anything missing, maybe is only that we need to cut what middle-and-down people are paying now for overhead on medical, housing, education, retirement, child care, and taxes, if that has anything to do with our future finances. while we share those risks unevenly, other changes will be difficult, because of the pressure to keep the cash flowing.

the end is nigh, but so's the beginning, so, 's'ok.

Elliot Eisner in researching education proposed the use of metaphores as a very accurate way of suming up and evaluating a complex situation. That is an area, in his case what goes on in a classroom, that cannot be quantified in an impirical way. Too many variables make cause and effect methods difficult. We have this problem with Global warming and climate change - too many variables to make assessments watertight.
Eisner went on to demonstrate the accurate assessment of someone who had wide and diverse experience in a situation, and that this persons assessment of ability closly matched impirical tests - in this case the student sitting an exam. He called this person a connoisseur. And that we are able to trust their judgements.
Sharon this is a fantastic example of what Eisner meant and it provides us with a way into deeply understanding the predicament we are in as a global community.

You didn't answer my question of how much carbon credits would have to cost before mining for nothing but carbon credits would be economically feasible. BC's carbon tax won't rise above $30/tonne until 2013 and none of the other major jurisdictions in N.Am. will have anything even that strong a year or more but I bet it will cost more than $30/tonne to exploit that dunite (e.g. build roads, blast, pulverize, scatter). Then there's also the issue of how long we can sustainably continue such geoengineering without causing excessive pollution and loss of habitat.

I'm not saying it's completely unworkable but I remain agnostically skeptical. If it is such a fantastic solution, I wonder why I haven't heard more about it from other environmentalists and the scientific community.

Sharon website includes the following note:

"In my spare time (of which there isn't much), my husband Eric and I are raising Eli (7 1/2), Simon (6), Isaiah (4) and Asher (2), and assorted critters and livestock, building an agrarian future."

I think that all us can agree that solving this crisis that we are in would be much easier if there were just fewer people on the earth.  Overpopulation brought us to this point and we must use our collective intellect to override our basic instinct to pro-create and perpetuate our genes.

While I agree with Sharon's argument, I'm highly pessimistic that there will be a solution while we still cling the our belief that personal freedom includes having as many children as we want.

Perhaps Sharon (and all of us) should read Bill MCKibben's "Maybe One: An Environmental and Personal Argument for Single-Child Families" (1998).

- Jeff B
(parent of 2)  

You really need to moderate the pessimism.  Take some good advice from Pathos.  To paraphrase: Act in your personal life as though techno fixes won't work, reduce your own carbon footprint as much as possible.

Meanwhile activate politically to support the very best technological path to a GHG cure.  Try to be positive, yes we can, that's the spirit.

Take a cue from Barack as he embodies Ghandi's technique, become the change you want to see in the world.

I know it is easy to blame technology for the fix we are in and therefore despair of a techno fix.  But facts are facts, all the fix we need is already being developed.  

Technology that will actually save money by curtailing soaring energy prices and generate the capital needed with economic revival.  Your kids need you to see through the gloom and doom.

The problem is political, not technological.  The huge waste of money on every front in our culture needs to be wisely applied to real solutions.  We have the cash necessary to do this.

And of course you are so right that quality of life does not depend on consuming more and more energy.  That cultural change, real values, would really help impell the politics.

Here's a nice positive example how a buildout of renewables might not emit a lot of extra carbon. Solar PV can be made with solar energy.  With solar furnace technology, it is well understood and tested and actually very cost competitive with other energy systems.

Solar furnaces can recycle the metal from the old energy economy too.  melt down those SUVs to make plugin hybrid bikes for instance.  I like the human power idea.  let most people pedal themselves around, most of the time, with a little renewable electric boost for the hills.

I think there is a conscious effort on the part of the old energy industry monopolies to soak up all the extra capital and make a transition to renewable/conservation energy policy impossible.  No conspiracy, they just collectively see it as a threat to their wealth and power.

It's going to be very difficult to wrench the necessary capital out of their cold, deathlike grip.  Eventually Cheney's darth vader helmet will fail him.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I'm struck by the relative cheapness of wind: we could replace all of our coal plants with the investment of 10% of our GDP for just one year!!

We could replace natural gas generation and power our entire light vehicle fleet the 2nd year, provide the generation to electrify all I/C and residential HVAC the 3rd, start synthesizing hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 for sequestration the 4th, and start giving away turbines to other countries on the 5th.

Obviously, this is oversimplified, and the timeline is greatly compressed, but it illustrates the size and cost of the problem.

If we decide that AGW really is an overriding priority, we don't have to dismantle our economy to stop emitting CO2, we just have to make a moderately serious effort.