Individuals can change the world without waiting for imponderable government action. BLACK SWANS - Highly Improbable breakthrough technologies - can sharply speed replacement of fossil fuels. See aesopinstitute.org for a few examples. Combustion engines can soon cheaply and easily be modified to replace gas, diesel & jet fuel with water. And it can be extracted from the air, ending the need to refuel. Fuel-free piston engines and turbines are in development. Fuel-free micro-turbines will give electric vehicles unlimited range and turn them into power plants when suitably parked, selling electricity or providing it to buildings. A Heat Pump air conditioner has been invented that needs no refrigerants and merely 1/3 the power of current units. This is an unrecognized revolution - attacked by Trolls who lie and twist facts to deter support. Imagine the implications as rapid commercialization becomes possible! Bold souls will lead, not follow, government. Positive BLACK SWANS are the missing tools needed to swiftly supersede coal, oil & gas.
The worst case scenario in the climate report predicts a 10% lower GDP at the end of the century if we do nothing. Over 80 years, that's an annual difference in growth rates of 0.12%. Policies that stimulate growth would easily make up that difference and more.
And contrary to what climate change advocates will say, addressing climate change is not cost free, nor will it generate savings in excess of its costs. The people rioting in France over a carbon tax aren't rioting because they will be saving money under Macron's proposal to address climate change.
2
@J. Waddell
Wrong. Addressing climate change would be a huge economic boost, adding a whole new economic sector of jobs and income, much like the internet did in the past two decades. It would bring increased efficiency, health, and security along with lessening costs for the natural disasters that occur more frequently now, like the 100-year storm event that now happens every 1-5 years. Importantly, it would shift the cost of pollution from the general public, who has to pay for related healthcare, insurance, infrastructure, etc., to the polluters, who now pollute freely.
The tragedy of the commons is an economic lesson we must heed. We cannot endlessly despoil our one and only planet, thinking that everyone else does it so its ok, or that my contribution is minimal so it doesn't really matter.
Eventually, it adds up, as we're seeing. If we don't act, our entire civilization is in jeopardy. Not just that extra 10% in profits for greedy executives.
42
You are missing the point. It isn’t all about money (unless you’re Trump). It is about protecting the livability and viability of the planet for future generations. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be part of a generation who left things worse off for our children.
14
What action do you propose that would save life in the ocean from changing chemistry (acidification)? We cannot geo-engineer our way out of that one.
1
Comment on the photo:
Trump digs coal
Coal digs our grave
ergo
Trump digs our grave
(You're helping?)
2
At this point, the whole problem seems moot .the link shows how carbon emission are growing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/05/we-are-trouble-global-carbon-emissions-reached-new-record-high/
Replacing about 420 quads of fossil fuels over the next 50 to 100 years appears insoluble
The fossil people mainly deny AGW. They also tend to violate physics and deny fossil fuels are finite. With only about 5 decades of viability, they are wrong or delusional. Oil and natural gas are going away fast
The renewable people fail to even address the intermittency and storage problems with solar and wind ignoring energy density and energy return. The myth that wind and solar are limitless is a problem is perpetuated. The materials for renewables are finite and require concrete, steel, silver, copper, neodymium, dysprosium, etc. in large quantities. Ask the renewable people how many quads of fossil fuels saved…no answer
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
Nuclear is vilified despite having the best safety track record of any power source. Yes, the risks are there, but less than other sources. There are not enough qualified engineers, crafts and technicians for nuclear to make much of a dent at this point
Germany per capita yearly emissions. ~ 9mt
France per capita yearly emissions ~5 mt
Let’s change the world without waiting for imponderable government action. BLACK SWANS - Highly Improbable breakthrough technologies - can sharply speed replacement of fossil fuels. See aesopinstitute.org for a few examples. Combustion engines can soon cheaply and easily be modified to replace gas, diesel & jet fuel with water. And it can be extracted from the air, ending the need to refuel. Fuel-free piston engines and turbines are in development. Fuel-free micro-turbines will give electric vehicles unlimited range and turn them into power plants when suitably parked, selling electricity or providing it to buildings. A Heat Pump air conditioner has been invented that needs no refrigerants and merely 1/3 the power of current units. This is an unrecognized revolution - attacked by Trolls who lie and twist facts to deter support. Imagine the implications as rapid commercialization becomes possible! We need to lead, not follow, government. Positive BLACK SWANS are the missing tools needed to swiftly supersede coal, oil & gas.
1
Unfortunately, if Trump keeps packing the courts with his choice of judicial appointments, neither the facts nor the law may matter, even in the courts. Time will tell.
1
The most inconvenient fact is that pollution caused global warming is just one symptom of a human population that is already many times too high for earth's ecosystems to support sustainably (sewerage poisoned/overharvested oceans, disappearing fresh water, large % soil in agricultural areas gone, mass extinctions, mounting probabilities of civilization destroying pandemics …). Therefore, the most interesting question becomes why have many of our 1% and their propaganda entities like the NY Times, most of the major media, the democratic party, some republicans, big business, Wall Street etc allowed and actually encouraged attempts or gestures to reduce the over-population symptom of global warming. The number one motivation/tactic seems to be that our global 1%s want to "cover", fill the news space dedicated to environmental concerns with virtue signaling about wind mills and solar panels so the public is proportionally distracted from the need to stabilize and reduce the earth's population of human resource consumers, ecosystem destroyers and polluters. Because our 1%s gain evermore profit off the top of ever increasing sales of goods & services (GDP) to an ever increasing population - while they are confident that they can personally avoid the eco degradation that their growth at any cost policies cause. And, it also seems that they think they can make some profit off of wind mills, solar panels and electric cars whose electricity is mostly made by burning fossil fuels.
@winthrop staples
That's just more fake news.
Scientific studies show that:
1. our planet can easily feed and host 11 billion peopl
2. the global population is expected to stagnate precisely at around 11 billion people, by the end of this century, when all economies are fully developed.
And what causes global warming is record carbon emissions. The basic fact that people who want to blame population (without consulting the available science, of course ... ) tend to omit time and again is that not every world citizen is causing global warming or causing it equally.
And it's precisely the US that has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world (another convenient fact that those who prefer to despise "the media" from behind their computers writing comments, tend to omit). With only 6% of the world's population, we're responsible for a whopping 25% of the world's carbon emissions - as much as China, although China has four times more habitants than we do.
Blaming population means clinging to the most polluting lifestyle in the world all while wanting the others to disappear from the earth. And that, obviously, won't happen ... ;-)
Or when you write that we need to "reduce th earth's population of human resource consumers, ecosystem destroyers and polluters", do you mean that America's population should somehow collectively commit suicide ... ? ;-)
So you see, THIS is why serious media talk about clean energy instead of population growth.
Let's say I'm not ambitious enough to predict the impact of CC on the entire US economy by 2100. But let's say my job is to predict how much hurricanes will impact by 2100. Well, all I've got are unknowns:
Such as:
-- rate at which economy will grow
-- how much things will heat up
-- if we will have more nastier hurricanes
--whether those nasty hurricanes will hit the US
-- whether they will hit more or less populated areas
-- how much subsidence will have increased or decreased
-- if tougher codes have made for buildings that can withstand much higher winds/rain
-- how much of the population will have moved to or from the Atlantic/Gulf coasts
-- Inflation
--Cost increases or decreases for seaside real estate
-- how much infrastructure has improved (or declined)
I can make reasonable guesses about each of these and then run Monte Carlo simulations, produce about a zillion scenarios & a range of possibilities, but that's it.
Let's say for each of these variables I allow 5 values (e.g. -- for overall economic growth -- 1.5,2,2.5,3,3.5) -- with 11 variables that's a mere 48 million+ scenarios. The range of the scenarios could be from nothing much --- to catastrophe -- depending on the values I select. I can also give various weightings to each (meaning more scenarios) --
And I've probably left out a few important variables that would influence how much hurricane damage will impact the US. Essentially, all I'm doing is guessing.
@Ralphie
I hope you realize that you're merely making up stuff here?
Why would anybody do that - let alone scientists?
If you're really interested in this questions, get out of your own head and read the empirical studies summarized in the latest US government report.
THEN you will know how many valuables have to be taken into account, and how many different scenarios are RATIONAL, rather than mere "guessing".
Secondly, the argument you keep repeating is that if climate change lowers annual GDP growth by less than 0.1% (going for instance from 2% to 1.9%, or from 3% to 2.9% etc.) then we shouldn't worry at all because you're "guessing" that that isn't much.
In real life, that means that American ordinary citizens will lose their homes, jobs etc. for an amount of thousands of billions of dollars a year, you see?
Do you have any good reason to support policies that would have this kind of impact ... ?
And again, why would it be wise to start confounding science-fiction novels (which indeed essentially do some guessing, nothing more) and scientific reports ... ?
@Ana Luisa Anna Luisa --- I'm sorry, if you're familiar with predictive modeling, you know you have to take multiple variables into account. I've read the report chapter on coastal impacts -- and it's pretty obscure, although I did go to a few referenced articles -- even one in Zillow (the real estate company) -- hardly a scientific journal.
What I said was the impact of hurricanes on our economy. The report mostly talks about sea level rise.
And you must have me with some one else, I haven't made any comments about economic growth other than it;s variable.
I'm not making stuff up. If you were going to predict hurricane damage in the US from now until 2100, what would you use in your model -- CO2 emissions in the US? How would you do it? What variables would you include? How much weight would you give each?
@Ralphie
1. You wrote below: "No economist can predict what the economy will look like in 80 years. We don't know what the growth rates will be, we don't know what knew innovations will occur.", remember? So no, I'm not confounding you with someone else.
2. One of the reasons why you need to be a climate scientist in order to understand climate science studies is precisely because this is a profession, which requires years of study. If I would look at an article about computer science as someone who's not a computer expert at all, you'd find it "obscure" too. You cannot possibly refute it simply by discovering that as a non-expert, you don't immediately understand what is written there. Just like you won't reject advise of your cardiologist by telling him that you don't understand scientific articles written by cardiologists.
3. If you're comment isn't making stuff up, then how do you define the difference between "essentially, all that I'm doing is guessing", as you yourself qualified your own comment, and "making stuff up" ... ?
4. Asking me to come up with a method to predict hurricane damage is like asking your cardiologist to fix your computer, you know ... ;-)
CONCLUSION
Scientific research is a PROFESSION. It's absurd to imagine that someone with a different profession would be able to refute their findings, and even more so by mere "guessing". That's not how science works.
We didn't get a man on the moon by letting non-experts do some guessing, remember?
2
The ineptitude of this administration continues to baffle me. As the country continues to unwind from almost every direction, this president continues to extol his own praises and there are millions that continue their support of him. His rally's are full of people who I have to question their moral character and common sense.....more people like this than I ever, ever realized were among us. We are a strong nation, but these constant disruptions while ignoring scientific facts will come back to bite us in the very near future.
31
The DoD is aware of climate change and the need to mitigate threats. Facts Trump and his enablers are ignoring; who are on their way out. We all individually and en mass need to change behaviors: reduce our consumption, reduce the ways we pollute. We need to choose to cooperate to find and employ answers instead of deny the evidence in front of us and the science. We can do this and must.
2
The facts and law are against your colleague Bret Stephens too. I hope he read your op-ed.
1
In the worst case scenario, Trump has six more years to work against the environment. While he is losing many cases, he is still winning some. In terms of climate change, those years of stagnation could be critical. We need the people of this country to get their heads out of their keisters and start pounding their fists on the table. There are enough us to make a sound that can't be ignored.
3
@Mike - one thing to keep in mind is that there's a lot going on at corporate, state and local levels that continues to reduce emissions. And even in reliably-Republican states, simple economics and jobs are helping turn things.
Here are the states that generated 30% or more of their power from electricity in 2017.
South Dakota - 30.1%
Oklahoma - 31.9%
Kansas - 36%
Iowa - 36.9%
https://www.awea.org/resources/fact-sheets/state-facts-sheets
North Dakota was at 26.8% in 2017, so will probably break the 30% line this year or next.
Texas got 14.8% of their electricity from wind last year, and Texas generates massive amounts of electricity. Exxon's buying some wind power to run some of their fracking there.
So even in states where the party in charge prefers fat checks from fossil donors, there's money to be made in wind, and solar's gaining too. In rural areas where there isn't oil but is lots of wind, money's going into pockets of ranchers and farmers, and is helping counties that have faced declining populations and tax base.
Money is the kind of green will make Trump's war look less and less reasonable even in oil states.
2
The intent to continue to drill and brush aside the destruction of our planet is blatant and open for all to witness.
Trump administration approves seismic tests that could harm thousands of Atlantic dolphins and whales
"By Darryl Fears November 30 Washington Post.
The Trump administration took an important step toward future oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic shore, approving five requests allowing companies to conduct deafening seismic surveys that could harm tens of thousands of dolphins, whales and other marine animals, according to studies.
In an announcement Friday, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, declared that it issued final “incidental take” authorizations permitting companies conducting the surveys to harm wildlife if its unintentional." https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/30/trump-administration-approves-seismic-tests-that-could-harm-many-thousands-atlantic-dolphins-whales/?fbclid=IwAR1lyAFZOmK4ltcn8B_KJWAXMCS-tp7BOan86NmgFldsjOaxjHNw_RtPGPc&utm_term=.2ee092477daa
1
But if Trump appointees like Neomi Rao are on the bench, who says the law will still side with the facts?
2
A president is not entitled to poison the planet because he is the president.
One way or another, the climate issue will lead to chaos unless reason prevails and steps are not taken on a massive collective basis to address the mess we have created by way of greed, convenience, and stupidity.
If the President obstructs the reasoned response to an existential threat to the planet and the life it sustains, he should be removed from office.
4
"A recent government report predicts dire consequences from climate change. That complicates efforts to weaken environmental laws."
To call it dire is hype. Here is what Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal says quoting the NYT:
“damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end.”
"I can’t figure out where the Times got this, but it’s the difference between, say, 2% and 1.86% annual growth over the next 82 years and happens to be about right."
A 10% decrease in growth over 82 years is unfortunate, but calling it dire only buttresses everyone's feeling that ""Planet protectors" are addicted to crying wolf.
I personally believe in climate change and also believe that we need to change our fossil fuel addicted lifestyle. But that change will not come about as a result of hype and people crying wolf.
And ultimately the whole thing boils down to the NYT's usual obsession, "It is all Trump's fault" although, apart from ONE action, pulling out of the Paris treaty, he has precious little to do with it.
NYT, please give up on your obsession with Trump bashing and you will be more credible outside your little gated community of NYT readers.
1
@Ludwig
In real life, Trump is allowing his GOPe cabinet, and especially the EPA, to destroy environmental rulings on a daily basis.
This is not just withdrawing from the Paris accord (which is badly enough already), it's much more than that.
And have of his cabinet advised him to stay in the Paris accord. He withdrew nevertheless. If you imagine that the president of the US, when he takes such a decision, "has precious little to do with it", then WHERE does the buck stop more precisely ... ?
Finally, I don't understand why you expect serious media to stop reporting and commenting on the fact that the political party that controls the Senate and WH today is vehemently against tackling what even the Pentagon calls a "national security threat" today ... ?
1
@Ludwig - funny to talk about gated communities after citing a WSJ op-ed. Their news reporting is great, but their opinion side is roughly as unslanted as the side of Mount Everest.
But tell us, in your own words, the economic value in things like the $500-million tax boost down in Miami just to stave off damage from increasing sunny-day flooding?
Houston had a 500-year flood when Harvey stalled and dumped multiple feet of rain there, but they'd also had a 500-year flood the year before, and another the year before that?
How productive is it to have thousands of homes flooded, repaired and then flooded again? All those submerged cars, all that store inventory ruined?
Why not just manufacture extra homes, cars and goods and dump them in the ocean?
3
We needed to have totally stopped using fossil fuels more than 10 years ago, now it is already far too late! It is now impossible to stop global warming at only 2 degrees, but we probably still have a chance to stop at below 5 degrees increased temperature, that demands that we make all fossil fuels totally illegal by the end of this year 2018, but that will unfortunately not happen! Politicians are weak and unable to make the decisions needed, that is the problem with democracy because they know people are egoistic/stupid and will vote them out of office if they dare increase costs, taxes, on fossil fuels! Normal people do not really care about future generations, or even their own children's future, they do not understand that we all today live lives that the planet Earth can not survive! Our personal egoistic greed make life impossible for future generations!
Drastically increased taxes is the only tool to force everyone to stop using fossil fuels, and force car manufacturers to make cars that do not use fossil fuels because nobody will be able to afford cars that runs on fossil fuels!
People in France violently protest when politicians increase taxes on fossil fuels, that proves that democracy can not handle/prevent the now inevitable catastrophic global warming!
1
The hubris of trump puts Americans at extreme risk, as he ignores not only the laws of the land, but also the laws of nature. If he was the CEO of White Star Lines, he would have most emphatically assured everyone that the Titanic was unsinkable. He views America the same, and he’s captain. Uh oh!
1
Now tell that to the idiots holding "Trump Digs Coal" signs. And tell it to the former lobbyists who have turned the EPA into the Environmental Pollution Agency.
3
It is so simple. Trump makes his own facts as needed and does nor care for laws made by others. He is a unique selfish person who should kept in a cell by himself. Unfortunately many Americans put him in the wWhite House for thei own narrow reasons and have become his fools.
1
Neither trump, China or all the liberal banter in the world can change the direction of global warming or cooling......
It’s pure hubris to think we can
We are just travelers here for a short period.
Enjoy it as it’s fleeting.
@There
It's not that "we think we can", it's scientifically proven that we can and are.
Today, we humans are emitting an amount of carbon that is the equivalent of 500,000 Hiroshima bombs a day.
That's how we know have an atmospheric carbon level of more than 400ppm, something that didn't happen for at least four million years, AND that is happening much faster than ever before - so fast that man species and ecosystems TODAY are collapsing, and we happen to need those ecosystems in order for us to survive.
Proposing science-based policies isn't hubris. Hubris means preferring to put your head in the sand and use your own imagination as basis for our collective action, rather than empirically proven truths.
Totally agree with this gent. And I love that quote: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” Don the Don and his stable of stooges and lickspittles have done lots of table pounding. I see more to come in our future.
2
At the end of World War 2 in some allied countries, citizens put up "wanted posters" with pictures of those citizens who had collaborated with the Nazis during the occupation. The objective was to ensure that these traitors and abetters of the Nazi regime that killed umpteen thousands of their fellow citizens would be held to account for their actions.
The Allies also had 'most wanted' posters of those chief Nazi's responsable for crimes against humanity. All in the hopes that the world at large would be alerted to them and help find those that had escaped capture.
I imagine a website with the pictures of the different politicians and Gas & Coal CEO's that continue to deny that climate change is anthropogenic. People such as trump, and McConnell and Inhofe and Pruitt and Wheeler and Manchin and Blankenship et al. Perhaps with pictures of their families and where they reside. When millions upon millions start to die - perhaps as soon as 5 to 10 years from now - it would be useful to know who deliberately and purposefully tried to delay our last chances at fighting climate change before it was too late. Knowingly abetting in the death of millions so as to pursue personal wealth - surely that must count as crimes against humanity, must it not?
2
Here's the kind of Republican I used to vote for before becoming an Independent:
When he visited my state years ago, GHW Bush marveled at Montana as a symbol of pioneering destiny that still shows across its vast landscapes. But then his tone shifted as he turned to the environment, lamenting the pollution threatening water, air and wildlife and proclaiming Montana a place that understands the value of environmental protections.
“The conservation ethic runs deep here,” he said. “In the past two decades, Montana has enacted some of the most advanced environmental statutes in all of the 50 states.
The citizens of the Big Sky State understand it’s not man against nature — it’s man and nature.”
7
@Bobcb - it must hurt to have to think about him and then think about empty-hat, Zinke, who's only concern beside cheap travel is "Total Energy (company) Dominance".
2
Rather than criticize Trump for promoting fossil fuels, our media should be addressing the need to outlaw unlimited unanimous bribes to politicians, including substantial contributions by fossil fuel billionaires.
5
@John Q - yep. Campaign finance reform and getting a Congress that will eliminate what Citizens United allowed are a big part of what needs fixing.
Every time I think of the Roberts Court decision that unlimited donations wasn't corrupting without a signed "here's your bribe for the following favor" receipt, it makes me wish justice wasn't so willfully blind sometimes.
2
@John Q
Guess who has bills that would do exactly that?
The Democrats.
Guess who opposes those bills?
Trump and the GOP.
Guess to whom "we the people" decided to give the power to decide things like this?
The GOP and Trump.
THAT is why the media have to attack the GOP and Trump here. If not, nothing will ever change.
2
As long as governments ask the 99 percent to pay for climate change remediation while letting the 1 percent become ever richer from the causes of climate change will never work.
1
In all of these comments, there is no mention of the underlying cause of resource depletion and pollution: unbridled human reproduction.
The earth is only so big and can hold only so many of us. If we exceed certain limits, bad things will happen to our only Earth.
Is that too complicated to understand?
2
@Kenneth Brady If we don't control population, Mother Nature will. And, you know what they say about Mother Nature.
1
@Kenneth Brady
The problem with easy to understand and "common sense" sounding hypotheses is that they're often false.
Today, 1 single American is emitting as much carbon as 4 Chinese citizens or 15 African citizens taken together.
Studies also show that the earth can easily support 11 billion people ... IF we start distributing wealth equally, and end dirty energy consumption (including massive red meat consumption).
Conclusion: it's too easy to blame poor countries for their rapid population growth when they actually almost don't contribute to climate change, all while claiming to want to stick to our own lifestyle, which is precisely causing most damage already to the regions where most poor countries happen to be situated. We KNOW what causes climate change and who does: it's we. So WE will have to change, instead of eternally blaming others.
1
Is the author a scientist or crusader. This governmental report means virtually nothing. No economist can predict what the economy will look like in 80 years. We don't know what the growth rates will be, we don't know what knew innovations will occur. If we grow at an Obama like pace (2% annually) then the economy will still be almost 5x bigger than today --- if we grow at a trumpian 3% -- the economy will be 10x bigger than today by 2100.
I believe the report also assumes the worst case for emissions and remediation. And remember folks, only the Chinese and other emerging economies can prevent this looming DISASTER.
By definition, any "scientific" production (this is not a peer reviewed paper) is inherently not falsifiable if the results are projections for 80+ years from now. Who is alive today that will be around in 2100? Plus I thought the earlier report said disaster Will Robinson by 2040 -- so what difference does 2100 make. Various agencies should get their act together.
Meanwhile, I invite all the alarmists to take a gander (is that sexist?) at this photo of Texas taken from the ISS --
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10217967310720277&set=p.10217967310720277&type=3&theater
Please note how much urban growth there has been, not just in the larger urban areas but across the whole swath of that part of Texas. You don't think some of the warming we may have had is due to urbanization like this (you know,heat retention).
@Ralphie
In real life, there IS no "Trumpian 3%" economic growth. Look at the graphs, and you'll see no Trump dent at all. Trump has some 4% quarterly growth, just like Obama had, and that's it - apart from the fact that it's Obama who created this, not Trump (who didn't pass any economical bill yet, remember?).
As to your idea that scientific predictions wouldn't be falsifiable because they are predictions: that's absurd, of course.
All available, settled science predicts that the earth will evolve around the sun during the entire next four centuries. And the studies upon which those predictions are based are entirely falsifiable - because falsifying a scientific study means showing that the STUDY contains scientific errors, regardless of what happens in the future, remember?
That's why denying the US report predictions on the basis of the fact that they are predictions about future events is like deciding to pass bills TODAY that will assume that the earth won't evolve around the sun within 80 years, JUST because those predictions are about what will happen about 80 years from now. It doesn't make any sense, you see?
1
What I think is that your “urbanization,” is part and parcel of the same greedy, dimwit behavior that is warming the planet, and taking us down a road that’s pretty easy to see, whatever silly jazz about predictability might be thrown at the wall in the accustomed fashion.
By the way, it's the US, not China or developing countries, that has the highest carbon footprint per capita.
With only 6% of the world's population, we're responsible for a whopping 25% of the world's carbon emissions.
China, with FOUR times more habitants, also emits 25%.
So you need FOUR Chinese people to produce as much carbon as ONE single American, you see?
As to costs to the economy: we know how many hundreds of billions in costs a huge hurricane or wildfire costs. We also know that those will increase. That's how you can easily, and in a perfectly falsifiable way, calculate how much damage climate change will do to the economy during this century.
It's absurd to put these calculations aside and decide to do nothing about proven risks, just because they didn't happen yet ...
1
While climate change denial may not be as dramatic as flying planes into large buildings, it also exemplifies the human propensity for self-destructive behavior. The difference is that the suicide pilots were driven by beliefs in religion, and the climate change deniers are slaves to their belief in making money - both of which stand in contradiction to the happy existence of humans on this planet.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds would see the survival of a particular group of people or a belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
Bien-pensant somewhat polite anti-capitalists like Gina McCarthy and her doctrinaire warriors impose unreasonable regulations to strangle U.S. manufacturers, and limit consumer choice, all without approval of Congress. President Trump rightly tries to roll back some of these non legislated edicts; and our climate alarmist friends become intolerable.
Projections of future temperatures are unreliable at best, and often politically motivated. Additionally, scientists who agree with our alarmist friends receive generous government grants; scientists who don't receive nothing.
I enjoy seeing Trumpists try to sling the lang as they round up the usual suspects, myself; it’s like watching monkeys use bananas to try and chivvy cats.
@Stew R
Except that there's nothing to back up such claims, and tons of evidence backing up the opposite.
Can you please give concrete examples of scientists who received government grants NOT to study the climate but because they would claim on beforehand that they want to produce studies that suggest dangerous and human-made global warming ... ?
And concrete examples of scientists who were denied government grants because they claimed their studies would prove that global warming doesn't exist, even BEFORE having done them ... ?
Finally, can you please give us concrete examples of scientists who studied the climate, discovered results that confirm global warming, and who then somehow went on becoming millionaires or billionaires?
All those things simply don't exist. The only millionaires and billionaires out there are fossil fuel industry CEOs. And THEY are the ones explicitly imposing a program on the scientists that they hire: they have to try to refute existing climate science studies that show global warming.
And you know what? After decades of investing in this kind of studies, they didn't find anything serious. Result? Now former Exxon Mobile CEA Rex Tillerson, Trump's former Sec. of State, explicitly admits that AGW is real and dangerous and advised Trump to stay in the Paris Accord ... as did the current Exxon Mobile CEO. And that's knowing that the fossil fuel industry receives 38 times more taxpayer subsidies than the clean energy industry ...
1
I recently read a story about Mika Brzezinski's and Joe Scarborough's wedding which took place the day after Thanksgiving. The location of the wedding was in the National Archives, symbolizing for this couple the gravity of our situation here in America and the world. Mika is a liberal and a stand-up person, I thought, for understanding the consequences of ignoring the climate warming and doing our part in making changes to slow the process down.
I was surprised, then, when I read that Mika had her shoes designed and made just for her. Wow, I thought, I never would even imagine having my bridal shoes custom made. And then I did a face palm. Because the designer of the shoe wanted to so make sure that the shoes matched her dress that she (the designer) flew down to Brazil to match the fabric of the dress. To see it in person. It was so very important to match that fabric to shoe.
That is insane. It is selfish. It is stupid. It is hurting all of us on this planet and all of our children's children's children.
Mika does something called Know Your Value, aimed at women. I'm really sad that she doesn't see how her actions, hurt us all.
I like Mika and Joe. I watch every morning, I'm watching right now. I hope she and Joe have a wonderful life together. But Mika needs to wake up. And right now.
It's easier being poor. Such decisions never have to be made.
3
"The facts and laws are against Trump." And you think this will concern him how, exactly?
20 to 2 against mainly Obama appointed judges. Lets see how things go on appeal or when these cases go to real judges.
“the models are wrong”
The above is stated so often by people that reject AGW. They never actually cite anything. There are quite a few models…all working fairly well. Hansen and Broecker were reasonably accurate back in the 70s-80s. They are reviled for actually getting things correct.
Yet, the same red herrings hit the news everyday…”it’s a hoax.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
The fact is the planet should not be warming at all due to natural forcings. The Milankovitch cycles are cooling—but operate over thousands of years, the sun’s output has been decreasing for decades, but the planet is warming.
Ask someone that rejects AGW to post and cite a natural forcing causing the warmup..and the answer never arrives.
4
You forgot the other alternative that Trump is good at, to change the facts while verbally abusing whoever disagrees.
Ahh, yes.
More predictions.
Because the last ones were so accurate.
And Gore does not feel the least bit sheepish as people review his ridiculous predictions that were outlandishly wrong, as he comforts himself with his 100s of millions made from the scare.
1
@Ken
Actually, the only error in Al Gore's documentary was a quote by a scientist about melting ice which the documentary proposed as proven science whereas it was a mere subjective reflection by that scientist.
And that's it.
Check it out for yourself and you'll see ... ;-)
For nearly two decades liberals have been arguing that conservatives have been ignoring science when global warming or climate change is the topic.
Now they ignore science when it suits their agenda, pounding the proverbial table cited by Carl Sanberg.
Just weeks before the ‘dire predictions’ study was released by individuals working for the government (Hint: the people are the government not our employees) there was a major revelation that disemboweled climate change claims.
The original studies conducted during the 1990s used a computational algorithm that included an error. As a result of that error the entire climate change/global warming foundational theory is wrong.
Every study, survey, investigation, and report released is based on that erroneous algorithm. They are all WRONG.
What caused the basic review of the original study? Simple, every single prediction has failed to occur.
The earth mean temperature has changed zero degrees.
Weather has not changed in intensity one iota.
Ocean temperatures are identical.
The ocean level is exactly the same as before.
Animal and plant distribution remains unaffected by the lack of change.
In fact the history of climate change since the original East Anglia report was released shows that the world wide climate remains unchanged.
The laws written to prevent climate change serve no purpose, the predictions released by our employees are without merit.
Time to return to the barnyard Chicken Little, the shy isn’t falling
4
@canis scot - you are telling a fib and you are not providing any links to document the fib. But hey, you mention "original studies in the 1990s" and then provide us with joke-of-the-day by claiming one error in one algorithm in an unnamed study, decades into climate modeling, changes things.
In 1861 (not 1990s), John Tyndall wrote up extensive lab experiments that showed there were various gases that absorb infrared radiation. When those gases are in the air, that blocks heat escaping to space.
That provided the evidence for Joseph Fourier's hypothesis in the 1820s (not 1990s) that gases in the air were keeping Earth far warmer than if infrared could escape unblocked into space from the surface.
In more current times, there were many many models in use before your pretend "foundational" study in the 1990s.
To save space, I'm just putting the query in so you can check Google Scholar for science papers with "climate model" between 1960 and 1989. There were 283,000 hits, so there isn't room to list them, but one important one was "Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere" by Manabe and Stouffer in 1980. Manabe had been building climate models since the 1960s, and they showed things since observed, like faster warming in the Arctic, and cooling of the lower troposphere.
Run this and read results.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+model&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_vis=1&as_ylo=1960&as_yhi=1989
3
@canis scot
"Every study, survey, investigation, and report released is based on that erroneous algorithm. They are all WRONG."
What algorithm is that..please cite ANYTHING.
The raw surface air temperature record indicates the planet warmed about 1C over the past century without any algorithm.
The tidal gauges around the planet indicates the sea level rose about 20 cm last century
Glacier national park has lost over 100 glaciers in the last century and over 90% of glaciers are receding on the planet
Ocean acidify 30% over the last few decades
No algorithm required to just look at the data and see what is happening.
3
Where "On Earth" did you get the "Facts" sighted in your comment? I sure would like to see your sources.
2
When it hit 60 degrees Fahrenheit in Boston last February, the Facebook pages of friends and acquaintances bemoaned climate change. A check of the weather from 1965 or 1966 showed, yep, 60 degrees Fahrenheit in February.
4
@Ryan, but the question isn't one day here or there; an example of a more reasonable question is, what was the avg annual temp in 2016 and 2017 vs. the same in 1965 or 1966? Or, if you want, you could compare the number of record warm daily temps vs. record cold daily temps since ~ 1970. (PHX, for example, has had a few hundred record warms since it's had a single record cold.)
7
@Ryan
You mean you believe that those friends imagined that global warming only began last February and only takes place in Boston ... ?
@John D.
You can always pick two years and compare them in such a way that they prove your point, especially if you don't look at global temperatures but only take ONE city into account.
Global warming is about GLOBAL average temperature changes, and overall changes over more than a century.
1
The "report" is the typical "alarmist" report which is disputed by thousands of scientists. "This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign),and even violate the law. As long as you can say you are doing it for the children."
All the climate models by the "alarmists" have been wrong historically. Increasing CO2 will reduce starvation because plants grow much better and use water more efficiently. There is zero evidence of precipitation or changes in temperatures causing abnormal flooding. Hurricanes and tornadoes are less frequent ( 30%) and less violent now than 70 years ago. More humans die from the cold so warming will actually reduce human deaths. We know the authors of the IPCC’s reports have financial conflicts of interest, since the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. These people have no idea how much climate change is natural or how much is manmade. Who says that the current climate is the "perfect" climate? I suspect that a warmer climate with higher CO2 will improve the earth and reduce human suffering. Condemning third world nations to misery is a consequence of following the IPCC recommendations.
5
@James
1. There aren't "thousand of scientists" rejecting the US climate report.
2. Plants that grow faster due to higher CO2 levels, don't have the time to take in all the nutrients that human beings need, so are far lower in quality than normal plants.
3. As you just seem to take over some of the slogans launched by pseudo-scientists, here's a good way to start if you want a real, scientific discussion about those slogans:
www.skepticalscience.com.
5
So, your argument appears to be: climate change is a scientific conspiracy, it’s not caused by humans, and it’s good. Interesting.
When sea levels rise 20 feet, where will 9 million New Yorkers live? The storm surge from hurricane Sandy was 10 feet above normal. Miami is already routinely inundated, no metaphor, that.
We have no reliable data about hurricanes 70 years ago. Your assertion about declining intensity is nonsense. On the other hand, we have fossil evidence that our current climate prediction models underestimate global warming. Fossil evidence shows palm trees in Michigan. Ice cores show carbon levels never approaching what we’re certain to see; they’re already historically high. Yet no model predicts palm trees in Michigan: they don’t predict it will be that warm. Yet it must will be, because it was.
Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future. The present situation and annual “progress” is measurable. Arguing fir blindness might prevent seeing. It won’t change the future.
2
@Ana Luisa 1. It is a UN report, not a US report. 2) Yes, there really are thousands of scientists including Nobel laureates who reject the report, 3) your comment about nutrients is not scientifically based. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever,
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#ian-plimer-7
Last night on the news one of Trump's tweets appeared on the screen. In it he proclaimed he was for clean air and clean waterways. I found that odd because the people who he put in charge of the EPA want more toxins released in the air and waterways.
5
The problem is not Trump, the problem is the people, all people, and you need look no further than France to see exhibit A in that claim. France is a signatory to the Paris Agreement, yet when the government tried to put a plan in action to limit CO2 through a gasoline tax, massive riots broke out. And in this country, the popularity of SUVs and other big gas-guzzlers is on the rise, jet travel (one of the big sources of CO2) is on the rise, gas consumption is up, and nobody is turning off their AC in the summer.
Everyone talks about wanting to fix climate change, but when push comes to shove, I don't think the world has the stomach to actually take the hard steps necessary. The UN IPCC report was even more grim than the recent US report, saying we have 12 years to reduce CO2 production by 45%. The latter report has largely disappeared from the public discourse. I think the handwriting is on the wall - people are overwhelmed with the enormity of the problem and are sticking their fingers in their ears and singing happy tunes to drown it all out. As the Greeks wrote 3000 years ago, hubris will be the downfall of humanity.
10
A straight-up gasoline tax is regressive; it's the wrong way to go. That was a dumb move by the Macron gov't.
A broader carbon-tax/fee-and-dividend approach is revenue neutral, and returns the proceeds to households, which will partially compensate for higher fuel prices that consumers would pay, while incentivizing industry and energy companies to move away from GHG-producing products and processes.
Not perfect by any means, but much less damaging to consumers ...
@John D.
Climate change is a consumer problem and it is the consumers who need to change their behavior. If consumers stop demanding high-carbon footprint goods and services, the producers will stop producing those things. The way to effect such a change is taxing the consumer for the carbon impact.
For instance, iPhones are mostly made in China, but because China is a big coal burner, the iPhone has a big carbon foot print. If consumers stop buying iPhones because of a consumer carbon tax on the phone, it affects the Chinese and they will change their manufacturing processes to use clean energy.
Can anyone honestly take a look at the world today and state without their blinders on that the evidence is not mounting and it's not getting bloody obvious?
Seas rising; species extinction; toxic air, water, and earth; shortages of resources; more extreme weather of every kind; summer lengthening; heatwaves growing ... meanwhile as usual the Trumpublican Taliban lies and adds more anti-knowledge anti-humanitarians at the top in every agency.
Bought and paid for, they hold to the old adage that might makes right. But the earth doesn't care.
It doesn't play politics; it's existence is beyond question, and modern understanding of how it works is there for all too see. Time to stop thinking you can stop reality by pretending up is down and black is white.
The level of waste that we need to quit is staggering, but the sooner we start the better off we will be. Sustainable living and clean energy is a terrific jobs program.
Dirty energy and burning the planet up is bad for children and other living things.
For action, among other things, I recommend Our Children's Trust
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/
Also the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund to help allow scientists to do their job and promote their work. Gag orders on the truth are not helping!
https://www.csldf.org/
20
I looked up Professor Revesz. Another excellent advocate for rational choice; here's his Institute for Policy Integrity. Glad I took a look!
https://policyintegrity.org/
3
@Susan Anderson
Thank you for posting this law/policy site recommendation.
1
@Susan Anderson
Remember, the best base ball players bat .500, but Mother Nature bats 1000...every time. And, She doesn't care about either your children or grandchildren. If you don't care, then they will have lost...all the wonders She has provided to past generations.
1
We need forward-looking leadership, willing to help the country adjust to the changes happening in energy systems, so we can avoid mistakes (sorry, ethanol subsidies) and can prepare for changes (battery farms means power can be bought cheap and used later). All this will take decades, and we need rational review and leaders willing to look at rational review.
Instead we get the last-ditch attack of the old-time robber barons, who'd say, without irony, that killer smogs were the sign of prosperity. Is it 2020 yet?
Some changes that mean big slow power plants are going away:
1- grid-scale storage means power can be bought cheap and used later. Wind blows at night when demand is low, so rates are cheap. Batteries are good at frequency stabilization, too.
2- power plants used to need fuel. Now someone can build structures and generate power from the sun or the wind, without constant fuel and waste disposal expense.
3- generation from wind/solar can be very cheap to the point of excess, driving down costs that big power plants compete against
4- costs for wind, solar, storage, efficiency are all dropping as massive commercialization and R&D make them better
5- water will become an issue with thermal power plants in some places/seasons
And for the oil folks?
1- See #1 above. Batteries can power vehicles, too.
A battery, 4 electric motors and computers is a far less complex power train than internal combustion with transmission, exhaust, cooling, etc.
Interesting times.
6
@b fagan The trouble with "We need forward-looking leadership," is that when it includes fetus killing by the thousands (1700 every day), and denying young men due process, the forward looking people have shot themselves in the foot.
You may be surprised but you really do not have to kill fetuses to save the planet and you really do not have to deny due process to young men accused of sexual offences.
Take these things OUT of your "forward looking," drop them completely, and you will have a chance of being heard by more people.
Pretty much everything the Trump administration's appointees are doing about energy are to continue a rearguard action by companies that see the end coming, before the New Year's ball drops to bring in 2100 in a hotter world.
The "party of small government" was mulling over claiming a national defense argument to force utilities to buy power from coal and nuclear plants. They tried that after claiming grid stability depended on big power plants, which the Federal Energy Regulatory Council laughed at. Then the utilities laughed at it.
Benefit to consumers? No, but benefit the the head of coal company Murray Energy - donated $300k to Donald's inauguration, handed Secretary of Energy Perry his list of things to do.
"Perry's bailout plan for coal, nuclear could cost more than $34 billion, study says"
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Perry-s-bailout-plan-for-coal-nuclear-could-cost-13086420.php
Coal's not economically viable, and a carbon tax will kill it, while helping nuclear a bit. But that doesn't help the donors!
Zinke over at Interior? When not traveling on our dime, he's in Florida, cutting a sweetheart deal with Scott to leave Florida out of the opening of our Atlantic coast to oil production - something that no Atlantic state wants.
EPA - well, they've tossed out the scientists so they can get their scientific advice from industry, because pollution in all forms is prosperity, or some slogan from a hundred years ago, before most of us knew better.
15
Most of the Southerners fighting the Civil War did not own slaves (or even land). If you told them their fight was ordered by their 'betters' whose profit was threatened by an end to slavery, they would not believe you. Likewise, the people of Butte Country, CA (where the town of Paradise is located) voted for Trump in the 2016 election. The 'facts' are against Trump, but the 1% are for him. Their money comes from fossil fuels, and they own the rightwing media. What that media has created is an army of recruits, willing to fight the 'War of Northern Aggression' all over again on behalf of their 'betters' who have found a new slave to undergird their economy, and who once again have no intention of letting a little thing like 'morality' get in the way of exploiting it.
20
The recent government report is based on the worst case scenario. The IPCC says that scientific estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), i.e., how much the temperature changes for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, ranges from a low of 1.5C to a high of 4.5C. Scientists do not agree on a probability distribution for this range so the IPCC just takes the average, but the real number could be anywhere in the range or even higher or lower. If ECS is 4.5 or higher (which is what the gov't report referenced in this article assumes), then climate changes could be catastrophic. If ECS is 1.5 or lower, then anthropogenic CO2 is no big deal. Any intelligent discussion of these issues would address forthrightly the uncertainties in the science and evaluate options for mitigating and managing these highly uncertain but potentially very large risks. That is the opposite of the approach taken in this report.
@Douglas Levene - your statement has been debunked a lot already, but hey, whack-a-mole is fun sometimes. You are incorrect. They use multiple scenarios. It's in the report, I looked, it's online. Please read it this time.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/
"Like previous climate assessments, NCA4 relies on a suite of possible scenarios to evaluate the implications of different climate outcomes and associated impacts throughout the 21st century. These “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs) capture a range of potential greenhouse gas emissions pathways and associated atmospheric concentration levels through 2100.
[...]
RCPs are numbered according to changes in radiative forcing by 2100 relative to preindustrial conditions: +2.6, +4.5, +6.0, or +8.5 watts per square meter (W/m²).
[...]
Of the two RCPs predominantly referenced throughout this report, the lower scenario (RCP4.5) envisions about 85% lower greenhouse gas emissions than the higher scenario (RCP8.5) by the end of the 21st century [...]. In some cases, throughout this report, a very low scenario (RCP2.6) that represents more immediate, substantial, and sustained emissions reductions is considered. Each RCP could be consistent with a range of underlying socioeconomic conditions or policy choices."
18
@Douglas Levene
"The recent government report is based on the worst case scenario."
Your statement above is proof that you did not read any part of the report.
The climate report provides a range of scenarios from least case to worst case with the associated uncertainties.
Obviously, you are just exposing an ideology.
That will cause a significant increase in climate pollution and up to 1,400 additional American deaths per year, according to the government’s projections.
Sorry, but it is impossible to predict that anything will cause an additional 1,400 deaths in a population of 325 million (.00043%).
5
@Erik Not really, cost benefit analysis uses estimates. Size of the market matters little and I bet there is a range of values built around it too.
1
Today's end of the world predictions for 2045, are the same end of the world predictions made in 1995 that were projected for 2020. And in 2045, the same end of the world projections will be made for 2070.
6
It did come to pass though, did it not? Maybe not to the extent that we predicted 20 years ago (how much computing power we have now compared with 20 years ago...), but the hurricanes are more frequent and more destructive, the wildfires burn longer and hotter, etc. The trend is pretty clear. But I guess we can follow your advice and do nothing till it gets really bad, you know, when it's too late.
5
@Erik
Actually no. There has never been an end of the world prediction. There has been a prediction in a range of what will happen by the end of the 21st century about temperature and sea level rise. That will be extremely costly. Beyond that it is predicted that w/o doing something, eventually the world will suffer a world wide extinction.
We are already seeing the extinction of many species. We see that 25% of the coral reefs are dead. We already see that parts of the ocean are dead zones. We have seen once in a hundred year storms happening every few years.
We are already experiencing the start of what climate change has in store for us.
Clinging to the false notion that there is no climate change will be harmful for the human race.
7
@Erik, if anything, projections about the pace of climate change have been too conservative.
One example from a project I worked on for several years: the timing of navigable ice-free Northwest and Northeast "passages." In 2000, the few analyses that considered it placed it at the end of this century. By the mid-oughts, it was ~ mid-century. A few years ago, it was in the 2030s. Now, ships have already successfully run the NW Passage, and the all-clear will be here any year now.
Nobody is making significant reductions in the regulations over real pollution. Even with CO2 it is mostly not increasing them when fracking is improving our emissions. Just more redistribution of wealth, bribes to improve other countries, and allowing some to increase their emissions. Even the facts don't support the Paris agreement, many are not in compliance anyhow. The law was inaccurately applied by the supremes CO2 is not a pollutant.
2
@vulcanalex
No it is a heat trapping gas. That has been known for over 150 yrs now.
7
@vulcanalex
CO2 has been proven to block the infrared heat radiation that the earth's surface emits.
The sun sends heat to the earth, and the earth cools down by sending it back into space in the form of infrared radiation.
Atmospheric CO2 works like a "blanket", preventing part of the heat from escaping.
Certain planets don't have any "blanket" (= greenhouse gasses) at all, and that's why they're so cold that no life is possible. Others have so high greenhouse levels in their atmosphere that they are way too hot for life to be possible too.
So carbon isn't a pollutant in that, unlike fine particles, directly inspiring higher carbon levels would kill human beings. But it is extremely dangerous at the current high levels because of the effects of global warming on ecosystems that humans need in order to survive.
And the US has the highest carbon footprint per capita, so it would be absurd for us to wait for others before we start acting ...
"The Trump administration will have nothing to show for pounding its fists and yelling. Without the facts or the law on its side, these antics won’t be an adequate legal defense for the administration’s choice to undermine the very climate policies its report says are needed to protect Americans."
Well, I don't know ~ it worked for Kavanaugh.
13
@JessiePearl U win 2 free tix to see the DC Special K's play at Kavanaugh Park on the banks of the Anacostia. Day game on a Sunday and you sit in the sun in the 400 level.
1
“...On Climate, the Facts and Law Are Against Trump...
Yeah, but...
On climate, the facts are against renewables...
Yet, lawmakers keep shoving law after law mandating them down our throats...
And on irresponsibly aggressive schedules – with extortionate take-or-pay agreements whose cost will be ultimately borne by utility company customers...
The same sort of take-or-pay agreements have customers across the US paying for half-finished nuclear plants...
Don’t believe me – but would Harvard prevaricate???
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/12/harvard-scientists-see-midcentury-opening-for-u-s-nuclear-power/
(from original article in Nature – 10/18)
“... Though wind and solar currently constitute the vast majority of growth in US non-fossil electricity generating capacity, aided by sharply reducing costs and market incentives, it remains unclear whether, at deeper levels of grid penetration, management of intermittent renewable sources will be possible without retaining significant backup generation, a role currently played primarily by natural gas-fired power. Simultaneously, China and Russia are moving forward in development and export of nuclear technologies, while US development efforts falter with significant cost and schedule overruns in recent attempts at new-build nuclear power plants...
PS
Stop looking at the US power grid as some sort of Internet for energy – it’s more akin to our rail network of a century ago, with technology almost as old...
3
@W in the Middle - I've read some IEEE Power and Electrification Society articles about our aging grid - sourcing analog components on Ebay and other horror stories.
The good thing is that the new power electronics are much more capable for handling a more distributed generation system. The aging means that the grid infrastructure has to be invested in just to keep it running, and newer equipment is built with awareness of things like generation on the distribution side and other things that weren't thought of when central generation was the norm.
The utilities are increasingly not owning generation, so many of them no longer care too much about propping up coal, for example. They want to maintain the wires, keep customers lights on, avoid storm outages, and balance generation and demand as smoothly over the 24-hour day as they can without having to add new wire.
There's already work to build "virtual power plants" to aggregate capacity in batteries in electric cars, or the same after their useful life in a vehicle ends and they still work. It's future stuff, but not very far out.
That "world's biggest battery" Musk built in Australia is paying back its cost quickly by increasing stability on the grid there- something that used to be handled by spinning turbines at thermal power plants. Batteries respond fast and precisely. Grid operators like that.
California's replacing some gas plants with batteries. Gas peaker plants make very expensive power. Nibbling away...
8
@b fagan Great points regulation by batteries is something almost nobody talks about but would be very effective. Still upgrades will take many decades, not years.
1
@vulcanalex - it's all going to take decades to be completely done, but the point is that we've got a lot of stuff out that that has to be replaced now.
And battery storage is already able to pay off if regulations allow it. Here's one article on the Australia battery
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/true-cost-of-sas-big-tesla-battery-revealed/news-story/4c6dbf0505b6b0a6697ab8fc97cdf9b2
California's just approved a plan to build a few batteries to replace gas peaker plants. They can install quickly, and peaker power is expensive since the plants are rarely operated. The batteries can do power output to take the demand the peaker would fulfill, but can also do regulation the rest of the time.
Last one - in Texas, ERCOT commissioned a study a few years ago from the Brattle Group on integrating storage into Texas' grid. It found (in 2016, I think) that storage costs by right now would make batteries cost-effective, but only if they could get revenue from regulation as well as from selling cheaper power during costly demand times.
Power generators in Texas said that a battery owner can't sell the power they store - since they're not generators.
Regulations are one thing that's going to slow this down, but the benefits are big, and currently Tesla's battery gigafactory has I think more than a dozen competitors.
It was just a few years ago that thermal plant owners insisted that spinning reserve was the only way to keep the grid steady. That argument's over.
1
The facts about climate change are irrelevant in this discussion.
Trump and other deniers know climate change is real and the role of the CO2 released when fossil fuels are burned in producing climate change.
Fossil fuel companies make money when their fuels are burned and used and that is the ONLY thing that matters.
So they must deny climate change and the role of fossil fuels to preserve profits.
11
Claims that climate science is settled are just not correct. There is an extraordinary amount of uncertainty in the science and historical experience shows major swings in cooling to warming cycles long before industrialization.
6
@Keith Colonna
That science "shows major swings in cooling to warming cycles long before industrialization" IS part of "settled climate science", you see?
The reason why today this is truly alarming is because warming is happening unprecedentedly fast - so fast that many species and ecosystems can't follow and are being destroyed, whereas we need them to survive.
Nobody EVER claims that EVERY aspect of the earth's climate, in the past, present and future, is "settled science".
What today is part of settled science is the fact THAT we are in the Sixth Great Extinction, and that it is caused by the fact that humans are emitting each day an amount of carbon equivalent to a whopping 500,000 Hiroshima bombs.
It is also part of settled science that the impact will only become MUCH worse, AND even worse than that if we don't act fast and efficiently.
Finally, it's part of settled science that today already, there are 20 million climate change refugees, and that number is expected to increase dramatically over the next decades - needless to add that IF you want to claim to care about immigration, the Central-American "caravan" of 3,000 people is peanuts compared to what we'll see in the future. And the only way to prevent this is to act now, rather than to continuing the current GOP dithering and fake news.
47
There are current studies by experienced physicists & climate specialists that show we are probably in the early stages of a cooling cycle. We have no discernible sun spots at the moment and ocean currents may be cycling to bring cooler water to the surface. Nobody has yet been able to rationally explain how the little ice age that made life miserable in the Middle Ages ended and the earth warmed all without industrialization or the internal combustion engine.
I agree that our climate is changing. But it has always changed. I just cannot agree that it is solely mankind’s fault. A question. What is ‘normal’ climate? Can anyone even begin to define it?
2
@Keith Colonna
We ARE indeed in a cooling cycle.
Today, we're in the sixth Ice Age. And this Ice Age only started two million years ago, so is still very young, and in its cooling phase.
Scientists talk about an Ice Age when there's permanent ice on both poles, winter and summer.
Within each Ice Age, there are Glacial Periods and Interglacial Periods. During Interglacials periods, average global temperatures are a bit higher than during Glacials.
Since 12,000 years now, we're in an Interglacial Period.
There was no "little Ice Age" in the Middle Ages though. Scientists thought there was, decades ago, when they still thought that taking northern hemisphere temperature variations into account would be enough to know global variations. Now it has been proven that it isn't. The southern hemisphere has been as much warmer, in the Middle Ages, than the Northern hemisphere was cooler, so overall, there was no GLOBAL temperature change.
And of course the climate has always been changing, so no, there is no "normal" climate at all.
What we do know though (= whether you agree or not, as this is science, not mere "opinion" ... ;-)) is that since 200 years, global temperatures started to go up extremely fast, faster than EVER before, and too fast for many species and ecosystems to follow. And that's caused by MASSIVE human carbon emissions. And without those ecosystems, billions of human beings will suffer horribly, which will cause huge immigration crises and wars.
29
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. Most major U.S. cities have gigantic energy needs which can't be met by clean energy. It's not scalable. We can't & won't stop burning coal...at least for the foreseeable future. Of all the fossil-fuel sources, coal is inexpensive & a major factor in the low cost of U.S. electricity. Renewables can't fill that gap. Coal & other fossil fuels are currently the only way we can meet the high demand for power. The electricity demand on the power grid must be generated as its needed, in real time. There's no other option. When the demand for electricity suddenly spikes, we need to have the means available to generate that power immediately. Fossil fuels provide this capability. Solar, wind & hydro power is limited as we cannot generate hundreds or thousands of mega watts of power upon request if the Sun isn't shining or if the wind isn't blowing sufficiently. If we were simply forced to generate power through only clean methods at this point, there would be rolling brown-outs and power curfews like there are in 3rd world countries. The American public won't stand for this under any circumstances. While many people are in favor of alternatives, they also want those alternatives to not compromise their lifestyle.
5
@Bill Brown
So on the one hand progressives are blaming Democrats' proposals and signed into law bills and treaties on climate science for not transforming us into a zero carbon country over night, and on the other hand people like are blaming them for wanting to do it faster than what is possible.
The truth is in the middle here. Obama's Paris Climate accord is a global U-turn compared to the past, but only the first step, requiring still many other rounds of negotiations, as it only deals with realistic objectives for the next decade, not yet for what lies beyond.
And THAT is the way to go.
In the meanwhile, cities such as Burlington (Vt) are already zero carbon, and many more will soon follow.
As Obama recently said in an interview: we already have the technology to reduce our carbon footprint per capita (the highest in the world ...) by 30% in one decade. The rest has to come from new technology, but if at least we could already get those 30% signed into law (which would NOT require any changes in lifestyle, and only in energy sources), we'd buy ourselves the time to develop those new technologies ...
25
@Ana Luisa The GOP isn'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.
5
@Bill Brown
Cap and trade is only one way the Obama administration tackled climate change.
And if you believe that cap and trade (in other words market-based approaches) are a "real killer" when it comes to the economy or ordinary citizens, can you please show us some studies that would prove that that's the case for the current national acid rain cap and trade program?
Finally, today taxpayers' money goes to subsidies for the fossil fuel industry that are a whopping 38 times higher than clean energy industry subsidies. Inverting this subsidy system is an example of how to start reducing carbon emissions in a why that doesn't hurt ordinary citizens in the short term.
So there are a LOT of ways to reduce carbon emissions without going against ordinary citizens' short term interests.
And remember, Democrats never even proposed to impose higher taxes on fossil fuels, let alone implement something like that.
So imho you're being afraid of things that don't and won't exist here, no?
16
Yes, the facts are against him, and the law is against him, so he will pound the table and yell like hell. So? Why not? it works for him every time. Make America Great again!
3
@Thomas
That actually meant MAGRDG: Make America's Greatest RNC donors greater.
6
Climate change will only be a concern to Trump when the Atlantic ocean is streaming through the ground floor of Mar-a-Largo and his various golf course become lakes. Of course, by then it will be too late.
Hope the Trumps are good swimmers. They will need to be. Somehow, I doubt Donnie is up to the effort and the golf cart won't be helpful. Some lackey will have to carry Trump on his back.
6
@nora m - they applied for a permit to build a higher seawall along a course they own in Ireland. The reason for the request was to prevent damage from rising sea levels. This level of hypocrisy doesn't bother him and the family business. The NY Times carried a full-page ad from a group of businesspeople requesting the government take action against climate change. Donald and the three older kids signed.
I don't know how many donors and hotel stays it would take to sway him back to that. Better to replace than attempt a repair.
2
Standard pollution causes millions of deaths each year. Climate change causes thousands. The numbers aren't even close.
For the time being, spending on air and water pollution, chemical pollutants, and soil pollution would save far more lives than spending on climate change. In the future, climate change prevention obviously becomes increasingly effective. But whether spending on present hazards or future hazards makes more sense is uncertain.
It is possible that climate change deaths will eventually exceed pollution deaths, but that remains an unknown. There simply are no reliable estimates for future climate change deaths. And it is possible that spending to limit standard pollution will remain more economic into the distant future.
1
@michjas
1. By 2050, 250,000 people are expected to have died from climate change.
2. It makes no sense to wait until millions of Americans die before we finally stop putting the entire country on fire. We have to put America first NOW.
3. The same political party changing the laws so that polluters are allowed to once again pollute much more, is telling its voter base to ignore climate science threats and to put their heads in the sand instead.
13
@Ana Luisa
Could you break down that 250,000 figure -- how many will die from sea level rising, how many from hurricanes, how many from forest fires, and how many from heat-related deaths. I figure you're good at making up numbers, so have at it.
1
@michjas
Here you have all the details you asked for, in case you're really interested in this kind of questions:
http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
10
I'm quite sure President Trump believes the "climate" can/is/will change. He disputes humans are the cause of the change and doubts we could stop it.
If you want people to reduce the use of carbon fuels, raising the cost of the use should, at some price point, pay off. Unlike taxing the income of the wealthy, taxing energy users will fall squarely on the poor.
I'm sure mass transportation fits in the plan to reduce carbon emissions, forcing the poor to endure time consuming commutes. Electricity rates will rise forcing a reduction in home energy use. Homes will be cooler in the winter and hotter in the summer.
Why is it I can so clearly see the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas and the Gores are not in this picture. I'm sure we'll see them at Winter Festivals in their festival sweaters. And, at the May Day celebrations, sporting their fashionably climate correct wear. Only to disappear behind their compound walls, with their 68 degree bedrooms.
4
@Mike
Science is science.
The reason why Obamacare works and is saving an additional half a million American lives (mainly poor and lower middle class people, remember?) is the same reason why he managed to turn a -8% GDP into decade-long economic and job growth, and why he doubled solar energy jobs: those policies are science-based.
It's the party that wants science-based policies that is also the only one proposing policies that have been proven to help the poor and the 99%.
30
@Mike - you must be prattling the latest line from Koch's anti-mass transit spiel to protect asphalt sales.
How many of "the poor" can afford cars? I know lots who use buses, subways and trains to get them to and from work. There they are, stuck reading or chatting on a bus or train, while the individual drivers sit in their cars, having to at least pay attention to the bumper-to-bumper they spend so much of their lives enjoying.
I've lived in Chicago for decades without using a car. I can walk, and we have a very good transit system, and sometimes I use cabs.
"Assuming commuters begin work at 18 and retire around the average retirement age of 63, researchers discovered that the Americans may lose 408 days of their life commuting.
To see what those figures look like on a city-by-city basis, we gathered the Texas cities with the worst commute, or cities where commute times were at least 48 minutes."
The Houston metro comes in at 59 minutes a day.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/New-study-ranks-Texas-cities-with-the-worst-13194500.php
What did you say about someone enduring time-consuming commutes?
Texas now produces more wind power than any state.
Houston has had 500-year floods three years in a row, and other parts of the state also see increased flooding as rainfall intensifies and as developers pave more and more land for cars to roll, slowly, over.
Which of those hurts more people?
4
@Ana Luisa On what planet does Obama care work?
Elon Musk thinks he can terraform Mars from 500 million miles away, changing it from -81F to Earth temperatures, from 1kPa to 100 kPa.
I’m pretty sure if we actually needed or wanted to, we could adjust the temperature here on Earth by a few degrees. There’s no real threat yet. Or if there is, it’s borne by the poor. Hence the inaction.
2
@Jay Lincoln He thinks a lot of things can be done that are impossible, or take hundreds of years.
All this chaos from a change of a few degrees? I’m suspicious. Does anyone remember the Y2K hype? What we need is a credible debate on the subject - let’s hear the sides in a knowledgeable, rigorous debate on television (hello PBS) - enough of reporters and shills that know nothing more about the science than I do telling me the debate is over. If you want to change our way of life, the standard of proof is much higher ....
1
@Scott L Exactly.
1
@Scott L
We don't have to change our way of life, we have to change our energy sources.
And the problem isn't that the planet has warmed by a few degrees, the problem is that it's happening unprecedentedly fast, so fast that many species and ecosystems can't follow. And we happen to need those ecosystems for our own survival.
That this has been scientifically proven means that LOTS of "credible debates" have been held about this subject, for decades already and all over the world, AND that the results are now clear and beyond any doubt.
You may be a bit late to this debate and have to catch up, but that doesn't mean that it never took place ...
29
@Scott L
Even DJT is building sea walls at his Irish golf course to cope with rising sea levels now, today. At least eight islands in the Pacific are now submerged, due to rising sea levels. An island in the Hawaiian archipelago was swamped during Hurricane Lane; it now consists of only a few shoals. A study commissioned by the U.S. military on impacts to the Marianas Island chain found “This annual flooding (due to rising tides) will result in the islands becoming uninhabitable because of frequent damage to infrastructure and the inability of their freshwater aquifers to recover between overwash events.” These islands include Guam - a U.S. territory; and Saipan, Tinian, and Rota; all inhabited and home to important US Naval installations and test sites. In the Arctic, whole villages are trying to find new homes, as the land beneath them becomes soggy and unstable. In short, this is not Y2K. People are being displaced right now. Cities are coping with regular flooding and saltwater intrusion right now. Credible debates have been had for years, and the consensus is that global climate change is happening, is heavily influenced by human activity, and will have devastating consequences. Like it or not, our way of life is changing. The absolute arrogance of Americans whining about how their comfort and convenience is more important than the destruction of other people’s homes and livelihoods is nauseating.
8
Trump is evil. He must be stopped.
5
Things You Can Do to Reduce Global Warming:
1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
2. Use Less Heat and Air Conditioning. Add insulation to your walls and attic.
3. Replace regular light bulbs with LED bulbs.
4. Drive Less and Drive Smart.
5. Become a vegetarian or better yet a vegan.
6. Eat organic when you can.
7. Buy local when you can.
8. Plant a tree.
9. Encourage others to conserve.
10. Unplug appliances when possible, e.g., washer, dryer, toaster, blender, coffee maker, printer, fans, lamps, Christmas trees and lights, etc., and save money doing so.
7
@Jim Muncy: Regardin #4, Jim, walk. And use public conveyances. Not as hard as you think, notably even in rural areas! Also, there is an earlier comment about highways (and roads, streets, boulevard and avenues or other ways) being the greatest natural resource consum waste sanctioned, basically, for the public's 'private' use of the auto vehicle and all the commercial stuff that goes with it.
To wit:
"Ode to the automobile,
Noxious and fast.
It takes more than your
fanciful mobility provides."
5
@Positively:
*Regarding LOL
@All: Typos, apologies.
This is a losing battle for the Trump administration relying on populist fervor ,ignorance of the facts and the hubris that comes with a malignant narcissism. The planet will pay the price while the Kochs & co. rest in peace.
3
LOL, facts and law? With Trump in office those are just optional.
7
"If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
This is the playbook that Trump took all the way to the WH. Facts never mattered and the law, at least thus far, did not matter. And Trump bellowed his way.
Unfortunately, this strategy worked well as a real estate developer. It also worked well on the campaign trail. But, it will not work well in running an administration. And that is what Trump is finding out.
Yelling untruths may help you erect a building or even get a rowdy crowd. But it is no substitute for sound arguments and scientific facts.
8
Why is this man sstill President? Why? Why? Because his gang members in the Republican Party are as evil and greedy as he is? He wouldn´t last in any lesser position. Even in the Mafia he would have had to be more competent.
8
@EKB If you want the answer, it is simple. He was legally elected and there is no known legal reason to remove him. Thinking otherwise is fantasy alternative reality thinking, typical of progressives.
@vulcanalex Actually, it remains to be determined if he was legally elected. The Mueller investigation may show that Trump’s campaign illegally coordinated with Russians intent on swinging the election. If that’s the case, there’s EVERY reason to remove him from office. And you don’t have to be a “progressive” to come to this conclusion. Or a democrat or republican. Being an American suffices.
@vulcanalex
Treason, collusion, and gross incompetence all seem like good and legal reasons to me.
Every climate scientist agrees that the climate of the word is being changed by man made pollution. There is not doubt. The facts and trends speak for themselves. Science has addressed some of the causes with simple solutions.
the most basic is a reduction in the use of fossil fuels by all nations. The United States biggest problem is that we are, per capita, by far the biggest user of fossil fuels. Our task is daunting. We need to convert many more functions to alternate fuels: electric power generation and transportation, in particular, are facing drastic change. Americans know it. The world knows it. Science knows it. The only people who don't seem to understand are a cadre of Republican leaders and their fossil fuel backers, who refuse to face the simple truth. I'd say it is time to force their hand before we kill all of us. Forever.
19
It is not only the facts and the law against Trump; it is also the citizenry. Vote out the villain and his abettors.
42
You just dont understand. The GOP has become a mob with Trump at its head. Along with a base cheering him on, a base armed and inceasingly dangerous, as illustrated by Charlottesville. With the police standing by. And where is the Pentagon, the Praetorian Guard? I don't know. Do you? The Law, the Constitution? Forgeddaboutit!
11
Great summary of the legal landscape as tump once again tries to skirt the law & follow the path of ignorance and greed, not caring at all about the welfare of the country or planet.
As a retired scientist it just defies comprehension how much this administration is against following the best science we have today to help preserve a livable planet & mitigate likely and plausible neg impacts (some we're already seeing now) that will result from continuing on a pro-fossil fuel path.
The pro pollution/warming path favored by tump and the idiots he appoints to run our EPA & Energy departments takes us, as this author says, in exactly the opposite direction recommended by the latest scientific report.
In his neanderthal attempts to make coal great again Tump's new plan for coal powered electric plants give states the option to impose much looser restrictions than Obama's Clean Power plan allowed, which will now allow utilities to emit more GHGs and other pollutants — or to defer taking any action at all.
And of course weakening emission rules and goals for higher fuel efficiencies in new cars beginning in 2021 only compounds the problem of increasing CO2 emissions and use of gasoline. As usual with tump, none of it makes sense, is ethical, or in the interest of the collective good.
Glad the view in this post is that both science and the law are on the side of those who will try and stop these demented policies.
58
At first I thought Trump was just pretending to be that stupid, in order to appeal to his base. But now I think he really is as stupid as he seems.
13
You forget what the Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV told his daughter Princess Irulan: "Control the coinage and the courts — let the rabble have the rest."
The Courts are locked in with conservative justices who would defend the President and the anti-climate team. He does not need to bang any table.
6
@Deep Thought While the judges are conservative, they are not necessarily in Trump's pocket.
6
Trump is a man who went bankrupt repeatedly, his "university" was so fraudulent that to save his imminent presidency he paid off his suitors and then boasted he got away with a low payment, and he has brought the dignity of the office of the Presidency to an all-time low by befriending dictators and corrupt oligarchs while eschewing long-time friends of the USA. So it is no surprise that he is refuting the science of climate change all in order to further his own path towards personal enrichment. The only question is how many--if any--Republicans are left who will actually act on behalf of the citizens. I have little hope they will do the "right" thing.
103
@Susan
I am afraid that republicans doing the right thing is mostly buying land in the mountains so they will be safe and comfy when climate change decimates the coasts.
3
I'd love to believe Professor Revesz is right - that facts and the law will prevail. But the last two years have proven otherwise. Republicans willfully ignore facts, and gleefully change laws and regulations they don't like. The law isn't static. If President Trump and his cronies in the E.P.A. haven't been successful yet, just give them a few more years (especially if the President is re-elected).
Facts, laws, and democratic norms are such irritating nuisances when there's money to be made and power to be gained.
72
@jrinsc
Republicans are no longer the only voice in congress. We shall see whether they can continue their all out attacks on "laws and regulations they don't like" successfully without a majority.
16
@Seagazer101
You're right, and I thought of that after posting my comment. Let's hope that the Democratically controlled House will stop Republicans from changing environmental laws to the detriment of our planet.
15
"Suddenly America is the largest oil and natural gaz producer, that was me people ... say thank you".
The fracking and the horizontal drilling techniques used to increase the American production are the worst for the Planet. So no, I won't thank you for that one Sir.
12
The “planet” will be just fine. The lions, tigers and bears, and humans, well, not so much. But in the arc of time, the “planet” will turn out new creatures, and variations of some old ones will adapt and survive. That is nature. Nothing goes on forever, even the dinosaurs. Humans will just have a shorter time. So relax—it’s all relative. It isn’t as if we are nature’s crowning achievement.
10
@Duane Coyle And the human race will be just fine as well. We can adapt.
@vulcanalex
Most won't, they will die. Some will survive to rebuild and try to kill all the life on the planet again.
We don't seem capable of learning or having wisdom not to destroy everything around us.
As a rule, facts and rules are against Trump. Just about always and whatever the issue. The man just doesn't let them get in the way. He is the embodiment of stupidity and ignorance. Unfortunately he is also very powerful but, thankfully, not as much as he wishes. What a mess.
8
@Denis Pelletier
Stupidity, ignorance and - you left this one out - arrogance. It is all a very heady mix, until it isn't.
4
The Sandburg suggestions proceed in a logical, orderly fashion based on the particular circumstances of the case.
But Trump and his administration are just flat meshuggah, and so what he and it will do to pursue his and its various ends can't be expected to make any sense.
(A factor which has had no small effect as to how he's gotten this far, strangely enough. But I suspect he's running out of ways to misdirect the populace. Even the dullest of dullards begin to recognize gambits after a while--though, for some of his MAGAsupporters it might be a long while.)
7
Sandburg's 'pound the table and yell like hell' sounds like the perfect description of everything Trump does. So that means that the facts and law are just about always against him. Explains a lot and a great quote that perfectly describes Trump's policies or lack of same on climate change.
7
What is this death wish of the GOP? Or are they all just stupid?
Why don't the greedy fossil people get greedy with clean energy? So many more healthy jobs would happen with clean energy and wow old wealthy people who never have enough, did you know when the peasants make a livable wage, there is actually a booming economy and more money for you to steal from the former poor people who are thriving. And your heirs will actually be able to breath the air in the future.
16
So, the facts and the law are against Trump.
Since when has he demonstrated any regard for either?
6
@Alan R Brock Luckily the courts still do have a regard for facts & the law.
4
The checks and balance system of the courts will hopefully do its job in stymieing this nonsense, though it might take years.
The problem:
We are running out of years to fix our climate policies.
12
Practical Republican politics consists in ignoring facts. - Henry Adams (updated)
4
I don't understand Trump at all. Climate scientists are predicting dire circumstances if we don't restrict the burning of fossils fuels. Trump on the other hand advocates the burning of fossil fuels in order to keep some jobs. So we keep some jobs for now and 30,50 100 years from now the land mass of the united states is considerably reduced by the rising oceans, not to mention the incredible loss of life. I don't think Trump is stupid, he knows what he is doing. I think Trump is evil.
137
@Robert Haberman
I'm not going to argue that Trump is not evil, that is impossible for a sane person to argue. He might even be concerned a little but he wants to pass this problem onto a Democrat because it will require unpopular but necessary actions and right now he is thinking of what he needs, to survive and be loved and be the feel-good president.. It is purely about what he needs now. The same is true for our worsening fiscal situation. Republicans have for years been doing tax cuts but studiously avoiding the question of what spending cuts to make. They want a Democrat to deal with that
29
@Robert Haberman Dire circumstances for who? For US citizens? I think not too much.
How are those of us who know he is evil to convince the rest of the truth so that he is not re-elected or better yet goes to jail. I know people who think it would besmirch the presidency for him to go to jail but I think he needs to be convicted in order to return the rule of law to protect the presidency.
4
Government agencies and university departments and corporate decisions historically have usually only seen their own section of the whole and made their decisions based on their small part of the problem. Economics does not include the environment. It has never included the environment, but now, unless it begins to do this we are all doomed to tunnel vision on a problem that will become the central problem of our lifetimes and our children's lifetimes. Unless we begin to factor in the environment in our decision -making we will not survive what is in store in the future. Period.
2
Unfortunately for us, this administration takes Sandburg's advice and adds another step: If the facts and the law are against you, stock the Supreme Court with people who will bend the law to your will. I think Roosevelt tried this track, too, though I don't know that the facts were necessarily against him.
2
If Trump disagrees with the conclusions the government report on climate change spells out, why does he want to build sea walls to protect his golf courses in Florida and Scotland? After all if there is no climate change and subsequent global warming which will cause the ocean levels to rise why does he need to build such structures. And what about the remaining 99.99+% of the world population who does not and probably cannot play on his courses? What is to protect them? It is time for the news outlets to hold the government accountable to the report on climate change and not brush this most important report and detailed consequences aside.
21
@Climatedoc
Are you not reading an article in the "news outlets" doing just that, here and now? What are you talking about?
1
Over the years Congress has, because it lacks the scientific knowledge or industry expertise, given over decision-making about the specifics of policies regulating the environment, energy, transportation and assorted industry sectors to agencies that do have the expertise.
These agencies therefore have a lot of power. That's fantastic when the agencies are staffed with competent scientists and smart policy technocrats. But that power is a sword with two very sharp edges.
Trump has been attacking those agencies, filling their leadership posts with sycophantic bureaucrats beholding to him (and not to science or to the health and welfare of the larger public). Those Trump-ocrats are in a position to make changes to the regulations and rules their agencies promulgate - and that's just what they are doing, and what they are doing is legal.
4
@JFR - Congress used to have the Office of Technology Assessment - a resource that would engage in research and report on a stunning variety of technological, scientific or ecological issues where detailed background was necessary to inform good legislation.
Newt Gingrich killed it.
Here's one of the sites that's archived all the output. The link is set to the sort-by-topic 'C' list because that shows the reports that OTA prepared, in the early 1990s, about climate change.
https://ota.fas.org/otareports/topic/ctopics/
Just another one of the gifts to a dystopian future from Newt Gingrich - one of the alleged "thinkers" of the modern GOP, along with Paul Ryan, the Ayn Rand fanboy.
3
Mr. Revesz obviously missed what happened in Paris over the past 3 weeks. Screaming and rioting seemed to work well in France! Here's the problem: climate change initiatives traditionally focus on hindering economic growth and handcuff economic engines. Political leaders may not want to hurt middle class families with green laws and regulations, but there are unintended consequences to these policies. They can't be ignored. We must come up with alternative ideas that don't impede the working class' struggle to survive.
4
@Mark
One thing everyone can do tomorrow is to stop buying F-150 pickup trucks that get 19 mpg for commuting to office jobs. Not only would that not make it harder for the working class to survive, it would make it easier! A high mpg car is much less costly, and costs far less to operate. Can it carry as much air in its trunk as a pickup does in its bed? No. It is as macho? No. But it is better for working class survival and at the same time better for the planet.
Won't somebody tell them? Carmakers certainly won't.
72
@Mark
We all have to make changes because there will not be enough money in the world to undo what is being done. My contribution to the cause is a change in my consumption directly or indirectly of plastic, fertilizer, and chemicals. That red bloom in FL was exaggerated by fertilizer run-off and warmer waters. The death of marine life shook me but the recent article about the number of terns that fell from the sky (why wasn't this on national news?) was a clarion call. Heat is not an isolated incident and we are creating a terrible toxic brew.
9
@Mark That has more to do with the fact that they like us have a 1% who take everything. It's convenient for the owners to blame concern over climate because they sell the oil and other energy intense garbage as well. France gave a tax cut recently to the wealthy as we did here. They didn't need to do that as we didn't.
4
Neither facts nor law matter to Donald Trump with regard to coal and climate change.
What matters to him and the American people is that Trump is the one and only President of the United States that we have under Article II of the Constitution of our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states. Republicans control a majority of the United States Senate and the Supreme Court of the United States.
5