I only hope that whatever event(s) trigger this policy change are somewhat reversible. Earth is, ironically, going to be the first testbed for terraforming technology.
We can hide behind per-capita stats but the global CO2 level and climate does not care about per capita.
Meanwhile, the US is far too entrenched with ideology and vested interests that have captured the political machinery.
Kind of sad that we're in this state, but people keep voting Republican...
But really technology is going to drive this change, as long as the entrenched interests don't prevent the use of renewables that are cheaper than fossil fuels.
Already ideally sited solar and wind are cheaper than coal, and learning curves are pushing that down all the time.
Storage is also getting incredibly cheap, with lithium ion batteries it's around $0.08/kWh right now at the wholesale level.
What we're really going to need is efficient carbon capture schemes though, because the feet-draggers have cost us an extremely valuable 15 years. If we can do capture at something less than $500/ton then I'm starting to feel a bit optimistic that we can head off the worst of it.
But every. Single. Ton. That we emit right now is going to cost out children several times that amount. Improving efficiency of use and increasing the scale and efficiency of the renewable energy manufacturing is a massively important economic development for the US and the world.
Your pricing information on renewables is out of date, and quickly becoming more out of date.
The renewable industry is changing fast, traditional energy industry changes slow. Those dinosaurs won't know what's hit them until it's too late.
The reality is that we must put an human mandated limit on the amount of carbon fuels to burn.
Think of it another way: If burning carbon fuels causes major instability in the climate, then the fate of the human race should not be determined by the amount of carbon in the ground. It should be determined by humans being determined.
Of course if we were to price in the negative externalities, I think that renewables would already be cheaper. But this is one case where ideology has prevented us from setting up an efficient market for energy.
https://www3.epa.gov/captrade/documents/ctresults.pdf
"A 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) study found that the Acid Rain Program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1."
[0] IMF, How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies, 2015, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
So just to be clear: The $5.3 trillion is arrived at by counting untaxed environmental harm as a subsidy. Which I think it is interesting to consider the damage, but I don't think that is what people are going to think when they think energy subsidy.
But I do think post-tax subsidies is a fair metric, for example, in places where there's state health care, my tax is being spent to care for people whose health has been affected by fossil fuels. So it seems like state subsidised to me.
I suppose if the scientists were in charge, we'd finally stop burning fossil fuels? That we'd force massive changes to resource distribution and reshape society in order to save the world?
And if you don't agree, you're too dangerous, right? Off ot the gulags?
Do you understand that millions and millions of people would die of starvation?
It's amazing how eagerly people advocate for the right kind of totalitarianism.
Plenty of multi-party democracies have parties that somehow manage to agree on whether anthropogenic climate change exists and whether dinosaurs were real. America just isn't one of them.
We don't need a single party state, we need parties that aren't embarrassingly out of touch with how the world works. When your presidential candidates take pride in not believing things despite overwhelming evidence, you have a problem.
the way that parties change is that people stop voting for them. Any vote for such a stridently anti-science and anti-future party encourages them.
That said, this is my most important issue. Others will rank other issues higher, and vote on that basis. But it will be at least a decade after the Republican Party apologizes and corrects their science mistakes that I will trust them to vote for them.
Our society questions nothing. If we find it on the internet - it's true. Very few want to be a contrarian or go against what's popular at any given time for fear of others shaming them in mob-groups for having a different viewpoint.
We've entrusted too much credibility in people with science degrees and their models. I've done some interesting things with machine learning. It's extremely easy to develop predictive models that confirm what you want to confirm. That was probably the first thing I learned and if you aren't humble - you'll use a model as a crutch and be proved a fool.
Some of the greatest minds in history have been proven wrong. Science is not a democracy.
Our country isn't either but people forget that. They think 50+1 should dictate everything. Me-first.
If only they understood the other side - they could unite. But they haven't advanced beyond their tribalism and self-righteousness.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/a-fresh-look-at...
Now, India, there I'm a bit worried....
This could be primarily because of the economic slowdown, but I've read other articles that report the change is more systemic and permanent as China seeks to lead in clean energy tech.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/30/china-car...
Every single Republican candidate for president was openly mocking Obama when he was in Paris a few months ago for the climate talks. They're an absolute embarrassment:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/republicans-obama-clim...
Is it more than 150,000 people [1]? Because that's how many people the WHO estimates currently die right now as a result of climate change. And the number is expected to go up to 250,000 by 2030-2050 [2].
Other estimates have been even higher, e.g. [3] which came up with 400,000 extra deaths due to climate change per year already.
[1] http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
[2] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/
[3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/climate-cha...
Why is the global world living longer despite its ever increasing usage of fossil fuels? Just to take one example, China's life expectancy has grown increasingly despite having record levels of pollution. You would think that more and more people would die as fossil fuels increase. Something doesn't connect here. Care to explain the conundrum for me?
ISIS having their hands on a nuke would be catastrophic.
However climate change is definitely already happening and is potentially also devastating for the survival of the species. It could itself ignite a number of conflicts, we have no idea what will happen, but we know it could be very bad.
Can you cite an instance in any reputable broadsheet where Israel has officially threatened to use nuclear weapons?
Misstatements not challenged quickly, too often become the "truth".
The places most affected by climate change already have terrible health: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/ncd/mortal...
Saying stuff like that feeds right into the deniers.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/426608/how-likely-is-a-ru...
It does not show that the Chinese government is actually going to change anything substantive.
Here's something from late 2015:
China is totally crushing the U.S. on renewable energy http://grist.org/climate-energy/china-is-totally-crushing-th...
Here's one that is just a month old:
China set to surpass its climate targets as renewables soar https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079179-china-set-to-su...
The graph BNEF prepared shows carbon emissions ~tripling from 2012 to 2040, due to substantial growth in non-OECD coal & gas consumption, which swamps the drop in these categories for OECD countries.
Meanwhile, its consumption of coal – the dirtiest of the fossil fuels – dropped by 3.7 per cent, with imports down by a substantial 30 per cent.
The country’s solar and wind energy capacity soared last year by 74 and 34 per cent respectively compared with 2014, according to figures issued by China’s National Bureau of Statistics yesterday.
The latest figures state that “clean energy” – a combination of hydro, wind, solar, nuclear and natural gas – now accounts for 18 per cent of all its energy, up from 13 per cent in 2011.
Such rapid changes in how energy generation in China is changing suggests to me, that graph projecting non-OECD CO2 emission is most likely be wrong and overly pessimistic.
Animal agriculture has around 51% CO2 footprint. Bunch of it done on the rich soils of Amazon, and vast plains of USA.
Meat, dairy and eggs is what is killing us. Not traffic, not heating.
The first claim seems to be incorrect at least based on simple googling to obtain the following link: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
According to that link agriculture/land-use appears to have about 1/6 the impact of industrial processes/fossil fuel.
The second claim appears to be incorrect for "human produced" CO2 at least, using standard numbers. Perhaps there is another source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Summing up the numbers there, I get the following results:
Annual CO2 Emissions:
(China): 10,540,000 kt
(USA + Canada + Mexico + Brazil + Argentina + Venezuala): 7,245,000 kt
Here's an 18% estimate while transportation is 13%.
Here's a 51% estimate, trumping everything else.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
I couldn't find the links for the second claim (its somewhere out there) but the ones provided don't account for animals, land use and rainforest elimination. All three are major factors of the animal agriculture.
But China seems now to be really willing to reduce its impact on the planet. There are the huge investments on solar panels for instance.
Maybe we could make progress more quickly on fighting climate change if we simply bought off businesses. Implement a carbon tax that replaces business income tax and results in a net lower tax burden on businesses (from day one), and I bet a lot of opposition funding would dry up.
It would be very expensive... but compare to the cost of protecting or moving all our coastal cities and communities.
Maybe one reason climate change has become a cultural/political issue is that the people who understand the issue best and have worked on it the hardest, tend to also be people who are suspicious of businesses in general. They resist anything that looks like a corporate giveaway, and prefer a regulatory, government-led approach. As a result, "freedom first" libertarian types have lined up with big businesses in opposition.
I won't pretend that I've thought through the details deeply--take this as a musing more than an actual proposal.
Like mold in a petri dish, the human population will collapse ultimately into decentralized anarchist societies who trade among one another. Assuming we stop the 400+ reactors from going into meltdown, the majority of the population will return to farming.
We're not going to Mars anytime soon. You people can't live without AC or even know how to grow a fucking tomato plant. Sadly, most of this community will die.
-- Upton Sinclair
I'm not saying "global warming causes all the hurricanes", I'm saying "humans messing with the atmosphere has increased the variance and severity of our weather". If you don't agree with that, you're in willful denial.
Anyways, thanks for recognizing that my comment was great. I'll take what I can get.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig33.jpg
Can you explain why 1850 looks comparable or worse than the 1990s and worse than 2010s so far? I don't see what this proves.
The inputs for "man's impact" in the 1850s would not come close to modern day. If we took that into account, by your logic, the bar charts should explode out the top! But it doesn't. Not even close.
1850 - 1.2B people 2010s - ~7B people and a lot more pollution
From your linked data, the impact of AGW on hurricanes over the last year = 0
Edit: I think you may agree with me that it doesn't point to more extreme weather events. If so - my comment is directed at the parent.
You should know that's a somewhat dated view. The scientific consensus is now much less certain about the link. See e.g. [1, p.7].
[1] http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FI...
That's exactly how you wrote it.
>Like Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy? Or the streets of Miami flooding?
It's a great example of what the problem is. If you aspire to being a great negative example, I guess that's your prerogative.
Nobody is arguing climate change can have big impact. We're discussing AGW. Obviously deforestation and air pollution is a Bad Thing. The environmentalists would be better off telling that story which is quite simple and easy to understand.
I'm a buyer of that as both logic and an investment but not the Chicken-Little AGW story. Positioning is very important when you are selling something.
~7 million die from air pollution related deaths per year
Total number of people that die of starvation per year: ~8 million. ~900 million malnourished.
~800 million don't have access to clean water. Several millions die each year from diseases related to unsanitary water.
I don't understand why we can't unite and tackle those 3 instead of making it a battle between politics, environmentalism and self-righteousness (both sides).
If you believe or don't believe in AGW - tackling air pollution, food supply and the water crisis should be of utmost importance.
The left has been the majority for a while, but not in charge because 1 person != 1 vote (2 senators / state regardless of population, no D.C. senator, electoral college system.. any more?)
Disproportionate representation is a problem, for sure, but the American left would have far more success despite that problem if only they would go vote in off-year elections.
Either way, I don't think it would help the fundamental problem, which is that roughly half of the voters in this country don't accept climate science, and their party and associated media have set up a huge feedback loop to keep it that way. Helping the Democrats isn't really a solution, because we need two healthy parties.
People just don't get that this could be a serious problem & that once you notice you have a problem, you've got 250 years of locked in effects.
Here's hoping that SolarCity, Tesla, and others can make a technological difference.
Many totally different questio ns meaning different things to different people.
To many people I guess voting is choosing the lesser evil.
Agree that we need multiple functional sane parties, but we haven't had that happy situation in the US for forty years.
Really? So you're saying every person in America can be neatly defined as either right or left? That's odd because I know a lot of conservative folks who are for marriage equality and left-wing folks who love guns and are members of the NRA.
For hysterical raisins, the US has a basically permanent two-party system. Charitably speaking, you can be socially and economically either conservative or liberal, R or D.
There are some people who are economically conservative and socially liberal -- "do what you want, and leave me alone." There are others who are economically liberal and socially conservative -- "we should help the less fortunate, because that is what Christ and compassion demand." And there are plenty of other positions, but the only two real options are R and D. Tweaking the meanings of those two letters is your best bet.
That merely means voters are severely limited in their ways to express their opinion. It doesn't mean every person is reducible to a single bit.
The irony being that people with money and power are the least likely to ever be affected by it.
If they want anyone to act they would do as the king of Nineveh:Jona 3:6 "For word came to the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes."
The moment I see climate scientists starts to switch to teleconferences I think I will give it a second thought.
(Yeah. I know many, possibly most of you don't believe a thing of that but it is still a good example.)
(FWIW: I make a living making solar cell technology, I previously programmed recycling machines. I just happen to be tired of hypocrisy.)
Saw it was below 0 and upvoted you even though I guess "your side" is the one who is busy downvoting me.
Downvoters: can you please stop downvoting based on assumed political belief and start judging content based on quality? Please?
So yes, your position is unpopular, and it's wrong.
The very moment politicians start acting like there is a crisis, people will listen.
For now it all looks like a giant racketeering scheme to deprieve the small man of cheap energy and travel while the rich ones get richer.
Not saying it is like this, but think about it a moment before knee-jerkingly hitting the downvote button.
I'm in no position to judge the science behind this but I have a nose for fish and something stinks so badly I have a hard time crediting it all to right-wing nuts for now at least.
Why do you imagine the politicians would be concerned with climate change? It's not like they or the rest of the oligarchy are going to be the ones affected.
All in the guise of cheap energy. Hooray. Energy is cheap, until it becomes a lot more expensive.
Thanks for your lack of vision.
The commenter you're replying to is just saying what it appears the average person is thinking, not that they subscribe to it at all.
Of course that depends on the people he pays for the carbon offsets actually reducing carbon emissions somewhere else in the world. It is easier to claim that you will than it is to actually do it.
(My bet is that within 10 years there will be a major scandal as someone in that space turns out to be a pure and simple scammer.)
Often a direct replacement for kerosene solutions.
I'd like to help your efforts if possible. I write code. Nothing too amazing but have been at it a while. How can we connect over email?
Phase three will be "it was actually the liberals who blocked action on climate change"
What if the safety of the planet lay in stopping greenhouse emissions. But certain large blocs of the international community refused to stop pumping it out of the ground.
Now say diplomatic means don't create any real progress, only broken promises. For an example of what that might look like, take the nuclear accord John Kerry just got Iran to sign this year. Already they have tested new long range missiles and their leader, Khamenei, released a statement this week: "Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors," [0].
Seriously, what happens when those with fossil fuel reserved chose to use them, even when your country is being responsible? What if it meant another war in Iraq: would the positions on policy for fixing AGW swtich between Democrats and Republicans?
[0]: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-khamenei-idU...
for me to have a position on the question would depend on the particulars.
A related thought - there aren't a ton of countries that have both large fossil fuel reserves and a large enough domestic market to burn them at a high rate. US and China are the only two that come to mind. Maybe Iran? Which implies that sanctions (either on the import of energy or the export of finished goods) might be effective if you can keep the US and China on board.
A revenue neutral carbon tax at about $80/ton is popular enough that oil companies use it in their planning for the future.
The "right" has favored cap and trade schemes in the past (specifically Reagan), but suddenly became allergic to the idea.
Your "solutions" are ridiculous anti-market solutions, presumably exaggerations that you would use to describe the solutions that have actually been proposed?
Also, Teslas and other electric vehicles do not depend on fossil fuels, even if they can potentially be powered by fossil fuels (at much higher efficiencies than fossil fuel vehicles)
Of course they do. They are made of materials that depend on fossil fuels for extraction. To pretend otherwise is completely idiotic. Everything that doesn't come from plants has to be mined and mining is energy intensive.
Energy is fungible. It doesn't matter if it's energy intensive, industry and mining can succeed without fossil fuels just fine.
These seem like very fragile assumptions.
I just wanted to say that "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" seems to be a common tactic along with high levels of straw person arguments.
Bear in mind, this is absolutely necessary for the entire world at some point. Fossil fuels will not last forever. Best start now and not procrastinate.
In terms of specific policy to pursue: basically lots of subsidies.
All the power in my camper is provided by solar energy. I paid maybe $500 for the system, including a lithium ion battery. It will provide power for the next 25 years for two people, using computers all day long and plenty of bright lights at night.
Solar power is hella cheap. People need to stop whining.
P.S. I really doubt that the panel will last 25 years, and the battery is likely to go poof even sooner.
I think the battery will go for 15 years & the panels too. So 25 years was a bit of a stretch but 15 years electricity for $500 was pretty OK.
Solar energy really is cheap.
There are many parts of the world where it makes the most financial sense.