivations with numerous but extraordinary commonalities/overlap.  Groups and populations do not function collectively (this implies groupthink, the stifling of new/unique ideas, even coercion) but function collaboratively.  This gives credit to the ingenuity of the human mind, and allows necessary dissent within the group, thus giving more credibility to our values and aims.
    So, I simply object to the phrase "collective will."  Perhaps a better way to put it would be:
    "The lack of means is not the problem. The problem is the lack of collaboration and motivation."

    Permalink

  10. amc89 Posted 5:30 am
    16 Aug 2007

    babies, flights, cars and steaksWe need to have less babies, fly fewer planes, drive fewer cars and eat less meat. Those 4 actions need to be addressed if we have any hope.  Unfortunately that message is not going to get any candidates into office and that's why this issue is so difficult.  

    Permalink

  11. zacaroni Posted 7:04 am
    21 Aug 2007

    to amc89Maybe you aren't looking at the right candidates... Gravel travels by rail.  Kucinich is a vegetarian.  And, as far as I know, the US military emits more airplane-related carbon than the US public does in normal travel - so maybe you should consider voting for a candidate who wants to reduce military spending abroad... Ron Paul.  

    Permalink

  12. caniscandida Posted 7:33 am
    21 Aug 2007

    Kucinich in 2008!Very nice, Zacaroni.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement