Doug Meyer’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  According to Romm`s replies to the comments to his post, since the Senate is not going to ratify a treaty (67 votes needed) the eventual global deal (at least as it pertains to the US) will subsequently have to match the language in the final US bill. (Obama will get around ratification with some kind of executive agreement!) Of course the rest of the world would like to negotiate the terms of emissions reductions AND the amount of money to be paid to *developing* countries. Romm says that money will be included in the US climate bill! (Will it still be deficit neutral after that?) So…How will the world participate in the US climate bill negotiations? NYT headline next spring: China and India Veto Latest Senate Deal! And you thought getting a bipartisan bill would be hard! C`mon people, give up already.On Delaying an international climate treaty: not as bad as it looks posted 1 week, 1 day ago 27 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Matt, I think we’re likely in agreement about what *sustainability* is. Again, I’m just defending Adam Sacks’ post as an effective means of communication. As for not having children, I see those as responsible individual responses to the understanding that our civilization’s goose is cooked by the carbon already in the atmosphere. This has nothing to do with population control or advocacy on population issues. Third World countries whose population momentum may be unstoppable add even more weight to Adam’s approach. Where we differ: I’m from the school that says you’ve got to tear down before you build up, and I just don’t think we’ve even begun the demolition project yet.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 3 days ago 174 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Matt, a couple thoughts in reply to two of your sentences (in quotes): “If we cannot save ourselves from utter environmental and economic disaster by any means, then it simply makes no difference what we do.” At the very least, understanding the certainty of that disaster (to occur by the end of this century at the latest) should cause responsible people to stop having children. “Having hope in a sustainable future isn't exactly the same as denial of the problem.” Oh yes it often is. If “sustainable future” means technical reform of our energy production while trying to maintain lifestyles, culture, economics and global capitalism, then that hope represents a denial that human civilization is now fundamentally out of balance with Planet Earth. And if that hope more realistically sees small local economies supporting far less people globally, the denial comes if one fails to admit there’s no good way to get from here to there.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week, 3 days ago 174 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The real sin of W-M is the public's perception that energy consumption needn't change, just those nasty power plants. Mainstream enviros are slime. They'll even lie to their kids 50 years from now, in front of that desperate moonscape of rusting turbines on the high plains: "Sorry, I didn't know how bad it would get!"

  On 9 damned good reasons why some U.S. environmentalists should heartily oppose Waxman-Markey posted 5 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Randy's on to it, but it goes deeper

  Even the IPCC has a difficult time quantifying the Social Cost of Carbon. Ecosystems destruction is never going to be treated fairly by the dismal science. But the public responds to economics. Should Gore debate Lomborg? Well, should science trump economics?

  I can hear all the professional enviros groaning that the costs CAN be quantified. That's exactly the cause of the death of environmentalism. You've been co-opted by the monster. Sitting there quietly negotiating with it, the monster's eating your lunch.

  Global warming is a moral issue, and if Gore can't get up there and make the case for the science and expose the selfishness of acting on purely economic values (and yes, therefore insult the American public and lose the political debate) then I fear for him and the nightmares he'll have in the future. On Gore declines to debate Lomborg posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses