This and so many other opinions like it are so naive. Oil companies don’t succeed because of “big money”. They succeed because there is still significant demand for the product from the general public. Businesses can only profit in a market where the product is in demand. That demand will exist until an alternative product option matures enough to be both practical and affordable. All electric vehicles and hybrids still have a ways to go before they reach mass market acceptance.
2
@John. You are correct that demand for fossil fuels remains but the growth of that demand is flattening and almost flat in most western developed countries. This is why the US is exporting huge amounts of Mogas Latin America and elsewhere.
Much as restrictions on auto emissions has led to cleaner lighter and higher gas mileage cars (which is good for all), a carbon tax would likewise hasten the switch to cleaner fuels which will be good for all. The sky didn’t fall in case one and won’t for case two.
If you google “Exxon and carbon tax” you will see that they, as well as Shell and BP are supportive of a carbon tax. Such a tax would also affect petrochemicals, natural gas and coal though, which brings a broad array of other industry lobby groups into the fray. The carbon tax revenue could be used for badly needed infrastructure upgrades
A carbon tax along with a market for tradable credits is the fair way to achieve reduction and to slow global heating.
4
@John We need to do everything possible to support that transition...something like another "landing on the moon" initiative.
In the meantime, here in western Colorado, they want to build a pipeline to Oregon so we can have MORE fracking in our recreational areas in order to sell it overseas! This is NOT going in the right direction.
4
We are a blue state, but even here the voters are unwilling to pay more for their energy consumption, change their driving habits, take shorter showers or regulate their use of furnaces and air conditioners. When personal comfort and convenience meets a crisis that is still somehow perceived to be in the future, it is no contest. Ah well, it is just my grandkids who will burn and starve.
5
#Youthvgov is our best and most promising chance to fight the tyranny facing us all. Big oil and gas has tremendous arrogance and gall, but in reality they are undermining their own safety and welfare. Climate tipping points are already here. Once breached, we are all toast.
The irony of it is shocking. What of their children and their future generations?
So I pray that Our Children's Trust kicks them good and bifurcates our path to victory. What a dream - a livable climate for all.
2
Meanwhile the world continues its mad growth and development of infrastructure on oil. The world is overdeveloped on oil and continues to grow out on it, to all ends of the earth.
We got to get real here folks. The state of Colorado is so spread out and growing on oil highways that there is absolutely no way that electrification of transportation could plug in to the vast infrastructure built on oil by the year 2040. And possibly never. So, 100% renewable power by 2040 comes with a big qualifier -- not including transportation which is a growing chunk of our energy demand. And which represents the greatest conundrum that we continue to dance around with such numbers. Not an impossible goal, but doing so would require such a gargantuan shift in so many political and economic sectors. And then we would need to ask ourselves if we really should be trying to plug electrification into such a vast, inherently unsustainable oil network.
Because the end of oil will come. Peak oil will come if it is not already here. And we, heavily dependent on oil, will be faced with rapidly rising prices and rationing for the most critical needs. Those most critical needs will not be building the infrastructure to replace oil.
So, we can protest the oil pipelines and divest from oil, but we all continue to suck on those pipelines with gusto to maintain all the unsustainable economic growth on oil. Even us environmentalists on our next trek to the mountains of Colorado.
1
I'm no conspiracy theorist but the influence Big Oil has on geo-politics is entirely real and insidious and it never, ever sleeps. They will not relinquish their stranglehold on the world's economies without a knock-down, drag-out fight and they are prepared to spend whatever it takes. When you consider the profits they make, it is an extremely powerful megaphone and of course their morals are as loose as it gets. Think the NRA X 1,000. But the oil people must know that environmentalists are just as committed, just as dedicated and just as relentless. Because we know how high the stakes are and we want our children to live on a planet that isn't just a giant trash heap. We will not give an inch and I firmly believe the tide is turning, despite their filthy riches.
3
If the greenies were really serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions they would embrace nuclear power but they don't.
@Rob To be accurate, its the utilities that haven't embraced nuclear, cuz they're in business to make, not lose, money.
Of course @Phil , but who destroyed the economics of nuclear in western democracies ? It is noticeable that China can build NP @ 1/3rd the cost and in half the time it takes us.
Left to evolve technologically in the 1970s - in the same way that the civil aircraft industry has - we’d have eleiminated coal ( championed by Lovins and his band of loony greens ) and be well on the way to decarbonising our grid.
The Eco Green movement along with their idealistic and their naive & gullible followers put us on this path.
Amazing how the capitalists extol the endless magic of the marketplace...but if you take away oil, it will all collapse. Evidently a capitalist economy just isn't possible without fossil fuel. Who knows how it got started before the industrial age, and I suppose it will close up forever once the last drop of oil has been pumped and burned.
2
Shameful but not surprising. In Colorado the ads were so misleading you would have thought you were voting on a school funding bill. Put the Big Oil companies right there with the Gun Manufactures. What's a few more American lives when there's so much money to be had!
It's time the calls for a carbon tax be accompanied by a thermal tax.
coal, oil, nuke & gas burners (King CONG) emit huge quantities of heat as well as carbon. they need to be taxed on it.
1
Until Americans are choking in the streets, or the foundations of their homes crack do to fracking, they will do nothing to force politicians to act. Our nation is the king on a hill of fossil fuels, and until all of it, and all of the money it makes is gone, we are stuck. We have seen the wreckage of prehistoric and ancient civilizations around us for centuries, and pondered how and why they failed; the Mayas, Incas, Mound builders. All gone. It will be our fate also. Soon.
US emissions are going down. Despite what Trump has said, the US is actually on pace to possibly hit Obama’s Paris agreement reductions.
1
How ironical? We spend billions on potential wars and war with one another over the potential of catastrophic climate change. One party convinced many Americans that a small group of political refugees, fleeing in charge criminals and rapists, were an invading army of criminals and rapists. What will it take to convince Americans that significant climate change will spawn a migration of environmental refugees, not in the thousands, but in the millions.
During the Cold War, the potential reality of all out nuclear war was brought to the TV, theater and coffee tables. Some depictions of the threat, "Alas, Babylon," strive for a realistic note. Others, "Dr. Strangelove," took another approach. Clearly, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was more or less agreed that all out nuclear war was political, social and cultural suicide. If humanity survived, it would most likely be deaf to the urging of a better angel of our nature—"Mad Max."
Well, it is time to bring the significant potentials of climate change home, not in graphs and charts and images of woebegone polar bears. We need more versions of "The Day After Tomorrow," from sitcoms to blockbusters. So you environmentally conscious billionaires, open your checkbooks to a prime time sit com of a normal middle class family, the Wacky Williams Family, who, “you betcha,” are going to make a go of it in the environmental apocalypse. Get the Cohen Brothers on it and set in in Fargo.
2
What I don't understand is what all the people at the oil companies think about the future of their children and grandchildren.
1
@Independent
Well, many oilmen are geologists, paleontologists, geophysicists, etc, who through their studies and work realize that the worlds surface, fauna and climate has always been changing and will continue to do so. Those who think climate change can be stopped are terribly naive.
1
Thank you for your efforts and leadership in keeping global warming before policymakers.
Since the 1973 oil crisis, I evolved in understanding the correlation of fossil energy to the World's quality of life, and how the increasing use of coal, oil, and natural gas were saturating the atmosphere with gasses much faster than the Earth's natural sinks could absorb them causing a greenhouse effect that causes climate wilding and threatens human survival,
I started looking for technical solutions that could allow us to deliver a non-fossil energy supply that would be cheaper than fossil energy and attractive to consumer and industrial markets.
Working with scientists Drs, James Powell and Gordon Danby, who invented superconducting Maglev transport, that has the potential to evolve the global surface transport systems to a 300 mph, all-weather, system. Powell and Danby, were introduced to me by the late Senator Pat Moynihan, whose idea was to use Maglev to build a National Maglev Guideway System along the Interstate Highway rights-of-way to, very cheaply, carry passengers and freight trucks. see www.magneticglide.com
James Powell and colleagues also invented a Maglev spacecraft launch system to place solar satellites in orbit to beam energy to Earth for 2 cents/kilowatthr.
With this cheap electricity, we could replace fossil fuel technologies, and extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
This pathway to a much safer future has been described in "Spaceship Earth".
New science can replace fossil fuels much faster! For example, water, fresh or salt, will soon easily and cheaply replace gas, diesel & jet fuel. See MOVING BEYOND OIL at aesopinstitute.org
24/7 fuel-free engines will substitute ambient heat for fuel, tapping this huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, larger than earth's fossil fuel reserves. See NO FUEL PISTON ENGINES and FUEL FREE TURBINES on the same site. These engines can replace or supplement intermittent wind and solar farms.
These inventions are hard-to-believe but very real. They differ from textbook science that has become dogma.
The inventor of fuel-free engines expands the Second Law of Thermodynamics. His presentation at the Astrophysics and Particle Physics Conference next month will discuss superseding Quantum Mechanics with Temporal Wave Mechanics.
Water fuel reflects Japanese work with explosive nanobubbles of Hydrogen. Water not only becomes a fuel, but can be extracted from the air, ending the need to refuel.
Trolls are certain AESOP's work is impossible and reflects fraud and dishonesty. One posts rants filled with lies and distortions that deflect needed support.
Imagine the impact of these and similar new technologies if they rapidly reach the market.
This is a much simpler path than seeking to impact government actions. It is direct and can change the world faster, providing hope for human survival in a time of abrupt Global Warming.
Let's make the seemingly impossible possible!
1
Not sure what Post you are referring to - comments here are mostly reasonable although I absolutely disagree with many of them. In particular, electoral politics in the US, EU, England, Canada and Australia is not going to get it done. That's why mass civil disobedience is needed but that does not mean I don't advocate technical solutions - it's just that international governmental cooperation is needed to get this done. The effort has to be on the order of a far greater magnitude than the Manhatten Project. I believe civil disobedience is the only way to make governments take meaningful action including substantial support to legitimate inventors and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, as long as 350.Org and similar organizations rely on electoral politics and the willing lifestyle changes of a handful of often privileged individuals little will happen, as Mr. McKibben' article in fact shows. Indeed, had this column been about Trump or some identity politics issue or mass shootings, there would have been hundreds and hundreds of comments. Last time I looked, there had only been 71 comments.
1
It’s hard to fight ubiquitous propaganda on radio, TV, and even on pulpits. When baloney bounces about inside the brain, common sense just doesn’t work.
1
I live in Colorado, 112 was flawed, it’s not that I don’t agree that there should be setbacks but it should be based on science not irrational and uneducated fears dowsed in misinformation. This is why I voted no.
@Tj Dellaport no bill will be perfect. I don't know about Colorado's but here in Washington, our carbon tax proposal was backed by a broad coalition, very well thought out, the money was thoughtfully directed--and it still failed because of opposition from big oil. All big oil has to do is spend money to say "this isn't perfect" and even thoughtful people will swallow that line. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need to start somewhere. Our carbon tax bill was a great start that got defeated by monied interests. Out here our sky was smoky from forest fires for weeks the last two summers. There was just a report that humanity has killed off 60% of all animals. We absolutely need to do something and not let the energy companies dictate our every move.
4
@Tj Dellaport I too live in Colorado and agree it had flaws. I chose to error on the side of voting for it because of what is at stake. Our world.
1
So what science needs to tell us that having a large oil derrick drilling within several hundred feet of residents is a good idea? My brother in law in western North Dakota has several wells drilled within 1200 feet from their home. The noise, the 24 hour drilling and lights and the fracking truck traffic were very disturbing! This is one instance where NIMBY is very applicable. Then if course, heaven forbid anything go wrong in the way of an accident, we’ll suffice to say, again you don’t need science to tell you it’s a bad idea. These companies have plenty of room to send out vertical drilling hundreds of feet. I don’t think they would have suffered from the set back rules.
1
The recent UN IPCC report, dire though it was, caused only a modest ripple in a mainstream press obsessed with Trump, electoral politics, and the latest mass shootings. Moreover, there are a number of credible scientists, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge comes to mind, who firmly believe the IPCC report underestimates what is coming and how soon. Thus, while I greatly respect Bill McKibben for his tireless efforts to wake up the public to the ensuing disaster of climate change, the time to rely on electoral politics and willing individual changes in lifestyle to get where we need to be is over and has been since at least 2016. This is not to say people should not continue to engage in electoral politics or examine their own lifestyles. However, the realties of electoral politics make it clear that only a massive civil disobedience movement in the US, EU, England, and frankly India and China, to halt all of the internecine squabbles and tribalism until those governments collectively make ameliorating climate change their number one priority will have a true chance of changing things. Thus, it's time for 350.Org and similar groups to call for full blown civil disobedience. I doubt that will happen and I doubt many people would even answer that call. So be it, and welcome very soon to a planet with very little in the way of organized human life.
2
Here in Colorado, Big Oil spent $40 million to stop Proposition 112 which would move setbacks from multi-well indusrial drilling pads from 500 ft to 2500 ft. Much of that money came from out of state oil companies. The pro 112 grassroots effort raised about $1 million. Theoil companes spent their money flooding the airwaves with ads threatening jobs and crippling the Colorado economy should the proposition pass. We spend our funds on signs and social media. 42% of the voters voted in favor of the increased setback. We are not going anywhere, and we are not defeated.
3
Oregon’s legislature should pass a “cap and invest” bill next year, joining California and British Columbia in forming a thin blue lifeline to the future. Will that, and the efforts of mayors and city councils across the country be enough to counter the obscenely huge amounts the oil companies are willing to pay to brainwash the gullible and climate-uneducated voters of the Midwest and South? Probably not.
It will take many more hurricanes, heat waves, droughts and forest fires to convince enough people that their children and grandchildren should have the same opportunities to imagine a happy future as we baby boomers did. We can only hope that somehow the climate models are wrong and that society can eke out a solution before fatal tipping points are passed.
9
United we stand; divided we fall!
The Dems and progressives have a problem. Everyone wants to advance their own special interest while the Reps have managed to marry the cultural mob with the big money gang. So you guys the environmentalists are weakening yourselves and let your opponents to weaken you further with "divide and conquer."
Case in point, when Martha Coakley, then the Mass DA, tried to run for the senate seat vacated by John Kerry, she threatened not supporting Obamacare without some provisions. She lost anyway. Steyer, the fund manager turned environmentalist, did the same thing with Keystone XL extension, threatening to withhold financial support to the Dems. Those were minor details in the scheme of things. See what they did have done. EPA is a mess. DoD is a mess. America is a mess.
Wake up folks. You guys might win a battle here or there but have been losing the war big time! The proverbial pennywise and pound foolish
1
Yes. This. Oil companies cannot be allowed to sneak around so easily, as this invisible force stirring up public ambivalence toward policies that would implement merely incremental measures to hinder climate change—hardly impactful enough to decimate the economy overnight. Yet the old guard would rather play it safe for now... even as the long-term outlook for human civilization on this planet looks increasingly grim.
It needs to be made abundantly clear to every voter if he or she can expect to be targeted by oil company propaganda in advance of deciding on a ballot measure. Oil companies that attempt to influence voters must be unmasked and villainized again and again until the general public recognizes them as the purely loathsome, self-interested entities that they are.
But we can't fight what we can't see—so let's start by exposing the finer details of the tactics these oil companies are using across the country to shape political opinions. We did it with the NRA, and though change has been slow to come, awareness of the once-covert organization's corrupt methods is at an all-time high.
5
Excellent piece from Mr. McKibben. I hope the NYT will devote more inches to environmental issues, perhaps even an easy doomsday graphic showing how many decades are left until the Silent Spring arrives. I know that sounds like a big ask, but that’s much less than what I’d really like to see happen: for the new congress, when it’s seated in January, to declare that it’s time to put away childish things. In my dreams, Dem leader even say they’re going to leave Trump alone, in order to focus on hearings regarding climate change. If we don’t start find ways to leave oil in the ground, much worse than Trump awaits us.
8
Absent campaign finance reform, the total domination of our "representative" form of government by petroleum and other big industries and megacorporations is a fact of life. And has been for more decades than any of us have lived. America and its two-party primitive form of government fell under the complete domination of capital in the 19th century, and huge fortunes made supplying materiel and growing food for the Union Army were the seed capital for many of the ancestors of our present multinationals and their controlling stockholders. After Watergate no one in Congress wanted to kill the goose that lays these wonderful lobbyist golden eggs like so many crass kindertoys that my agency seizes from incoming passengers because of the choking threat they pose to small children. We are all now choking on the farce of a government that exists to pander to the multinationals while pretending at election time to do otherwise.
5
When I see Bill McKibben's name on the byline, I am always going to be interested in what he has to say, better educated by what I have read and hopefully a little more motivated to act. But for the last two years I also end up wondering if he regrets going so hard at Hillary Clinton while advocating on behalf of Bernie Sanders. It is the same question I have for the people who believed, perhaps correctly, that Sanders had the better approach to any number of issues from access to health care, the cost of a college education, campaign finance to ensuring that everyone in the workforce is paid a living wage.
One take away might be that we should have listened, nominated Sanders and worked hard to secure his election. But maybe the lesson need to learn going forward is that it is important to have a vigorous debate when setting priorities and identifying policies and approaches, but in a way that does not damage the people competing to take our message in to a general election.
We are about to go through this again, first when deciding if Nancy Pelosi will be speaker then, when nominating a slate of candidates for 2020 and the message they take in to the election.
Before he was elected, Donald Trump told us exactly who he is and what he would do. As we argue about who we are, what we want to be, and who we want to lead, we can't to risk the lament that we are again "two years further down the path" without having made at least two years worth of progress.
6
For those of you who have them, divest your portfolios of stock that are related to fossil fuels and fracking. Look at your own carbon footprint and decide where you can cut back. Yes, buying that hybrid or electric car may not be enticing when oil prices are low but it is the moral choice to make. If everyone took a good look at where they can cut back their use of fossil fuels, together we could take a bite out of the problem. And more importantly do not vote for anyone to any political office.local, state or otherwise who does not commit to doing something aboutf climate change.
7
This kind of focus on individual consumer decision making ("look at your own carbon footprint and decide where you can cut back") is exactly what has been wrong with much of the environmental movement for a long time. The reality is that structural features of our capitalist economy, like planned obsolescence and the constant drum beat for growth rather than re-distribution, must change if we are to curb climate change and reduce the suffering it engenders. Guilt-tripping individuals, most of whom have neither the financial means ("buy an electric car") nor the time, given long work hours, to live the "green ideal" does not help. No matter how well meant, it’s perceived as an elitist, self-righteous approach that has alienated many potential allies. Of course, ultimately, we need to shift to renewable energy and reduce consumption. But to do this, we need to reduce the barriers inherent in the system that prevent people from reducing their impact on the environment. We need to focus on directly challenging the corporate power that perpetuates the system, not alienate or distract people by thinking the problem can be solved by a few people buying electric cars, putting solar panels on their suburban roof top, or buying organic groceries.
8
@Leslie. I don’t disagree with you about the need for a macro overview of the problem and for a need to change the built in waste that is perpetuated by capitalism. However, we have known about climate change for decades and solutions need to be found on the individual and grass roots level as governments especially our current one, is doing everything possible to exacerbate the problem. Most effective social movements start at the local level. Problem is that our government has its finger on the scale trying to hinder new technologies in favor of support of fossil fuels.
In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely irreversibly retreating. That’s over 4m of sea level rise in the Northern hemisphere, a large fraction of which could arrive this century.
And we’d be facing that weakened by severe drought and flood impacting the breadbaskets of the world causing massive famines and economic decline.
We have a global emergency that we’re sleep-walking into.
15
@Erik Frederiksen Exactly, if the GOP thinks it has an immigration problem now, wait until the coming catastrophe hits... they aint seen nothing yet! The people affected are not going to just sit there and starve, they will get up and MOVE. Fighting climate change NOW is an investment in everyone's future.
2
I think it’s clear that in addition to carbon tax, we need technological solutions: geo-engineering, development of better batteries, shift to electric vehicles. Once renewables are cheaper than oil, there will be no need for boycotts which never work anyway. And there are social changes as well, though I’m not sure that they are palatable to either right or left. Among them are switch to high-density living (cities, especially with good public transportation, are much more ecologically sound than sprawl); reduction in population growth, perhaps by adopting the Chinese model of penalizing breeders; and changes in diet by limiting meat consumption, as industrial animal farming is a major contributor to global warming. None of these solutions is as morally satisfactory as posturing against Big Oil but they work.
4
@Mor
It's not "posturing against Big Oil" to talk about the real problem of phony propaganda and short-term profits and pollution.
Geoengineering, as you are likely to find out, is not the cure-all that people think it is. Not quite as bad as moving to Mars, but equally impractical. Imagine crops if you dim the sun, and think about ocean acidification.
We could all use to become vegetarians, that would help a lot. And we could stop electing dictators: the Brazilian thing is monstrous; genocide of indigenous people as well as burning up the planet.
Some of what you say makes sense, but the gratuitous snark at the end devalued the rest.
7
Bill McKibben offers courage, persistence, and tolerance. He's been to hell and back: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/opinion/sunday/lets-agree-not-to-kill-one-another.html - "as the very beginning of some kind of return to the gentler old normalcy — for people to stop making death threats. That seems to me the least we can ask of one another."
Those of you who are eager to find fault and criticize, label and attack, would do well to read his plea there, and think about why the wealthiest people and industries on earth are willing to take such pains to destroy the truth.
It is a simple truth that our climate is going haywire fast, and that we've known about this since at least the 1980s. Neil Gorsuch's mother was part of the problem, and he continues in her tradition.
Attacking the truth benefits noone. It is a truth that fracking is poorly accounted for and is helping burning up the earth. It is socializing risk and privatizing profit. It's a boom and bust cycle (three years or so) which leaves infrastructure and human capital damaged (roads, sewers, schools, and joblessness in its wake). It uses and pollutes an unconscionable amount of water. It causes a rise in frequency and size of earthquakes. Its neighbors have health problems (yes, this is documented).
NatGas is not "clean". Meanwhile, renewables are cheaper and storage problems are being solved.
You want jobs? Why not to get on board with the future?
Nature has the only seat at the table, and it bats 1000.
8
Americans will pay more for energy. How much more is the question. As it is, energy, or rather the disposal of hydrocarbon end products, is far too cheap. Unlike dumping sewage in drinking water, hydrocarbon waste is almost invisible and its killer effects far removed the original source. The answer is renewable energy, but only if brought to bear before the looming heat disaster.
6
All true, but you need to know that the initiative in Washington was deeply flawed, and blaming big oil on its defeat misses the message.
First of all, the initiative was not at all specific about the projects that would be funded - it truly said, give us the $ and we'll figure out the projects later. Secondly, there were a lot of exemptions - no tax on airplane fuel for instance - that felt like a lot of special interests had gotten a say in the crafting of the measure. 15% of the funds were going to subsidize low-income people's energy costs to make up for the increase in costs from the fee, which seems counter productive if the goal was to reduce carbon.
I believe that the majority of people in WA are dedicated to stopping climate change - as am I - but for a effort that would generate at least $700M a year in revenue, I think a lot of people felt it wouldn't make the impact we need to make.
Hopefully we will try again - this time with tangible projects that can be measured and proven to reduce our state's carbon footprint.
1
@DG
Opponents of these measures will always find deep flaws or create the illusion of them. So supporters of the measures must be prepared to live with aspects that look like deep flaws and may well be. The situation was the same with Obamacare, and the answer is to pass it and then work on fixing its defects and problems.
5
"...those in Colorado who fought their hearts out for modest setbacks for new oil and gas projects, including fracking wells, so that drill rigs wouldn’t loom over people’s houses."
"Modest setbacks"? The Colorado measure would have essentially shut down new exploration in Colorado, the fifth largest oil producing state in the US.
From the Wall Street Journal: "State regulators have estimated that the measure to curtail drilling would put 85% of Colorado’s nonfederal land off limits to new wells."
Colorado voters saw and understood that this measure was extreme, so they voted it down.
4
@Kurfco
So climate consequences are cheap, you say? Have a look in Colorado:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-floods-spur-fracking-concerns/
Fracking uses and pollutes vast amounts of water, it is a boom and bust culture with a 3 year cycle, that uses up infrastructure (roads and sewers). Earthquakes. Multiple unregulated forms of pollution.
Please start paying attention. Wildfires are much worse. Floods are much worse. Sea is rising. Pollution from big agriculture is ruining bodies of water, big and small. Lots else. It costs a bundle!
Michael
Florence
Irma
Maria
Harvey
Storms around the world: have you noticed what's happening in Italy?
Climate migration is heating up.
Famine.
Too costly, you say? Just wait, and costs will come to you.
8
You mean that paragon of fair journalism, the Wall Street Journal?
I also found the UN IPCC report disturbing, in the future carnage described as well as the 12 year time frame.
The fossil fuel sector is only 2.6% of our economy, but they budget big amounts of money to maintain permission to wreck our atmosphere.
Meanwhile, if Tech walked the walk, they could use their muscle- and their money- to give fossil fuels a spanking. Firms like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple have money to burn these days. Instead of using their muscle to salvage the future, they prefer to focus only on extracting the maximum amount of profits per year, just like the oil companies. One could even argue that taking Exxon ads is worse than actually making the products.
They are not men. They are Devo, bent on mimicking life instead of enhancing it. The result so far has been Trump. Turn this train around before it's too late, Tech boys.
There are lots of paths open, Tech. You know where to find Bill, or maybe Randy Hayes. That is, if you'd like to see a healthy planet this century.
17
Progressives should encourage boycotts of firms that promote big oil, gas and coal. We should be able to identify these firms to the public so we can use our power as consumers to effect change.
We know that solar, wind, hydro and geothermal power can save the world. Now that progressives have some sway in congress let's get behind initiatives that can be taken up by the people themselves.
When one of our legislators is under thumb of one of the polluters, we should call him or her out so people know how to vote in our own interest.
12
@betty durso
You heat your house with gas, I assume. What's your plan to replace it? You drive a gasoline powered car. What's your plan to replace it? When you fly, they use jet fuel. Plan to replace it? The power you use at night for lighting and your computer is in all likelihood generated by burning natural gas. How to replace it? No sun at night. Wind only blows when it blows, so power comes and goes no matter how many wind turbines are built.
As hard as it may be to accept, the primary reason we haven't gone to all renewable energy is no one knows how to do it or when it might be feasible to do it.
5
@Kurfco
Yes, I use gas, and Pennsylvania has many nuclear plants (with their toxic waste) and some coal-burning plants. But fracking is being pushed for export as liquefied natural gas. In my opinion that gas should stay in the ground. We should be switching over to sustainable energy AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. But that won't happen without some sort of regulation such as cap and trade.
Instead of pulling out of the Paris Accord, we should educate our citizens about global warming and what it's doing to the planet that nurtures us and our children. Instead we get propaganda from big business to protect their profits at the expense of our future.
I'm glad to see so many women entering congress. Hopefully they'll bring their maternal instinct to bear on this crucial problem before it is TOO LATE.
3
@Kurfco
The cost of the comfort we live with is the degradation of the planet as a place to live. Our lifestyle is destroying our lifestyle.
1
A weak point in the just-defeated Washington State carbon tax proposal (I-1631) was its would-be use of such tax revenues to fund a rather vaguely defined set of vaguely "green" projects. A predecessor carbon tax proposal (I-732) in Washington (which would have avoided such drawbacks by instead refunding revenues to taxpayers) was also defeated two years ago with help from many prominent environmental organizations opposing it, including Mr. McKibben's own 350.org, or at least the local chapter of it in Washington.
Big Oil, its coal and gas counterparts, and their exploitation of deficient campaign spending regulations, are by far not the only obstacles to more effectively limiting global climate disruption due to excessive reliance on fossil fuels.
1
@Sage
Big oil desperately wants us to believe that it is only one of a whole bunch of insurmountable problems.
We need the sort of mobilization we had in World War II, with jobs for everybody and not much available beyond necessities to spend the money on (which amounted to a reduction in the standard of living until the war was won). With their excess money, people bought War Bonds (they could have just paid higher taxes).
We need to do things and change what we are doing after it does not work, rather than avoid doing things because they might not work.
4
@sdavidc9
The "sort of mobilization we had in World War II" is so far from current reality as to be almost a pipe dream.
For starters, Charles Ponzi was not US president during the 1930s and early '40s.
Let's, more realistically, keep this at a level where people who believe in ghosts and Biblical creation and UFOs have half a chance of comprehending:
Based on a century of solid science (of which most of Congress is alas ignorant), using carbon fuels is bad for our future, however appealing it might be for the time being, like hard liquor or cigarettes. So we should tax it, and encourage substitutes, as with other substances that are addictive and have bad side effects.
There is no clear path forward to the end of using fossil fuels. The sun doesn't shine at night. Wind is intermittent. Nuclear plants are shutting down. Hydro and geothermal are limited, local, and minimal. And battery storage is still in its infancy.
Like it or not, natural gas fired power is here to stay for as far as the eye can see.
If McKibben sees a way to a 100% clean energy future, a way with actual technology, not religious faith that something will miraculously happen, I'd love to hear it.
2
@Kurfco Carbon engineering can make gasoline from renewable energy and atmospheric carbon dioxide for $5 a gallon. You said 'natural gas fire power is here to stay for as far as the eye can see'. Google 'The Secret of the Great American Fracking Bubble'. The fact is that fracking has never made a profit. The fracking industry loses $40 billion a year, and many insiders think the next global crash may start when Wallstreet realizes that fracking may never yield a profit. You spend a fortune breaking up the ground for a couple years of sipping the gas that leaks out afterward, and then it runs out and you move on (lately, onto public lands). It's pretty obvious what such desperate behavior portends: the easy gas is gone, and you're stuck blowing up the ground for a few sips of the hard-to-get stuff. It's running out. Fracking is a bubble that will pop, eventually. Possibly crashing the global economy as it deflates.
5
@Kurfco This is an out-and-out lie. No sun at night? Wind intermittent? Store the energy produced during the day. Current technologies exist (water pumping back behind hydro dams, is just one), and battery storage is accelerating. Aerospace corporations are experimenting with electrical engines, and ultimately will get there, because flying at 30,000 feet above the earth with a belly full of highly flammable liquid is not a good idea. The notion that it will be hard and take innovation to solve the problem that fossil fuel addiction presents used to the kind of thing this nation thrived on. I don't believe we have turned into a people that throws up its hands and says "oh well, let's keep using this 19th century technology that is poisoning our planet, because hard."
11
@AJF
You demonstrate my point. There are hopeful, faithful people like you, but no existing, visible, path forward to replace fossil fuels. California will build a dam and reservoir for pumped storage or any other purpose? Sure. And the ones that currently exist haven't been effective because of the drought. No water, no pumped storage.
Having worked on similar citizen initiatives regarding nucleare waste and recycling in 1976 in CO, I feel the pain of the proponents of the initiatives in WA and CO - citizens can be easily overwhelmed with info and complexity (and negative ad spending), and scared by industry of dire consequences. The setbacks proposed in CO that were defeated were estimated in the Voters Guide to make 85% of CO private lands off limits to new oil/gas development. That certainly sounds like a virtual shutdown. A researcher estimated that the actual amount of oil/gas that would be undeveloped would be about 42% because of horizontal drilling techniques. How many voters knew either of these figures? Or even that the measure was all about new drilling and would not effect existing industry? We need competent legislatures that will move forward so citizen initiatives are not required; the CO legislature is now, with the governor, all Dems so we'll see what they can come up with.
9
The dropping price of solar and battery storage together will win the day with a bang-like suddenness. As soon as the renewable options become sufficiently inexpensive and convenient, fossil fuels will be messy and old fashioned -- yesterday's news. A bit like but faster than buggy whips -- suddenly there were no horse-drawn buggies, but freight wagons were still in use.
The fossil fuel extractors know it, and are treating existing reserves as though there is no tomorrow -- unloading them -- while not investing in finding new reserves for future extraction. When the price of solar begins to close in on some critical value, the value of fossil fuel company shares will suddenly drop -- faster than the prices of fuels -- as stock portfolios are adjusted.
So the shift to solar may be quite sudden and successful without governmental aide. Sooner, better, smoother and faster with it properly done, of course.
13
Carbon penalty schemes, whether cap and trade or a tax, can be redistributed in their entirety. British Columbia already does this quite successfully.
Your point is well taken, but never say never. The arc of carbon freedom is long, but bends toward a cleaner and more climate stable future.
2
Big Oil & the GOP aren't the problem when it comes to enacting climate change legislation. American voters don't want to pay more for energy. Every poll backs this up. The GOP is simply reflecting the desires of their constituents. The point of cap & trade was always to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use in America. That is the goal. For it to “work,” cap and trade needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. President Obama’s former OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program. The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this. Period. The overall reality in that climate change legislation is hard to pass even in good times. It's a real killer in an economic downturn where citizens & business fear higher costs, even slightly higher costs, & may see no concrete benefits. The US is extracting carbon & flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before. We're trying simultaneously to reduce demand for fossil fuels while doing everything possible to increase the supply. Mind you this started when Obama was President. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels? Are we willing to vote against our own self interests & approve higher taxes on fossil fuels? Can we muster the restraint needed to leave assets worth trillions in the ground? Absolutely not. It's never going to happen.
8
@Bill Brown "Never going to happen." Well then, kiss the future goodbye. The point of this article was that fossil fuel corporations fear mongered their way to victory. The real cost of Climate denial will come from massive migrations, food shortages, pollution, etc. BTW--a carbon tax can be designed with rebates to those most in need.
24
@Bill Brown
Carbon penalty schemes, whether cap and trade or a tax, can be redistributed in their entirety. British Columbia already does this quite successfully.
Your point is well taken, but never say never. The arc of carbon freedom is long, but bends toward a cleaner and more climate stable future.
5
@Ira Shorr Answering all comments. I'm not a part of the energy lobby. But we & (the world) will continue to use coal for the foreseeable future no matter what happens. Maybe less but still in massive amounts. It's baked into our energy grid. It can't & won't be eliminated overnight. That will take decades at best. Even though our governments now subsidize clean-power sources, efficient cars, buildings, etc... we continue to rip as much oil, coal & gas out of the ground as possible. And if our own green policies mean there isn't a market for these fuels at home, then no matter: they will be exported instead. The US is extracting carbon & flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before. For years we've tried to simultaneously reduce demand for fossil fuels while doing everything possible to increase the supply. More efficient engines enable more people to drive more cars over greater distances, triggering more road building, more trade & indeed more big suburban houses that take more energy to heat. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels, power, convenient goods & services? We all know the answer is no. The science on climate change is settled, but the politics isn't. The GOP is disingenuous when they deny the science, but lets be honest the Democrats are even more disingenuous when they deny the cost. Cap & trade, carbon taxes etc are politically dead in the water. American voters simply don't want to pay more for energy.
1
The conundrum is that as more money pollutes elections, the bigger profits media conglomerates make.
There used to be an Equal Times rule for federal elections, as well as a Fairness Doctrine that mandated that broadcast media provide a diversity of views on issues of importance to communities that broadcasters serve.
Because so many citizen ballot initiatives address concerns that are ignored or blocked by state legislatures, particularly issues that affect business interests, nearly every initiative adverse to commercial profit will be swamped with a tsunami of tax-deducted corporate money.
It's common practice when a TV or radio station gets a huge media buy from one side they'll call the opposite side to encourage dueling dollars -- 100's of millions in aggregate -- so they can laugh all the way to the bank and back.
All broadcast media is still subject to FCC regulation. Every station has a license for the public airwave space they monopolize for free.
Instead of occupying Wall Street, activists should occupy TV and radio stations until they again serve the public interest in return for their FCC license to print money.
Corporate political spending should be subject to heavy taxation.
35
In sunny CA (80's in November) the lack of any mention of climate change during our election season was remarkable. Are we so selfish that we will ruin the world in exchange for more " jaaahhbs" and fatter bank accounts for the elites?
16
There’s no particular benefit to mentioning it during elections. You might as well ask Trump why he didn’t fire Sessions before the elections.
1
Thank you, Mr. McKibben, for your hard work and inspiring commitment.
It's probably too late to save our world as we know it. Now the race is on to save some remnant. We owe it to the countless lives lost among other species, who were essentially sacrificed to give us this chance.
We can't give up.
28