I'm trying to understand something so that i can explain it to others. Let's say that things change, but we only manage to make it to the low end of the UN projections by 2100.

What are the effects of the 0.74 C warming we've seen over the last century, i.e. how bad is it?

Also, how bad would a 2 C warming by 2100 be, i.e. what would be effects of it?

Some resources would be very helpful. Thanks!

You're still not being clear about the mix of technologies that we should be opting towards.  What are your energy suggestions?  No electricity? If so, how to heat? No industrial processes? If so, do we burn wood unsustainably in order to have blacksmithing?  To what level of technology do you want to go?  I think that cars and coal and industrial agriculture have ruined the planet, but I still don't see a full-blown alternative to our present civilization in your post.  I agree that Tidwell's points aren't nearly enough -- very few do have solutions that fit the problems, but please explain, how does transportation, energy, food, manufacturing, health, and education work without fossil fuels, because that is what we are eventually talking about.

The question I'd ask,
Wouldn't our effort be better spent convincing our representatives to pass better laws?

Since you run into a paradox, that if lots of people didn't drive, wouldn't that merely lower the price of gasoline, and then cause others to drive more.

I recognize that my Prius, or my low-flow showerhead, will not by themselves save the world.  At the same time, I recognize that in a democracy no one "sneaks by" a bill enforcing huge national change and conservation.

A democracy, for better or worse, requires a consensus.

Tidwell might as well be criticizing fasting, as something that won't mean anything in and of itself.  ("so what if a few people stop eating for a few days?")  But fasting and Priuses and showerheads might be part of a movement, they might get us to a tipping point.

And we desperately need a tipping point.  We need the kind of consensus, in a democracy, that will allow regulations with teeth to bring along the laggards.

Is anyone listening? Lundberg is saying that to date, neither individuals nor activists nor congress have proposed or taken action anywhere near commensurate with the imminent threat. Fasting on the steps of congress and shouting for renewable energy do not bring political change. What is needed is 1)Unity.  2)A tough set of demands presented to congress,  and circulated in a widespread citizen petition nationwide, to include carbon taxes, gasoline taxes, gasoline rationing, mandatory reductions in energy consumption and efficiency standards, termination of all fossil fuel and ethanol subsidies; 3) formation of a PAC to run candidates for congress against those who do not support this program. 4)a public statement by scientists on the global emergency, with a Million Scientist March on Washington supporting these demands; 5)full page ads in major city newspapers supporting a 90% cut in greenhouse gases by 2030, with the above demands implemented to achieve this; 6)boycott of all goods imported by airplane; 7)Business Transfer Assessment, taxing hugely goods produced by and transported from large CO2 emitters;
8)Full Cost pricing of all goods to internalize the real costs of production and consumption;
9)Immediate halt to deforestation worldwide in the tropics; 10)boycott of all soybean, sugar and cattle produced in Brazil and other cleared tropical lowland forest;
 

"there can be joy in losing the consumer economy..."

I can speak to that, from personal experience. But I know plenty of other people who find the prospect of losing their stuff and wide-ranging travel a real threat.

The more people who opt out, and who clearly enjoy their new ways of living, the less threatening the transition will look. It will really start to look like fun when we build communities to support new ways of living, economically, medically, educationally and personally.

If there is no broad agreement on goals, coercion is not likely to work much better than Prohibition or mass sterilization in India in the Seventies. With broad agreement on goals and values, incentives or coercion can work to "bring along the laggards" as odograph put it.  In a democracy (or even in the absence of democracy) a lack of consent will bring down a government or at least prevent its laws from working.

With consensus, people will change the way they live and accept regulations that support the consensus. Think of WWII--not just rationing but the draft, blackouts, Victory gardens, war bonds, displacement of Japanese people... you really do have to think about what the consensus includes; it can be life-destroying and  life-affirming simlutaneously; propaganda can, for awhile anyway, support measures that are toxic to the body public.

Does it seem like it will take too long to reach a broad agreement on measures that protect the environment and support democracy, equality, culture? Maybe it will--so we had better get going.

Lots of joy. Quick. Now.

A large part of our un-sustainability is our transportation system that relies on automobiles.  Unfortunately for Americans our entire infrastructure has been designed around the car rather than pedestrians.  To get where we need to go  the car will have to be abandoned and public-mobility systems (eg people movers and light rail) will network "sustainable suburbs" to existing cities and market centers.  As David notes in his piece, for our society to re-invent ourselves in this way will require "inspired Churchillian leadership".   Unfortunately I haven't seen any leadership lately, let alone any-one Churchill-like :-(

Good to see Jan's article here. He's been working on these issues for many years and I know has many creative ideas and real-life examples such as SCALLOPS for alternatives to our greedy, fossil-fuel dependent society. I love Lorna's list as well. Here are two more issues that must be addressed, and I bring them up because they impact me personally, and what I can do to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. One has to do with those of us who live in rural areas with no public transportation and none in sight. Without regular, reliable public transportation we must continue to drive to work. We could run other errands with less regular transportation, but no matter how understanding our employers may be, we still need to get to work on time. The other has to do with the need to work to earn money to pay neccessary bills like rent/mortgage, energy expenses, etc. As I see it, if people worked outside the home fewer hours we'd have more time for activities like raising/growing food and preserving it (both are very time-consuming), working with and helping neighbors (thereby creating real community), learning and practicing home health care (as opposed to expensive, technological, chemicalized health care) volunteering for the necessary projects that must be done at the community level to ensure safety and even survival as things get more difficult, and so on. We cannot go back in time but we must learn many of the skills we have now forgotten or abandonned over the past fifty or so years. Our current mindset re: work, "free" time, leisure, hiring people to do what we don't have the skills or time to do for ourselves, children moving hundreds miles away from their family (and thus unable to help aging parents who are then put into "assisted living" situations when they can no longer live totally on their own . . . I could go on . . . must transform. And activists working on climate change and fossil fuel issues need to look beyond cities and suburbs and realize people still live in the country and likely will continue to do so.  

...it seems to me, and I think this synchronizes nicely with what socialscientist was saying, should become our (hopefully permaculture type) organic gardens, and if so, a very efficient transportation system will have to be set up, if for no other reason than to get the food to population centers -- which will hopefully not be sprawled-out surburbia, which will make food distribution much more difficult.  After all, in the 19th century the biggest driver of railroad construction was to give access for midwest farmers to city markets.

Nucbuddy -- Thanks for reading my diatribe, I hadn't thought of nuclear-powered cargo ships, I don't know if those would be as economical as diesel-powered ones; whether I like it or not, I suppose that option will be explored.

Certainly food production is something that can, and should, be done in rural areas. And permaculture is a wonderfully elegant system, though it would need to be adapted for larger gardens. My understanding of permaculture is that it's more homestead scale or at the most, smallish community scale and the goal is to have more small farms/gardens, that produce a diversity of foods while also making use of and discovering/experimenting with the food/fuel possibilities of native plants. Unfortunately, much of the best agricultural land is rapidly being converted to development, malls, roads, and parking lots. I also believe it's possible for urban centers to grow a percentage of their own food in vacant lots, parks, and on rooftops, which would also add greatly to the quality of city life, or so I would think. Even in rural areas it makes sense to encourage thicker settlement in and around towns and villages while discouraging the sprawl that currently exists. Also there used to be many more small towns in rural areas than there are now thanks to consolidation. One can see abandonned or converted town halls, churches, schools, mills, etc. I would love to see a revitalization of small town life rather than the current trend towards bedroom communities that basically serve as housing for workers who drive many miles to the nearest population center to work. But that would mean looking at the work we do and why we do it and addressing the role debt plays and our often desperate need for federal dollars.