Trump or Clinton, with only 40-Senators Mitch McConnell can stop the war against coal anytime with the Koch Brother's tax free, subsidized, 501(c) group stoking the state legislatures and Mitch himself to spew out their own pollution..
7
"...the next president won’t need to pass comprehensive legislation, or indeed any legislation, to take a big step toward saving the planet. Dramatic progress in energy technology has put us in a position where executive action — action that relies on existing law — can achieve great things. All we need is an executive willing to take that action, and a Supreme Court that won’t stand in its way."
Isn't that how dictatorships start? Remember, fascism came from the Left in the 1920s.
Isn't that how dictatorships start? Remember, fascism came from the Left in the 1920s.
9
Dr. Krugman,
Thank you for your excellent column. This year’s presidential election is indeed critical in the fight against anthropogenic climate disruption.
Even so, in Congress there are three small yet growing causes for optimism on this issue:
-H. Res. 424: Introduced last year by Rep. Chris Gibson, this resolution recognizes the impact of climate change and calls for action to reduce future risk. The number of cosponsors has increased from 11 to 13, all Republicans who have broken with their party on this issue.
-Senate Energy and Environment Working Group: In another break from party orthodoxy, Republican Senators Ayotte, Graham, Kirk, and Alexander formed this group in October. It will focus on “ways to protect the environment and climate while also bolstering clean energy innovation that helps drive job creation.”
-House Climate Solutions Caucus: Formed earlier this month, this bipartisan caucus, formed by Representatives Curbelo and Deutch, both of Florida, aims to “explore policy options that address the impacts, causes, and challenges of our changing climate.”
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
For more information:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/ccl-praises-formation-of-bipartisan-hous...
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ccl-applauds-new-gop-senate-group-on-en...
http://nyti.ms/1OzMeOw
Thank you for your excellent column. This year’s presidential election is indeed critical in the fight against anthropogenic climate disruption.
Even so, in Congress there are three small yet growing causes for optimism on this issue:
-H. Res. 424: Introduced last year by Rep. Chris Gibson, this resolution recognizes the impact of climate change and calls for action to reduce future risk. The number of cosponsors has increased from 11 to 13, all Republicans who have broken with their party on this issue.
-Senate Energy and Environment Working Group: In another break from party orthodoxy, Republican Senators Ayotte, Graham, Kirk, and Alexander formed this group in October. It will focus on “ways to protect the environment and climate while also bolstering clean energy innovation that helps drive job creation.”
-House Climate Solutions Caucus: Formed earlier this month, this bipartisan caucus, formed by Representatives Curbelo and Deutch, both of Florida, aims to “explore policy options that address the impacts, causes, and challenges of our changing climate.”
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
For more information:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/ccl-praises-formation-of-bipartisan-hous...
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ccl-applauds-new-gop-senate-group-on-en...
http://nyti.ms/1OzMeOw
20
I’m tired of and frightened by Paul Krugman making light of an existential crisis, the climate, to pump a presidential candidate, especially one who is much more a hawk on bombing and special ops than on climate. It's not fun anymore. Mr. Krugman has done wonderful jobs on the Republicans and Wall St. (admittedly targets that never gets too old), but...maybe now it’s time to go into public service.
30
Why is this happening? Well, we could start with gerrymandering and voter suppression and move on to Mudoch-controlled media mouthpieces and Koch financed elections.....
18
To paraphrase some other Clinton - “It’s the population, stupid.” Carbon dioxide is a huge problem, feeding the population today is a huge problem. But the Erlichs and Garrett Hardin were correct. The question is not “What happens when the Middle East runs out of oil? The question is “What happens when the Middle East runs out of water?” It already has. Now what?
There is reasonable agreement that the world’s population hit its first billion in about 1850. And it was about 2 billion in 1930. Now we are somewhat more than 7.3 billion. The rate of growth is approaching 1% per year. Even at that seemingly modest rate the population would (theoretically) double in 70 years – a presumed lifetime for a child born now. But numbers like that can only be dealt with by bacteria growing in a petri dish. The petri dish is very finite – and so is Earth. Carbon dioxide, rising sea levels, increasing use of herbicides and insecticides as well as fertilizer, massive erosion of tillable soils, destruction of forested land and – of course – war and its effects. As in “where is the Syrian population?”
Solar power (and wind power) are mechanisms which slow down the catastrophe. But the biggest discussion should be about drastically reducing the world’s population as soon as possible – before Nature does it herself.
There is reasonable agreement that the world’s population hit its first billion in about 1850. And it was about 2 billion in 1930. Now we are somewhat more than 7.3 billion. The rate of growth is approaching 1% per year. Even at that seemingly modest rate the population would (theoretically) double in 70 years – a presumed lifetime for a child born now. But numbers like that can only be dealt with by bacteria growing in a petri dish. The petri dish is very finite – and so is Earth. Carbon dioxide, rising sea levels, increasing use of herbicides and insecticides as well as fertilizer, massive erosion of tillable soils, destruction of forested land and – of course – war and its effects. As in “where is the Syrian population?”
Solar power (and wind power) are mechanisms which slow down the catastrophe. But the biggest discussion should be about drastically reducing the world’s population as soon as possible – before Nature does it herself.
29
Clinton may be pro-environment, but, as far as foreign policy, she's a hawk.
And if you think that under her administration the Israel/Palestine peace process will advance, you've got another think coming.
And if you think that under her administration the Israel/Palestine peace process will advance, you've got another think coming.
4
A search found this on the Grist.org.
"So Clinton shares Obama’s split personality on climate change — tackling it aggressively on the consumption side but continuing to boost fossil fuel supplies. That’s not as bad as the science deniers on the Republican side..... But it’s also not quite the climate hawkishness we need."
Not quite. So as with other problems plaguing our society, Hillary sounds good, but will she do good?
What standard is she being held to?
"So Clinton shares Obama’s split personality on climate change — tackling it aggressively on the consumption side but continuing to boost fossil fuel supplies. That’s not as bad as the science deniers on the Republican side..... But it’s also not quite the climate hawkishness we need."
Not quite. So as with other problems plaguing our society, Hillary sounds good, but will she do good?
What standard is she being held to?
12
LA Times...Clinton on climate change.
She says , “It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change...”
( the usual Anti Gop crazies stuff.....that’s easy to say, what does she propose, specifically, and how will she pay for it?)
More from article:
“She positions herself as a climate crusader, with robust goals, but continues to avoid some of the more contentious battles around global warming.
She’ll push to vastly expand solar panels but is vague on funding details. Her package is incomplete....unlike her Democratic rivals she has yet to take a position on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, (transports oil from Canada to Gulf Coast).
She also has yet to weigh in on a campaign to ban hydraulic fracturing nationwide, or to take a firm position on offshore oil drilling.
Her campaign says she’ll roll out her plan gradually. It seems to aim at the Gop for now.
“She says the tax code is weighted too heavily in favor of fossil fuels rather than renewable energy.”
Well, what taxes does she propose then?
What does economist Krugman propose then?
She says , “It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change...”
( the usual Anti Gop crazies stuff.....that’s easy to say, what does she propose, specifically, and how will she pay for it?)
More from article:
“She positions herself as a climate crusader, with robust goals, but continues to avoid some of the more contentious battles around global warming.
She’ll push to vastly expand solar panels but is vague on funding details. Her package is incomplete....unlike her Democratic rivals she has yet to take a position on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, (transports oil from Canada to Gulf Coast).
She also has yet to weigh in on a campaign to ban hydraulic fracturing nationwide, or to take a firm position on offshore oil drilling.
Her campaign says she’ll roll out her plan gradually. It seems to aim at the Gop for now.
“She says the tax code is weighted too heavily in favor of fossil fuels rather than renewable energy.”
Well, what taxes does she propose then?
What does economist Krugman propose then?
13
Maybe God will speak to the Republicans and tell them that they are following the wrong path? At least one can hope!
3
Thank you for this. There is nothing more serious than protecting our country from the crazies who are intent on driving us off a cliff. No distractions from the media about some silly kids, or ugly hair, or whatever else is the social media wannabe junk du jour should get in the way of taking things like our climate seriously.
This election cycle is reminding me of the recent sad story of a polar bear killing another and eating him.
I am grateful you are here and keeping the focus worthwhile.
This election cycle is reminding me of the recent sad story of a polar bear killing another and eating him.
I am grateful you are here and keeping the focus worthwhile.
3
I'm glad to see Krugman is recovering from Bernie-on-the-Brain (related to Obama Derangement Syndrome and "Benghazi!"). This was a good piece.
5
Paul, your bias toward Hillary and obvious desire of a cabinet position are both unprofessional and unseemly.
16
Dr. Krugman:
I completely agree with your assessment, with one reservation. How, knowing what you know about the threat posed by climate change, can you back Ms. Clinton? She's recently supported more fracking, she's taking money from the fossil fuel interests, and if you believe there's no connection, then I've got a proverbial bridge to sell you.
Add to that her flip-flops on the XL pipeline, the "all-of-the-above" energy strategy, and restrictions on opening up federal lands for fossil fuel companies and you can see what a Clinton administration would look like. Good rhetoric; bad policy.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has consistently advocated aggressive action on climate change, yet you continue to support the Democratic candidate who is weakest on what you yourself acknowledge is the issue of our times, eclipsing all others.
I completely agree with your assessment, with one reservation. How, knowing what you know about the threat posed by climate change, can you back Ms. Clinton? She's recently supported more fracking, she's taking money from the fossil fuel interests, and if you believe there's no connection, then I've got a proverbial bridge to sell you.
Add to that her flip-flops on the XL pipeline, the "all-of-the-above" energy strategy, and restrictions on opening up federal lands for fossil fuel companies and you can see what a Clinton administration would look like. Good rhetoric; bad policy.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has consistently advocated aggressive action on climate change, yet you continue to support the Democratic candidate who is weakest on what you yourself acknowledge is the issue of our times, eclipsing all others.
10
Paul, thanks for this column. I agree completely about how important the issue is. Please continue to hammer on it repeatedly between now and the election, and I think it can help make a difference.
10
My opinion of your opinions continues to decline, Paul Krugman.
Hillary's opposition to the TPP will evaporate as rapidly as Obama's promise to renegotiate NAFTA after he was elected.
And that will trump any and all policy fig leafs the corporate Dems propose. As it is designed to do, and you somehow refuse to get.
http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership
Bernie Sanders is the change we need. All Hillary is going to do is give us more corporatism, and keep the GOP alive and kicking (against all odds) for years longer. I.e. the same thing Obama has done.
~
Hillary's opposition to the TPP will evaporate as rapidly as Obama's promise to renegotiate NAFTA after he was elected.
And that will trump any and all policy fig leafs the corporate Dems propose. As it is designed to do, and you somehow refuse to get.
http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership
Bernie Sanders is the change we need. All Hillary is going to do is give us more corporatism, and keep the GOP alive and kicking (against all odds) for years longer. I.e. the same thing Obama has done.
~
10
Rima Regas, your wishful thinking is taking on grotesque forms. Your fevered essays sound increasingly like surreal gobbledegook. Every statement of yours moves you and your followers further away from a reality you refuse to accept.
You expect the precariat to climb the symbolic barricades and vote in droves for Bernie Sanders should he miraculously become the Democratic nominee. In one of my earlier blogs I had said this to you: “A revolution in this country will not take place in one momentous historical heave. It will have to come in incremental and careful steps without alienating a mistrustful and apprehensive populace. Many decades of communism fear mongering in the U.S., driven almost to the intensity level of a pogrom, instilled suspicion and trepidation in a large segment of the population for anything that was related to the terminology of socialism. You are obviously convinced that Mr. Sanders could be that man who will electrify the masses enough to overcome their fear of what they perceive is a social and political radical.”
You may have to do a lot of back-pedaling when HRC has become the nominee and it dawns on you that you and your comrades will have to decide whether a Trump presidency is what the precariat craves. Now is the time to start toning down your angry and vitriolic rhetoric towards Ms. Clinton. She does not deserve this rage that is whipped up in your quarters.
You expect the precariat to climb the symbolic barricades and vote in droves for Bernie Sanders should he miraculously become the Democratic nominee. In one of my earlier blogs I had said this to you: “A revolution in this country will not take place in one momentous historical heave. It will have to come in incremental and careful steps without alienating a mistrustful and apprehensive populace. Many decades of communism fear mongering in the U.S., driven almost to the intensity level of a pogrom, instilled suspicion and trepidation in a large segment of the population for anything that was related to the terminology of socialism. You are obviously convinced that Mr. Sanders could be that man who will electrify the masses enough to overcome their fear of what they perceive is a social and political radical.”
You may have to do a lot of back-pedaling when HRC has become the nominee and it dawns on you that you and your comrades will have to decide whether a Trump presidency is what the precariat craves. Now is the time to start toning down your angry and vitriolic rhetoric towards Ms. Clinton. She does not deserve this rage that is whipped up in your quarters.
17
A pity you've decided the primaries are already a done deal when just three states (two demographic outliers and one in the deep South) have participated, Professor. Frankly, I'm not interested in whatever Las Vegas oddsmakers have to say about anything.
Also curious is your own denial of what produces the Republicans' climate denial. Those Senators and Representatives are in thrall to to their corporate puppetmasters, in this case the fossil fuel producers.
If you want climate change, you'll first have to get Big Money out of the picture. Neither of the candidates you note as sure bets is going to do that.
Also curious is your own denial of what produces the Republicans' climate denial. Those Senators and Representatives are in thrall to to their corporate puppetmasters, in this case the fossil fuel producers.
If you want climate change, you'll first have to get Big Money out of the picture. Neither of the candidates you note as sure bets is going to do that.
15
In 1969, on a merchant ship the unsayable LAN Lord "uh pin" Heaven revealed his word unto my mind, the crew for witness.
This revealing occurred twice before in the world's history—with Adman and Even in the Gar Den where G-d revealed to Adman "how" He fashioned Adman in His image; and when G-d revealed his word to Moses at the Burning Bush.
The world knows when "G-d spoke to Moses and said" we were not witnesses to hearsay. In The Ten Commandments, Cecil B. DeMille sought to portray Moses' revelation that he was in the presence of God who created the Universe.
In the wilderness of the ocean 40 days and 40 nights i-amb the person chosen to deliver peace. I bring to the political table a prophetic spoken poem written down to perform on whirled wide television dusk until dawn, as old blind Homer: a law riddle or truth buried in, as Moses the Teacher, every line delicate sensible mull tie ling well rhyme, rivaling Dante of Divine Comedic fame,
All channels all peoples all at once so by the rosy petals of dawn after 7 billion peoples' toes go rah ha rah sides splitting in laughter the Torah given to me shall be re-given to all in the form of a twelve "our" video trans crypt.
To save the planet world peace is a must first. Yet my write-in candidacy for president is stifled, every TV door shut.
I push I face a bullet. F.B. Eye went to every TV network and arranged to name check all the managers. Every TV station has been instructed. And you?
http://michaelslevinson.com
This revealing occurred twice before in the world's history—with Adman and Even in the Gar Den where G-d revealed to Adman "how" He fashioned Adman in His image; and when G-d revealed his word to Moses at the Burning Bush.
The world knows when "G-d spoke to Moses and said" we were not witnesses to hearsay. In The Ten Commandments, Cecil B. DeMille sought to portray Moses' revelation that he was in the presence of God who created the Universe.
In the wilderness of the ocean 40 days and 40 nights i-amb the person chosen to deliver peace. I bring to the political table a prophetic spoken poem written down to perform on whirled wide television dusk until dawn, as old blind Homer: a law riddle or truth buried in, as Moses the Teacher, every line delicate sensible mull tie ling well rhyme, rivaling Dante of Divine Comedic fame,
All channels all peoples all at once so by the rosy petals of dawn after 7 billion peoples' toes go rah ha rah sides splitting in laughter the Torah given to me shall be re-given to all in the form of a twelve "our" video trans crypt.
To save the planet world peace is a must first. Yet my write-in candidacy for president is stifled, every TV door shut.
I push I face a bullet. F.B. Eye went to every TV network and arranged to name check all the managers. Every TV station has been instructed. And you?
http://michaelslevinson.com
1
"As both a technical matter and an economic one, drastic reductions in emissions would, in fact, be quite easy to achieve."
To what end, though, Paul? I thought we'd already crossed the dreaded & magical "Tipping Point".
To what end, though, Paul? I thought we'd already crossed the dreaded & magical "Tipping Point".
Dear Paul,
Anyone who really cares about the environment would have been advocating for Bernie Sanders all along.
As with so many other issues, on this issue Hillary is a johnny come lately, if at all.
Anyone who really cares about the environment would have been advocating for Bernie Sanders all along.
As with so many other issues, on this issue Hillary is a johnny come lately, if at all.
6
How tiresomely predictable that Sen. Sanders supporters would turn this into a column about his electable rather than the issue at hand.
You tried Dr. Krugman, but apparently we have the exact same narcissistic bubble on the Left that exists on the Right.
And the supporters of Sen Sanders wonder why they and their candidate are constantly compared to Mr. Trump.
You tried Dr. Krugman, but apparently we have the exact same narcissistic bubble on the Left that exists on the Right.
And the supporters of Sen Sanders wonder why they and their candidate are constantly compared to Mr. Trump.
11
Professor, I usually agree wholeheartedly with what you say and how you articulate our controversial, taking into account "their" inabilities to comprehend intelligence, gestalt...none more so than this breath pause. It's parlor talk that many have not yet decided who get's their ballots, just another catty way of spending time avoiding spitting in another person's face. Be that as it may, I am concentrating on spending my one vote in the Fall against the one Senator from Pennsylvania up for redundancy. The shame is that we can't fire these ones who think they have no-show jobs right now with their snide boasts that they will not serve until, basically, their terms are over. Change the Senate, my brothers and sisters while the getting is within an arm's length. I am sorry I have no plan that avoids your having to get even that close to rubbing against this sludge. While you're at it, or even now, pick a person amenable to our love of democracy, who is casting the hat in the ring, and throw a few dollars that way as your family can spare. Thanks.
4
The advantage of destroying the planet by nuclear annihilation is that the war would be over quickly.
3
On a couple of occasions, Mr and Mrs OBama have taken separate planes to the same destination on the same day, and have been blasted in the press for wasting taxpayer money, burning fuel, polluting. The president's rhetoric on climate change is all show, no go. He'll put people out of work over it, but not inconvenience he and wifey.
1
Dr. Krugman is right that salvation is within our grasp - but he fails to point out that electing a Democratic president doesn't solve the whole problem. The same prediction site he sites puts the odds of a (barely) Democratic Senate at about 50:50. Everyone in Senatorial swing states - please - get out there and work for your Democratic candidate. Otherwise Supreme Court obstruction may not end.
And in the meantime, hit the streets as soon as president Obama's nomination is announced.
And in the meantime, hit the streets as soon as president Obama's nomination is announced.
3
Mr. Krugman, as always, is quite sensible and restrained. Reactions to his careful warnings are not always so reasonable. Apocalyptic imagery and talk of revolution are not very helpful. Presidential politics are not the main problem when it comes to dealing with climate issues, as Krugman intimates. What we need are sensible people in Congress and true-believing idiots out of Congress. Climate issues are incredibly important issues with which we must deal, not symbols over which we must wage a war.
4
It astonishes me that Prof. Krugman would mention, even in passing, the "entertainment value" of the election. Focusing on the entertainment the primaries could allegedly provide is how pundits reinforced the nihilistic, "anybody but whoever's already there" mentality that has driven Trump's candidacy.
Yes, the planet is on the ballot. That should have been obvious a year ago, when the media started feeding the freak show. If pundits are serious about sending this message, stop talking about being entertained.
Yes, the planet is on the ballot. That should have been obvious a year ago, when the media started feeding the freak show. If pundits are serious about sending this message, stop talking about being entertained.
1
Hey let us just throw that stubborn document called the Constitution in the trash because it is just getting in the way. "But something like the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which would use flexible regulations imposed by the EPA on major emitters, should be enough to get us a long way toward the goal. And as I said, no new legislation would be needed, just a president willing to act and a Supreme Court that won’t stand in that president’s way, sacrificing the planet in the name of conservative ideology." So who decides that legislation is not needed, hmm, might be the SCOTUS that decides legislation is in fact needed, its Constitutional functions, and that the President cannot unilaterally act in this manner. That same supposed conservative court backed the Affordable Care Act, but that was okay with you though. Roberts ruled the way he ruled, because contrary to the arguments of the President and the Democratic legislators in getting the thing passed and the briefs in court, the fees and penalties where in fact "taxes" which Congress can constitutionally levy and is the only ones who can. Remember the President said I am not raising taxes to do this, it is not a tax, etc. although the IRS will run it and we will use the tax system to enforce. SCOTUS is not the place to legislate, nor is the executive branch, its Congress, like it or not. Technology, science, and economics generally find a way to implement big change and solve problems, not mandated programs.
2
I am afraid that Mrs. Clinton will be too busy with foreign policy as it is understood nowadays (i.e. invading or bombing another country in the Middle East) to have much time for mundane things like climate change.
7
The Supreme Court, which is coal friendly, in the problem. No energy source is as CO2 polluting as coal. Obama should appoint a SCOTUS judge who wants to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court against the Environmental Protection Agency about coal.
6
No question at all. Thoughtful people who pay attention to reality need to be voted in not just at the top but at every level of government. It's steep, given the various tricks and tactics used too prevent the poor, working stiffs, people of color, and others from voting, along with gerrymandering, have weighted recent elections in favor of the minority.
So show up in force and vote, don't look for heroes and magic solutions: nobody else can do it for you.
So show up in force and vote, don't look for heroes and magic solutions: nobody else can do it for you.
7
Maybe what's needed is a bigger stick. How about prosecuting big polluters and those who funded the fraudulent denial claims in international courts under crimes against humanity claims? Actions should have consequences, so the K brothers, big energy, etc. should be made criminally liable for blocking needed climate actions. After all, if I parked my car in front of a fire truck that was trying to put out a fire at my neighbors house, I would at least get a ticket and fine. So the conspiracy of wealthy individuals and corporations who have blocked climate action though intentional deciept and fraud should also have to pay.
3
The world works as it works and we use science to learn what and how that happens to be. This is a way of thinking and understanding the world that is only about 300 years old. Many people today while living in a world shaped by science, including the vast industrial endeavors responsible for global warming, still prefer to believe in magical ways of thinking, thinking that gives order and meaning and has so for two thousand years. It's a world in which God decides what happens in the world and where God's sacred texts contradict facts determined by science, science's facts are wrong. Many people rely upon income from enterprises that still use energy systems that rely upon fossil fuels and which must create more carbon gases to continue being sources of profit. To replace them would reduce or eliminate profits for decades, and a loss of material luxuries for these people. So addressing climate change means mistrusting God for some and material loss for others, both being a large proportion of the Republican Party. Even if they all agreed with scientists about global warming, if the effects will have little affect upon them but might affect a lot of strangers who do not yet exist, there is the question of sacrificing not for oneself but for strangers. In the everyman for himself Republican conservative mind, addressing global warming before it has serious affects upon oneself is irrational, which is another great proportion of Republicans.
2
Great analysis. It shows however the mistake made by the administration in not making a recess appointment a couple weeks ago. There was unquestionably the will and the way revealed itself. A shame. The stakes, as outlined by PK, were high and the downside low for a lame duck president. An opportunity that could have been seized
The result is that we’re only a few years from a world in which carbon-neutral sources of energy could replace much of our consumption of fossil fuels at quite modest cost....
-- Paul Krugman
[ I only wish this were correct, but this is mere wishing. The assertion sadly makes no technical sense. ]
-- Paul Krugman
[ I only wish this were correct, but this is mere wishing. The assertion sadly makes no technical sense. ]
2
Whoever becomes the nominee for the Democrats, it is essential that a big turnout by all Progressives take place. I expect Barack Obama and Joe Biden to join in the campaigning once the nominee is set, and that should help close the enthusiasm gap or even reverse it. Bill Gates is grouping with others of the more enlightened multi-billionaire class to invest in startup ventures than would bring newer and more effective clean energy solutions to the marketplace, but we cannot depend on just a hope for success alone. The intentional destruction of our forests and oceans for short term profit world wide is as much of a threat to our long term ability to protect our planet as out of control carbon emissions, yet comparatively little is said about these pending disasters. The modern Republican thought process is antithetical to responsible stewardship of our planet. If they win, we all lose. When the time comes, get out and vote, the lives of our children and grandchildren may literally depend on it.
10
The planet is indeed on the ballot, but then again, it's been on the ballot for some time. Remember saving the planet in the 1970's? The difference today is that the polarization of our politics has forced any Republican hoping to get elected to call climate change (or warming) a hoax. That is a national tragedy, because only approaching climate change via tax and regulation alone won't be as effective as free market opportunities.
I've little doubt that as the climate worsens, business will rise to the occasion and invest in the carbon reduction/sequestration technologies necessary to solve the problem. The question is when?
The longer we wait, the worse it will get.
I've little doubt that as the climate worsens, business will rise to the occasion and invest in the carbon reduction/sequestration technologies necessary to solve the problem. The question is when?
The longer we wait, the worse it will get.
7
I would be more inclined to support "pro-environment" regulations if they didn't take from the poor and mid class and give to the rich. E.g., Calif already has cap-and-trade. $$ is taken from energy sales. This $$ was promised to be returned to the ratepayers from whom it comes. None is being given back to gasoline buyers. Some is being given back to ratepayers, but not in proportion to what they paid, penalizing the mid class. But, a large fraction goes to a bullet train which will primarily serve executives, like Acela in the east.
The incentives for "clean" energy favor the rich: special privileges for electric and hybrid cars only the rich can afford, like use of carpool lanes, direct tax credits; tax credits for rooftop solar that only homeowners can get, and only those able to fund up-front costs get full benefit. Special privileges for bridges, toll roads. Extra taxes and compliance costs add to the cost of appliances, water heaters, etc. which fall regressively on the poor and mid class.
The quest for environmental utopia is a religious war being waged by the well-to-do who think they are poor, being funded by the lower and middle classes, and benefitting primarily the rich.
Meanwhile, REAL air pollution regulations, such as limits on diesel pollution are delayed again and again to indulge rich special interests such as contruction equipment and truck makers, while the population suffers all sorts of respiratory problems, not in the year 2050, but today.
The incentives for "clean" energy favor the rich: special privileges for electric and hybrid cars only the rich can afford, like use of carpool lanes, direct tax credits; tax credits for rooftop solar that only homeowners can get, and only those able to fund up-front costs get full benefit. Special privileges for bridges, toll roads. Extra taxes and compliance costs add to the cost of appliances, water heaters, etc. which fall regressively on the poor and mid class.
The quest for environmental utopia is a religious war being waged by the well-to-do who think they are poor, being funded by the lower and middle classes, and benefitting primarily the rich.
Meanwhile, REAL air pollution regulations, such as limits on diesel pollution are delayed again and again to indulge rich special interests such as contruction equipment and truck makers, while the population suffers all sorts of respiratory problems, not in the year 2050, but today.
2
Put Democrats in Congress if you want policies to help everyone. So long as both houses are Republican, all legislation will mainly benefit those who have the most. The Presidency has more power to stop things than to start them.
1
Exactly right, Prof. My 51 solar panels have provided 94% of my house's power since 2010, as a step toward reducing my family's 'carbon footprint'. My cost then installed was $1000 per panel. That is now under $700. If I had paid $700, I would already have recouped my investment. And companies like Solar City will 'farm' your roof for power at their cost, reducing your electric bill and your carbon footprint. Wind energy has become a major player from CA to KS to Denmark. Hydro has been here since before we were born.
Lying about the science is one thing. But lying about the economics is quite another.
Holland pays for its dikes through taxes on all, even though only part of the people live below sea level (like New Orleans!). Yet there is benefit to the whole nation. Renewable energy is here now. Electric cars are rapidly becoming affordable (GM, Nissan & Tesla). The search for renewable energy is not a pipe dream. I am using it to enter this text. We pay for roads, schools, and the military because they benefit us all. The same should apply to beneficial energy.
Tax carbon fuels and use the proceeds to support renewable. Make America Great in its new energy technologies!
Lying about the science is one thing. But lying about the economics is quite another.
Holland pays for its dikes through taxes on all, even though only part of the people live below sea level (like New Orleans!). Yet there is benefit to the whole nation. Renewable energy is here now. Electric cars are rapidly becoming affordable (GM, Nissan & Tesla). The search for renewable energy is not a pipe dream. I am using it to enter this text. We pay for roads, schools, and the military because they benefit us all. The same should apply to beneficial energy.
Tax carbon fuels and use the proceeds to support renewable. Make America Great in its new energy technologies!
13
Not true. The cost of energy storage remains high, with no breakthroughs in sight. Solar cells have become cheaper than they were, but are still not competitive if you remember that their duty factor is, at best, 20--25% (and power cannot be shipped economically from Arizona to the East). And that's only electric power---solar cells and wind wouldn't replace the remaining 75% of our energy consumption even if they, and energy storage, were free.
In the meantime, the "environmentalists" want to tear down hydroelectric dams.
But don't despair. A climate a few degrees warmer won't be a disaster.
In the meantime, the "environmentalists" want to tear down hydroelectric dams.
But don't despair. A climate a few degrees warmer won't be a disaster.
Have you ever lived in an area that is "a few degrees warmer"? I have. In Houston, we had more poisonous snakes, scorpions, fire ants, and all kinds of stinging, parasitic, disease-bearing critters that I've never seen up here. And it's worse as you get closer to the equator; their scorpions can kill, everything is deadlier and there's more of it. Think of dengue and Zika. We will eventually evolve some defensive mutations, as happens near the Equator, but that takes generations. And heat itself can kill,, especially the elderly, the ill, and those who can't afford air conditioning. Much of the country never needed it -- now they will.
You glibly dismiss something that may not make us extinct, but may well visit misery, disease and death to a great many of your fellow citizens. If you don't think that's a disaster, then shame on you.
You glibly dismiss something that may not make us extinct, but may well visit misery, disease and death to a great many of your fellow citizens. If you don't think that's a disaster, then shame on you.
3
Maybe it's a small point about a very big issue but in the interest of rational thought our planet is not what is at risk. Some portion of the life forms currently inhibiting our planet may very well be threatened by climate change but the planet, no. As a geologist I know that this planet of ours has gone through a lot in its four-and-a-half million year history including chokingly poisonous atmospheric changes to a period as a frozen-over snowball. These changes, along with many less catastrophic events, have had a significant affect on whatever was living on the planet at the time but the planet itself was never in danger. Let's make this a conversation about climate change to the consequences to life on this planet.
3
As a geologist, you mean 4.5 billion years!!
1
The republicans are deeply concerned about the national debt. They could care less about the planet.
The debt that man owes man can be negotiated. But the debt that man owes nature cannot.
The debt that man owes man can be negotiated. But the debt that man owes nature cannot.
11
My question to Professor Krugman is how he squares his devotion to Sec. Clinton (she of the primary season conversion to opposition to the Keystone Pipeline) with his hope for a president with the guts to stand up to the fossil fuel magnates.
6
Why doesn't Nobel economist Krugman write a practical article on how govt policy on taxes and subsidies affect climate policy? That's how other advanced country govts do it.
This is what we’d expect from a world traveling, Nobel memorial prize winning economist who has promoted govt spending. Why does he ignore the positive role models in the world? That would be more constructive than yet another anti Gop column, with all the points we’re well familiar with.
The point is that in the US, govt action is insulted as intrusive, dictatorial and anti business. Taxes are poison and the big corporations can easily block them with campaign subsidies to their dependent lawmakers.
Compare climate policies in countries who use more public funding for their elections and trace the connection.
Where is at least 1 columnist relating campaign finance reform to this and many other problems where solutions are blocked? When even our liberal pundits avoid this, it lets outsized corporate influence continue and worsen.
Then the pundits lament the results, and look like humanitarian progressives. Very nice.
This is what we’d expect from a world traveling, Nobel memorial prize winning economist who has promoted govt spending. Why does he ignore the positive role models in the world? That would be more constructive than yet another anti Gop column, with all the points we’re well familiar with.
The point is that in the US, govt action is insulted as intrusive, dictatorial and anti business. Taxes are poison and the big corporations can easily block them with campaign subsidies to their dependent lawmakers.
Compare climate policies in countries who use more public funding for their elections and trace the connection.
Where is at least 1 columnist relating campaign finance reform to this and many other problems where solutions are blocked? When even our liberal pundits avoid this, it lets outsized corporate influence continue and worsen.
Then the pundits lament the results, and look like humanitarian progressives. Very nice.
7
It is too late for market solutions and incrementalism. Anyone tracking global temperature escalation over the last six months knows that the heating of the planet has gone into a whole new gear. Mark my words - scientists will be proven wrong as to their conservatism as to the speed and magnitude of the change and the resulting ecological impacts.
We need a WWII-style mobilization to convert our energy system, now, period, end of story.
We also need to contend with the fact that our institutions of government are completely ill-equipped to deal with this transformation. The fact that after only 4 primary contests, Hillary Clinton (a mediocre and very potentially unelectable candidate) may well have a lock on the nomination, demonstrates the lack of democracy in the "Democratic" party and within our current power structure.
I do not look at the climate issue "comfortably numb". I am in a state of clear-eyed reality, moral outrage and powerlessness. If a source of virtuous power does not emerge immediately to galvanize the country on a rapid path toward zero emissions, we are all "cooked".
We need a WWII-style mobilization to convert our energy system, now, period, end of story.
We also need to contend with the fact that our institutions of government are completely ill-equipped to deal with this transformation. The fact that after only 4 primary contests, Hillary Clinton (a mediocre and very potentially unelectable candidate) may well have a lock on the nomination, demonstrates the lack of democracy in the "Democratic" party and within our current power structure.
I do not look at the climate issue "comfortably numb". I am in a state of clear-eyed reality, moral outrage and powerlessness. If a source of virtuous power does not emerge immediately to galvanize the country on a rapid path toward zero emissions, we are all "cooked".
3
Paul is correct: the "energy miracle" is happening, and the economic realities of low cost alternative fuels have put us on a course that will wean the US off fossil fuels by 2050 and will save our economy trillions of dollars. See "Reinventing Fire" by Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute. He is also right that this trend can be reversed by government action to protect the fossil fuel industries, and that plus the quality of life for our children and grandchildren is on the line in this election cycle. The choice between the parties has not been starker, nor more important.
5
Thanks for reminding people that talking about a serious set of risks like those presented by climate change was possible for a Republican Presidential candidate very few years ago.
We've been suffering as a nation through a GOP which has decided on a seige mentality, putting their party ahead of their oath of office - examples are numerous, but Mitch McConnell's "lest ignore the president" and his decision to extend paralysis to the Supreme Court are two examples. The financial downgrade of the United States due to GOP-instigated government shutdown is another.
So, while we wait for the adults to re-claim the Republican Party after eight years of tantrum, I hope the end of this will be in the sound defeat of the GOP in the Presidential elections.
As an independent, I'd like to be able to consider Republicans during elections, but I won't vote for children.
We've been suffering as a nation through a GOP which has decided on a seige mentality, putting their party ahead of their oath of office - examples are numerous, but Mitch McConnell's "lest ignore the president" and his decision to extend paralysis to the Supreme Court are two examples. The financial downgrade of the United States due to GOP-instigated government shutdown is another.
So, while we wait for the adults to re-claim the Republican Party after eight years of tantrum, I hope the end of this will be in the sound defeat of the GOP in the Presidential elections.
As an independent, I'd like to be able to consider Republicans during elections, but I won't vote for children.
5
As for the election, I find Paul Krugman's repeated dismissing of Bernie Sanders who has been and is obviously a wonderful, wonderful public servant to be dismaying.
7
Dear Nancy:
I have not read Prof. Krugman's dismissal of Sanders wonderful, wonderful record in the Senate. As for the election, as you put it, his dismissal of Sanders might have something to do with him not really being a factor in the primaries. Hillary has already amassed more than 500 delegates, a quarter of the more than two thousand delegates needed to capture the nomination. Sanders has less than a 100. And it's going downhill from here.
DD
Manhattan
I have not read Prof. Krugman's dismissal of Sanders wonderful, wonderful record in the Senate. As for the election, as you put it, his dismissal of Sanders might have something to do with him not really being a factor in the primaries. Hillary has already amassed more than 500 delegates, a quarter of the more than two thousand delegates needed to capture the nomination. Sanders has less than a 100. And it's going downhill from here.
DD
Manhattan
2
I am startled at how naive Paul Krugman is about the difficulty and grudging gains that can be made by the necessary changes we need to make in energy use.
Yes, it is critical to work on climate change now but such work will be painstaking for slow, slow gains. The will be no Krugman "magic" in the process.
Yes, it is critical to work on climate change now but such work will be painstaking for slow, slow gains. The will be no Krugman "magic" in the process.
2
Has to be said, again and again: the planet is not in trouble, we are. If anything, Earth's biosphere itself doesn't have any meaning or permanence, but clearly, the biosphere is better off without humans. That is, the mechanisms of evolution and the balance of species work best without any of our known contributions.
Even if that was not the case, there are no technical scenarios regarding human-caused atmospheric change that can offset population growth. No way to bring more zero-carbon energy on line that can make up for added people. Everything we do, from improving medicine to forcing more crop yield (all these 'good' things) just makes our deadline come closer. So?
Even if that was not the case, there are no technical scenarios regarding human-caused atmospheric change that can offset population growth. No way to bring more zero-carbon energy on line that can make up for added people. Everything we do, from improving medicine to forcing more crop yield (all these 'good' things) just makes our deadline come closer. So?
1
Republican's knee-jerk intransigence is a problem, of course. But a growing number of state legislatures are doing the bidding of big power companies by making home-solar systems punishingly expensive. Tax incentives for solar installation have been revoked (or, here in Fla. quietly remain unpaid), while regulations permitting companies to refuse or penalize surplus power from homeowners go up on the books.
4
Political change flows from what's possible, not from what's most ideologically pure. I wish that Bernie Sander's ardent supporters would take a minute to think about this. As Paul Krugman states, the stakes in this election for the environment are incredibly high.
4
Is this really an all or nothing proposition for the U.S.? California created the first Clean Air Act and the rest of the country followed. As of now, the Democrats in Sacramento have world's fifth biggest economy legally obliged to generate 50% of its electricity from renewables by 2030 based on 2016 levels. Not so far-fetched, Germany is at 33% of electricity from renewables as of...NOW. Once California demonstrates irrefutable proof concept for 40 million Americans, won't the positive economics of renewables force the hands of the other state legislatures and governors? I already hear talk of Buffalo, NY as a wind energy boom-town, and that was BEFORE Rex Ryan showed up.
What I think would be great would be to create the renewable energy regulations now in anticipation of "Big Solar" and/or "Big Wind" so that someday down the road, they aren't the lobbyists keeping the U.S. from adopting, say, cheap-fusion alternatives.
What I think would be great would be to create the renewable energy regulations now in anticipation of "Big Solar" and/or "Big Wind" so that someday down the road, they aren't the lobbyists keeping the U.S. from adopting, say, cheap-fusion alternatives.
1
I'm not sure if any of this will matter in the post nuclear winter of President Trump's second year in office.
2
Indeed P. Krugman, it's The Planet on the Table — always has been! Please read Wallace Stevens poem,
http://climbingsky.com/poetry-review-the-planet-on-the-table-by-wallace-...
http://climbingsky.com/poetry-review-the-planet-on-the-table-by-wallace-...
4
I agree with naomie klein's this changes everything. That's why I'm a supporter of Bernie. But after the sc primary I suspect that Hillary will win. I hope she wakes up to the truth that naomie klein speaks. Or I hope that Hillary proves Naomi's Klein is wrong. These are frightening times.
3
Bill Gates is a great software salesman, but I always found his assertions about other matters limited. He should stick to what he knows.
1
I think a carbon tax would be much better than a cap and trade system. When you hear the word "trade" you should think of Enron, Goldman Sachs, traders who get rich in the Wall Street casino, the people in California who gamed the system to make money when electricity generation was deregulated. Someone would find a way to game the system if we go to cap and trade. It would be much fairer to tax carbon and use the proceeds to reverse income inequality rather than creating a system that might favor wealthy traders.
The choice has been clear since Trump and the rest of the GOP candidates declared; as problem-plagued as aspects of Hillary Clinton's past are, she will be a far better choice than any of the current GOP finalists, save John Kasich, who is far too conservative for my tastes but seems to be represent the one spot of sanity among the current GOP finalists.
Whether it's Donald Trump, who began his campaign spewing racist invective and could not find it in himself to disavow a white supremacist yesterday, or the policy extremist Marco Rubio (whom this paper seems to be promoting), or the social extremist Ted Cruz, or, most unlikely, the hapless Dr. Ben Carson, there is no choice whatsoever. Not only the environment but our society and the rest of the nations on this globe will hang in the balance if any of these people gets in the White House.
It's Clinton (or Sanders) or bust!
Whether it's Donald Trump, who began his campaign spewing racist invective and could not find it in himself to disavow a white supremacist yesterday, or the policy extremist Marco Rubio (whom this paper seems to be promoting), or the social extremist Ted Cruz, or, most unlikely, the hapless Dr. Ben Carson, there is no choice whatsoever. Not only the environment but our society and the rest of the nations on this globe will hang in the balance if any of these people gets in the White House.
It's Clinton (or Sanders) or bust!
3
It is interesting now that HRC's nomination seems "certain" does the NYC choose to run articles that Sen. Sanders has been on top of from the very beginning. Today you decided that the planet is on the ballot, but HRC was late to oppose the Canadian pipeline. The NYC now runs articles on how HRC was wrong on Libya. We all know she was wrong on Iraq (but then the NYC was a Cheney quoting cheerleader for that debacle.
But great coverage of the Academy Awards! I'll cancel my subscription to People now.
But great coverage of the Academy Awards! I'll cancel my subscription to People now.
2
How differently we would be talking about climate change had the Supreme Court not blocked the Florida recount and let Al Gore become president. :(
6
It doesn't matter. Two things will change the world. Automatic cars. Cars are not going to be getting hundreds of miles per gallon, they will be getting thousands of miles per gallon. A superconduducting energy grid, which can all go underground. Everything else is small peanuts.
The problem is that these things do not create the appearance that Something Big is being done, it doesn't make people feel good.
The problem is that these things do not create the appearance that Something Big is being done, it doesn't make people feel good.
Senator Bernie Sanders must stop attacking OUR next President of the United States - Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton - and take on climate-action change as an issue to go with economic equity because they are all controlled by the top 1% global financial elite. Young people care deeply about OUR planet and understand the need to stop this money-master-made problem. Senator Sanders could start talking about Social Capitalism whereby at least one-half the GROSS profits from any project funded with OUR hard-earned taxpayer dollars come back into OUR federal system to restore and maintain OUR infrastructure and social goods. WE must not let the same greedy few stuff their pockets further by controlling new energy sources and natural resources. They can manage it - WE own it.
4
Given the vitriolic comments here, especially those equating Mrs. Clinton with Trump, Krugman's column couldn't be more timely. There is far more at stake than being peeved because socialist politics ain't gonna triumph this election cycle (they won't, folks). Don't make like Karl Rove stamping his feet on Fox when he finds out Ohio is statistically a goner. Hold your nose and don't do a Nader or, for sure, you'll get the nadir Krugman describes.
4
Dr. Krugman, like so many loyal Democrats, gives up too easily on climate and Congress. Winning the battle, but not the war, is not an option here. Who are the Democrats (or Indepenents, or a new Party) planning to run in the safest Republican districts?
I agree with Dr. Krugman.
The sad thing is that liberals, just by firmly supporting any Democratic candidate last 16 years, would have no need to worry about these issue by now.
In democracy real progress is made in small steps, and sitting out elections did REAL harm to this country last decade or so.....
The sad thing is that liberals, just by firmly supporting any Democratic candidate last 16 years, would have no need to worry about these issue by now.
In democracy real progress is made in small steps, and sitting out elections did REAL harm to this country last decade or so.....
3
All this "global warming climate" conversation is to prepare YOU THE TAXPAYER for the tax that will eventually be levied on everyone to pay for another program. Has anyone seen anyone over 25 in the audiences when Bernie Sanders speaks such as last Sunday in Oklahoma City? Will Hillary be indicted or are the rules different for her for some mysterious reason?
Dear Janis:
It appears the rules are different for Hillary. She has been the most persecuted person in recent memory. As soon as one Republican-concocted "scandal" against Hillary fades from view with no substance to the allegations, another one surfaces.
When all this subsides, and she enters the White House, Hillary will not be indicted but applauded for putting up with this Republican nonsense, and because we expect them to obstruct President Obama it will President H. Clinton who will be nominating the next Justice to the Supremes. Loverly ain't it?
DD
Manhattan
It appears the rules are different for Hillary. She has been the most persecuted person in recent memory. As soon as one Republican-concocted "scandal" against Hillary fades from view with no substance to the allegations, another one surfaces.
When all this subsides, and she enters the White House, Hillary will not be indicted but applauded for putting up with this Republican nonsense, and because we expect them to obstruct President Obama it will President H. Clinton who will be nominating the next Justice to the Supremes. Loverly ain't it?
DD
Manhattan
3
In the struggle against climate change the US is so far beyond the Green Paries of Europe that a vote and endorsement of Bernie Sanders policies - would have been just a dirst step in the right direction.
And it is not ironic anymore but very, very sad - that a US newspaper and a economist who opendly endorsed somebody for President who is even behind Bernie - writes such... such a knowledgable post.
And it is not ironic anymore but very, very sad - that a US newspaper and a economist who opendly endorsed somebody for President who is even behind Bernie - writes such... such a knowledgable post.
As Bob Dylan said, money doesn't talk, it swears. We have an economic system that rewards people - big time! - for doing things we don't want them to do. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand of the free marketplace is giving us the finger. I'm afraid all Hillary will do is add some nail polish.
2
Dear LW:
Adding nail polish? A tad sexist, oui?
Sounds more like someone evoking shades of blushing pink for our dear Sarah Palin. Not too many of us view Hillary as a fashion maven.
As for Dylan's money shot reference, I imagine he's doing a lot a swearing. The Bob of the the Sixties is not the Bob of the new millennium. He's been around long enough to know better. Remember he's the guy who wrote: The times they are a-changing.
DD
Manhattan
Adding nail polish? A tad sexist, oui?
Sounds more like someone evoking shades of blushing pink for our dear Sarah Palin. Not too many of us view Hillary as a fashion maven.
As for Dylan's money shot reference, I imagine he's doing a lot a swearing. The Bob of the the Sixties is not the Bob of the new millennium. He's been around long enough to know better. Remember he's the guy who wrote: The times they are a-changing.
DD
Manhattan
3
Yes, human survival -- or civilization's -- may well be on the ballot. But the issue isn't so much which candidate is chosen: it's which voters choose to show up.
That's what you should think of when you choose your candidate. Trump may not be the choice of the majority, but his followers _will_ show up, and he may well have some who won't admit it till the ballot box.
On the Democratic side, we know who's being presented by the party apparatus as the paradigm of experience and trustworthiness. But will the new and marginal (and disillusioned) voters who voted for others, show up for that candidate?
I have serious doubts, and the bit of schadenfreude I might get after election day is no compensation for the dread I would feel.
That's what you should think of when you choose your candidate. Trump may not be the choice of the majority, but his followers _will_ show up, and he may well have some who won't admit it till the ballot box.
On the Democratic side, we know who's being presented by the party apparatus as the paradigm of experience and trustworthiness. But will the new and marginal (and disillusioned) voters who voted for others, show up for that candidate?
I have serious doubts, and the bit of schadenfreude I might get after election day is no compensation for the dread I would feel.
3
And for some reason, you seem to have a strong faith that Hillary will not fold up like a two dollar suitcase the second some Republican oil-shill like Inhofe starts yelling "deficit! deficit!". This interests me strangely. Pray tell, why?
2
One excellent reason for being a "vicious" Sanders supporter -- and staying that way, and staying organized -- is to give Clinton someone to fear besides far-right money and far-right propagandists. We need power groups on the left. Sanders is showing that it's possible to generate money and power from the many individuals who, by themselves, don't have much of either.
2
Krugman along with many of the government owned scientists have indoctrinated many people to believe in the propaganda that humans are a cancer on the planet, and that in order to save it many of them will have to be "reduced", which is a nice way of advocating for the removal of much of the human species in order for the planet to be "saved" and bring in some kind of green utopia.
Billions of "pollutants", aka humans, will have to somehow be reduced, which of course Krugman and company never go into detail about how they are going to remove billions of humans who are "polluting" the Earth, because it starts to look like a genocide plan.
Krugman and others ignore the Promethean type of technology that can easily power the planet with unlimited energy and bring mankind to the stars: Fusion Energy. Instead, Krugman supports the evil Zeus policy that puts artificial limits on mankind developing superior forms of energy, and under the guise of "protecting the environment" keeps humans in a primitive, far less evolved state.
True human progress requires humanity to develop higher, more advanced forms of energy, not go backwards with lower energy such as wind, solar, etc.
Billions of "pollutants", aka humans, will have to somehow be reduced, which of course Krugman and company never go into detail about how they are going to remove billions of humans who are "polluting" the Earth, because it starts to look like a genocide plan.
Krugman and others ignore the Promethean type of technology that can easily power the planet with unlimited energy and bring mankind to the stars: Fusion Energy. Instead, Krugman supports the evil Zeus policy that puts artificial limits on mankind developing superior forms of energy, and under the guise of "protecting the environment" keeps humans in a primitive, far less evolved state.
True human progress requires humanity to develop higher, more advanced forms of energy, not go backwards with lower energy such as wind, solar, etc.
3
I am already worn out with the Presidential election, and like Dr. Krugman, I am hanging on by my fingernails. I am begging everyone who reads this column to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the fall. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but will gladly cast my vote for Bernie Sanders if he is the nominee. Please do not let disappointment in a favored candidate not winning the nomination keep you from voting. Electing a Democrat as the next President is the only hope this country has of maintaining even the status quo in combatting climate change and hanging onto Civil Rights and the social safety nets, and even that will be a challenge with a Republican controlled Congress. Not to mention that the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice looms large.
I keep thinking that this time next year there will be a new person occupying the White House and it is terrifying to think that person might be Trump, or Rubio, or worst of all the more than odious Cruz. Any of the three of these candidates would destroy with the help of Congress, what has taken many hard fought battles and years to win for the good of the people of this country. Not one of the three of these Presidential contenders has shown he has a clue how to govern this country. They are all now vying to see who can be the most insulting. Climate change? Not discussed by them because as all good Republicans know it is not happening. Vote as if your life depended on it, because it does.
I keep thinking that this time next year there will be a new person occupying the White House and it is terrifying to think that person might be Trump, or Rubio, or worst of all the more than odious Cruz. Any of the three of these candidates would destroy with the help of Congress, what has taken many hard fought battles and years to win for the good of the people of this country. Not one of the three of these Presidential contenders has shown he has a clue how to govern this country. They are all now vying to see who can be the most insulting. Climate change? Not discussed by them because as all good Republicans know it is not happening. Vote as if your life depended on it, because it does.
7
As a result of human disruption of the climate, the mind-boggling equivalent of 4 atomic bombs per second worth of heat is currently being added to the ocean. That has been occurring for decades. If we stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow, the Earth's climate would go though a period of adjustment for the foreseeable future before a new equilibrium were reached. This is what climatologists call "committed warming." Today is the eleventh hour. There is no time left to rapidly implement a transition to renewable energy sources. But at this point we cannot "save" the planet. We can only limit the damage and hopefully keep it livable enough not only for humanity but for the great majority of remaining species. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fate of the planet will be in the hands of the next president and supreme court.
3
Krugman completely ignores the fact that the only candidate in either party, when asked what is the greatest problem facing the United States, was Bernie Sanders. His answer: " Climate Change."
My question is "What is the root cause of Climate Change? Again Bernie is consistently is pointing out the control of our government by the wealthy.
Until, Krugman quits trying to achieve a position in what he hopes will be a Hillary administration, his writings most likely will continue to avoid the real causes of our economic and social problems.
My question is "What is the root cause of Climate Change? Again Bernie is consistently is pointing out the control of our government by the wealthy.
Until, Krugman quits trying to achieve a position in what he hopes will be a Hillary administration, his writings most likely will continue to avoid the real causes of our economic and social problems.
5
I have only one quibble with Dr. Krugman's editorial and the discussion of climate change in general. Please stop saying we have to "save the planet". As the late George Carlin used to say, the planet has been through much worse than a little greenhouse warming and it will be fine. It will shake us off like a mild flea infestation. It's the human race that needs to be saved.
6
There is the matter of culture that remains the 800 lb gorilla in the room as we pour over numbers about clean energy, technology, or solar this or that. Too much information out there supports the stickiness of our consumerism, our waste and unsustainable lifestyles, alongside a blind faith in endless growth.
Save money on gas, then those people drive more. Save money as technology or the China-effect make more and more goods cheaper, only to have people build bigger houses to hold it all. Not enough space? There's a storage business down the street.
The C02 I didn't release because of my electric plant's fossil fuel or because of my fossil fuel car could easily ends up created somewhere else, making all that stuff.
The really hard nut to crack is NET gains and losses here toward preserving this planet in a form that also preserves and spreads a modern, decent, democratic life.
Save money on gas, then those people drive more. Save money as technology or the China-effect make more and more goods cheaper, only to have people build bigger houses to hold it all. Not enough space? There's a storage business down the street.
The C02 I didn't release because of my electric plant's fossil fuel or because of my fossil fuel car could easily ends up created somewhere else, making all that stuff.
The really hard nut to crack is NET gains and losses here toward preserving this planet in a form that also preserves and spreads a modern, decent, democratic life.
3
I can't help but feel that those who have a secure place in the "status quo" have an uneasiness about the possibility of a government that works fo more than the well to do.
Maybe we need more representation of average citizens in our government.
Is it even possible?
Maybe we need more representation of average citizens in our government.
Is it even possible?
3
I woke up this morning thinking about carbon based climate change and realized it really got going in the US around the turn of the twentieth century. The 70's was the real siren. The Wettest century in California was the 20th. However Methane gas contributes 28% more to the warming than CO2 does. The US needs to lead on climate changing gases and work with China and India for best practices on curbing emissions. Climate change doesn't just effect the poor in this country, it effects everyone, even the top 1%
2
Based on this piece and the comments, I'd say the chances of averting catastrophic climate change are nil. Why? The most important contributor to the degradation of the planet isn't even mentioned. Yes--it is important to address energy production and replacing fossil fuels with renewables. But even if enormous positive changes in energy production were achieved, (unlikely), we will not have tackled (let alone perceived), the greatest contributor to global warming, ecological damage and species extinction. Industrial food production,
The widely heralded "Green Revolution" has changed the production of food; "farming" is no longer farming, it has morphed into a process that has much more to do with Henry Ford than Farmer Brown.
Here's how it works:
1 Multinational food corp. purchases acreage in the Amazon.
2 Rain forest is obliterated (release of previously sequestered carbon)
3 Monocrop installed, e.g. soy........
4 "inputs" follow......fertilizer/insecticide/herbicide (all petroleum based), fossil fuel burning tractors, etc.
5 Crop is shipped to China (fossil fuel) for industrial feedlots
6 Feedlots produce meat of dubious quality + runoff containing e coli, antibiotics, methane
7 Meat shipped worldwide (fossil fuel)
8 Western diet makes people sick
9 Topsoil back in Brazil is eroded/degraded, superweeds appear
10 Restart cycle by destroying more rainforest (send subsistence farmers to Sao Paolo slums)
Industrial food contribution to warming >50%
The widely heralded "Green Revolution" has changed the production of food; "farming" is no longer farming, it has morphed into a process that has much more to do with Henry Ford than Farmer Brown.
Here's how it works:
1 Multinational food corp. purchases acreage in the Amazon.
2 Rain forest is obliterated (release of previously sequestered carbon)
3 Monocrop installed, e.g. soy........
4 "inputs" follow......fertilizer/insecticide/herbicide (all petroleum based), fossil fuel burning tractors, etc.
5 Crop is shipped to China (fossil fuel) for industrial feedlots
6 Feedlots produce meat of dubious quality + runoff containing e coli, antibiotics, methane
7 Meat shipped worldwide (fossil fuel)
8 Western diet makes people sick
9 Topsoil back in Brazil is eroded/degraded, superweeds appear
10 Restart cycle by destroying more rainforest (send subsistence farmers to Sao Paolo slums)
Industrial food contribution to warming >50%
4
Paul, how is it that an "infinite growth" economist has any concept of "Saving the Planet". I hate to break your little heart, but you endorse "corporate incrementalism". In other words, what is referred to as alternative energy sources, such as Solar, Wind, etc. have always been economical, but the propaganda is that it is not cost effective to conventional energy sources based on the false economics of excluding all negative externalites. As for Clinton, she will not implement any changes that will have any meaningful impact because they will be on the order of what the oligarchy thinks is appropriate according to their profits. Obama's policies are 30 years off and will do nothing of significance. If you are not going to break up the big banks, etc. as the candidate that you have written off endorses, you are not going anywhere. Cap and Trade is a Ponzi scheme, that why it has some traction with Wall Street. Instead of a carbon tax, why not something more intelligent; a BTU tax. We are in a crisis, and you as well as the vast majority of populace do not understand how far past midnight we are. It is not Global Warming, it is ecological collapse. There are 9 ecological systems critical to human survival and the collapse of any one of these will mean our extinction. They are all in steep decline. You are guilty of same magical thinking as the republicans; which is the Economy is on the same level as our Ecology. This is incorrect, the Economy is a Subset of our Ecology.
5
There are environmental problems with large solar farms and wind farms. Birds incinerated in the air as they fly over solar farms; eagles and other birds killed by the huge rotating cement arms of wind towers. These deaths are not reported either, and these technologies are not viable on a large scale . Rooftop solar should be more supported. We need to reduce energy consumption and global population . Empowering and educating women to make reproductive choices and have control over their bodies will help.
2
Germany has made great progress in the past 10 years in becoming energy-independent. So it's not as if it can't be done technologically or economically--it's only politically impossible.
Another reason that political revolution is the only route to a future we can believe in!
Another reason that political revolution is the only route to a future we can believe in!
2
As long as the cost of renewable energy continues to drop to the point where it is more cost effective than existing energy sources homeowners and businessmen alike will follow their pocketbooks, and take advantage of the lower cost services.
Certainly tax incentives would help move the conversion along, but alternative tax credits would probably come at the expense of existing fossil fuel credits and Exxon/Mobil is not going to allow that to happen without a fight.
But even Exxon and other oil services cannot win a fight when their existing product is becoming increasingly obsolete; case in point, I cannot remember the last time I seen a horse and buggy, or an oil lamp street light.
Certainly tax incentives would help move the conversion along, but alternative tax credits would probably come at the expense of existing fossil fuel credits and Exxon/Mobil is not going to allow that to happen without a fight.
But even Exxon and other oil services cannot win a fight when their existing product is becoming increasingly obsolete; case in point, I cannot remember the last time I seen a horse and buggy, or an oil lamp street light.
in a nutshell is the unelectabilitiy of Hillary Clinton with her sky high negatives and seething caldron of "problems". that pretty much dooms us in the general, and makes this column irrelevant. Our only chance, and it's only a 4% chance according to what paul tells up about the betting market, is to nominate Bernie. It might help if someone leaked her bank speeches. This is serious. Either we just give up now and party til the end of the world, or we stop Hillary with whatever she's so desperately hiding.
5
Her unelectability is probably why she lost South Carolina. Sorry, but despite the attempts of Bernie's naive supporters to pull her down, she has a much better chance against Trump than he has.
3
Once again, the cult of Bernie meets the 40 year old Clinton hate machine with its plethora of unproven charges (ever!). Do you recognize that Sanders has as much chance now to be nominated as I do to guard Stephen Curry? Yet, you and your ilk yap on with not-so-different Clinton hatred as certain Republicans have for decades now. Do you really believe that Clinton's Republican opponent is going to take the same issue as you will with her speaking to Goldman Sachs, even if without animus, even if she said that the banking industry is important to Wall Street and Main Street? So what argument are you making and for what benefit? Perhaps your cultish hatred prefers a resurrection of Trump University to the victory of a decades long Democrat!
4
China accounts for more emissions, and a much larger share of the growth than North America does.
That being said, a big piece of the republican opposition to carbon limits is due to the perceived short term economic impact of regulations. Look at all the coal miners in West Virginia or Kentucky - base of Mitch McConnell's electorate. The coal industry has mythic proportions in these states and the out of work miners claim victimhood despite the impact of low natural gas prices on coal economics. The blue-collar white voters who are the core of the republican party (and Trump support) are threatened by change. What's in it for them and how can they adapt?
That being said, a big piece of the republican opposition to carbon limits is due to the perceived short term economic impact of regulations. Look at all the coal miners in West Virginia or Kentucky - base of Mitch McConnell's electorate. The coal industry has mythic proportions in these states and the out of work miners claim victimhood despite the impact of low natural gas prices on coal economics. The blue-collar white voters who are the core of the republican party (and Trump support) are threatened by change. What's in it for them and how can they adapt?
3
Obviously agree with Mr. Krugman about the severity of the election re: climate, but disagree with this: "And as I said, no new legislation would be needed, just a president willing to act and a Supreme Court that won’t stand in that president’s way, sacrificing the planet in the name of conservative ideology."
This isn't true. The current Paris Agreement does well, but still does not put us on the 2-degree pathway that we need. The mechanisms for ramp-up in five years or so are there, but like Mr. Krugman says, it will require leadership on the U.S.'s end to continue decreasing emissions. This ramp-up will only be done via new legislation, and an executive that has the will and influence to push that legislation through an intransigent GOP Congress.
This isn't true. The current Paris Agreement does well, but still does not put us on the 2-degree pathway that we need. The mechanisms for ramp-up in five years or so are there, but like Mr. Krugman says, it will require leadership on the U.S.'s end to continue decreasing emissions. This ramp-up will only be done via new legislation, and an executive that has the will and influence to push that legislation through an intransigent GOP Congress.
2
Krugman is thinking about Obama's Clean Power Plant, which once in place gives the EPA the ability to implement what are essentially "cap and trade" schemes. Hansen (and others) fear that cap and trade is too easy to game, but any approach toward getting the damage the CO2 emitting power sources do included in the price of the power is all to the good. Then the next battle is dropping the cap low enough to do some real good (and saving the EPA from "regulatory capture" attacks. and so on).
The difference between the Democrats (*any* Democrats) and the Republicans on this issue is so striking, I don't think there's any question that Krugman is correct in broad outline: want to save the world? Elect Democrats.
The difference between the Democrats (*any* Democrats) and the Republicans on this issue is so striking, I don't think there's any question that Krugman is correct in broad outline: want to save the world? Elect Democrats.
1
The President has nothing but the bully pulpit and a majority opposition can put a halt to government. We have seen that with the Obama Presidency. The real change will only come when congress is turned over.
1
The real danger is that Congress has been largely republican of late, so a Republican president would mean changes that could impact us in really bad ways. It is essential that people vote.
4
It will be funny to read Hillary supporters blaming Sanders supporters for the victory of Trump in November, when he defeats her.
Lesson for Hillary supporters: if you want a candidate that represents the vast majority of the people, you use a fair democratic process to choose him/her - to operate an undemocratic machine and then paint it as a democratic machine won't do it.
Lesson for Hillary supporters: if you want a candidate that represents the vast majority of the people, you use a fair democratic process to choose him/her - to operate an undemocratic machine and then paint it as a democratic machine won't do it.
7
I have contributed one hundred dollars twice to the Sanders campaign. I understand why you feel the way you do. I happen to be really inspired by Bernie. However I have no animosity toward Hillary. Both Hillary and Bernie are smart, accomplished and honest. Bernie is no socialist and Hillary is no liar. The Republican machine repeats false fairy tales so often no matter how insulated you are some mud sticks on the target which effect our feelings about them. It is looking like Hillary will beat Bernie in the primary process. Had he beat her and she was crowned at the convention this would be very upsetting to me. It looks like she is going to beat Bernie fair and square. I am going to enthusiastically support either Hillary or Bernie when the winner is determined. We are very fortunate that the Democratic primary process has given us two very good potential leaders. Personally I would prefer Bernie but Hillary will also make a very fine President.
14
"denial of climate science and opposition to anything that might avert catastrophe have become essential pillars of Republican identity. So the choice in 2016 is starker than ever before..."
Put me firmly in the camp of climate deniers. The climate has been changing since time immemorial, and yet human beings seem to have survived. How can this be?
Rick Russell
Put me firmly in the camp of climate deniers. The climate has been changing since time immemorial, and yet human beings seem to have survived. How can this be?
Rick Russell
Hold your horses!
I am sitting on the fence as to Bernie or Hillary. Now, if Bernie is able to wake up millions of voters, he has my vote.
So far it has not happened and blaming some "machine" for that is childish....
I am sitting on the fence as to Bernie or Hillary. Now, if Bernie is able to wake up millions of voters, he has my vote.
So far it has not happened and blaming some "machine" for that is childish....
1
Thanks for the unnecessary advice, Mr Krugman. I won’t forget that the stakes this time around are deadly serious.
A body of evidence is clearly taking shape in all matters: income inequality, financial accountability by Wall Street, military interventions in foreign countries, social justice and policies impacting the lives of minority communities — the list is long and incomplete.
Now you raise the urgent question of planetary fate and environmental policy. I expected that following the lead of the Editorial Board asking for the release of Wall Street speeches transcripts; of Messrs. Shane and Becker investigating the disastrous military adventure in Libya; of Mr. Blow reflecting on statements and actions affecting black communities, you would ask for accountability regarding positions on environmental policy — i.e. Keystone pipeline.
These are all questions addressed to Hillary Clinton, your chosen candidate. But you double down and implicitly in your column advise us to follow your lead. Thanks, but no thanks. Now, more than ever, I feel the Bern!
A body of evidence is clearly taking shape in all matters: income inequality, financial accountability by Wall Street, military interventions in foreign countries, social justice and policies impacting the lives of minority communities — the list is long and incomplete.
Now you raise the urgent question of planetary fate and environmental policy. I expected that following the lead of the Editorial Board asking for the release of Wall Street speeches transcripts; of Messrs. Shane and Becker investigating the disastrous military adventure in Libya; of Mr. Blow reflecting on statements and actions affecting black communities, you would ask for accountability regarding positions on environmental policy — i.e. Keystone pipeline.
These are all questions addressed to Hillary Clinton, your chosen candidate. But you double down and implicitly in your column advise us to follow your lead. Thanks, but no thanks. Now, more than ever, I feel the Bern!
9
"The Bern" is the ticket to a Trump presidency. If Sanders were to win the nomination, the guns (silent until then, as the Republicans hope against hope that Democrats will duplicate their own mistakes) would be unleashed from the right, and even Trump's manifest idiocy could not un-say Sanders own self-description--"socialist". Even the Blue Wall would not save him.
No thanks.
No thanks.
3
Thanks for the unnecessary advice, Mr. Malo.
Professor Krugman, I think what many are observing here is that your opener on the S.C. 'blowout' is orthogonal to the rest of the piece.
3
I highly recommend this recent TED presentation by Al Gore. It supports what Professor Krugman says in this essay and provides ample evidence:
http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2016/None/AlGore_2016-480p.mp4
http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2016/None/AlGore_2016-480p.mp4
2
I agree with you, but I think "the invisible hand" may be even more important than executive action as prices continue to fall. Individual consumers now have far more power than they did even 10 years ago to reduce their emissions dramatically. Thinking about my own family, in the last ten years, we've replaced all our coal-fired electricity consumption with rooftop solar, converted our heavy fuel oil boiler to natural gas, and adopted a much more energy efficient car. All in all, our carbon footprint is at least 75% lower than it was 10 years ago, we are saving many thousands of dollars *each year* in energy costs, and improving the value of our home by investing in infrastructure instead of coal and oil.
I never imagined we'd be here 10 years ago, but we are, and there's a lot that individual consumers can do--and save money doing it.
I never imagined we'd be here 10 years ago, but we are, and there's a lot that individual consumers can do--and save money doing it.
2
So Krugman begins another column with the inevitability of Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the NYT, to reinforce that view, are more carefully placed pieces that are more opinion pieces than fact based.
What may be an even more glaring example of the NYT bias is the omission of a very important story from Sunday. Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. congresswoman and Iraqi veteran resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so that she could strongly and very eloquently endorse Bernie Sanders. She makes the choice very clear. We can elect someone whose judgment(s) on foreign policy and regime change are questionable (see NYT article on Clinton and Libya), or we can elect someone who sees war and intervention as a last resort, and who would focus more of our resources on domestic issues and climate change.
This is a huge and relevant story in the campaign about one of the young rising stars in the Democratic Party breaking loose from the party elites.
Where is this story today in the Times? It was briefly there yesterday. It's even worse than the Times non coverage of Sanders' endorsements from MoveOn.org and The Nation magazine.
The NYT credibility and level of trust in the integrity of your institution has been severely damaged with millions of your readers over the last few months. Is it really worth it?
What may be an even more glaring example of the NYT bias is the omission of a very important story from Sunday. Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. congresswoman and Iraqi veteran resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so that she could strongly and very eloquently endorse Bernie Sanders. She makes the choice very clear. We can elect someone whose judgment(s) on foreign policy and regime change are questionable (see NYT article on Clinton and Libya), or we can elect someone who sees war and intervention as a last resort, and who would focus more of our resources on domestic issues and climate change.
This is a huge and relevant story in the campaign about one of the young rising stars in the Democratic Party breaking loose from the party elites.
Where is this story today in the Times? It was briefly there yesterday. It's even worse than the Times non coverage of Sanders' endorsements from MoveOn.org and The Nation magazine.
The NYT credibility and level of trust in the integrity of your institution has been severely damaged with millions of your readers over the last few months. Is it really worth it?
8
They've left out Robert Reich's endorsement, too. Recall he served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. He also supported Obama over HRC in 2008.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-robert-reich-endors...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-robert-reich-endors...
1
News report: Sanders is losing badly. Check the delegate count and polling on upcoming primaries.
1
we need to use less energy -period.
2
Maybe the headline would be more apt if it read Habitable Planet on the Ballot because the orb will go on with or without us. That noted, thank you, Paul. It is the burning issue of our times.
2
the sun provides enough light and wind energy in one day ....to meet the earths energy needs for one year......the only "energy miracle"needed is for people like Bill Gates and others to stop protecting their investments in toxic and weapon engendering nuclear energy...........continuing investment in further toxic nuclear development,diverts financing and progress from clean energy and the obvious solution to climate change !
3
Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury!
5
Hey, I did not yet cast my vote. And it won't go to either Clinton or Trump. I think the predictions are still premature. But, ok, I'll give you that Trump vs. Clinton is the most likely outcome. Being at that, I would like that opinion writers of your stature settle on calling both candidates by their first names, or last. Republicans are just more likely to support an out of the box candidate. Democrats are establishment and institutions lovers. And in Clinton vs Trump all those Southern States that now chose Clinton over Sanders, may chose Trump over Clinton. And how will our planet fare under Trump? Well, for starters he will re-brand it to the Trump Earth. Then he will start planning luxury condos in Siberia and Manitoba once the global warming takes gets stronger.
2
The only thing you get by no vote is to support gridlock. It is like punishing your Mom by hurting yourself.
So glad you mentioned Tulsi Gabbard, as the story of her endorsement of Bernie Sanders, and her resignation from the DNC (she was co-chair, but objected to the manipulation of the debates in Hillary's favor) may never make it into the Times--or if it does, will be "buried" somewhere.
For anyone interested, Google her name. Her courageous break with the DNC threatens to blow this nomination wide open.
For anyone interested, Google her name. Her courageous break with the DNC threatens to blow this nomination wide open.
Just in time , the last day possible My wife and self changed our party registration to Democrat so we could in Florida's close primary system vote for Hillary. Bernie maybe able to beat Trump or other GOP candidate but Hillary has a much better chance. I agree professor this is one important election. We cannot afford to blow it. I am a moderate to a traditional conservative, but the GOP now has moved to Fascism. As Dixiecrats moved to the GOP , moderate Republicans have been voting and then moving to the Democratic party.
8
Stephen -- I don't think you need to switch -- Hillary appears set to blow Bernie away in Florida.
I can understand any principled Republican supporting Kasich (even though I have some big issues with Kasich, his support for polluters right at the top, abortion stand ditto) to send a message of sanity to the party, and then doing what you need to do in the general election.
In this election I can understand any Republican pulling that curtain closed and voting Democrat for President, even if they vote straight Republican down the rest of the ballot ... and never wanting to admit it.
Trump, Rubio and Cruz are all terrible disasters to the GOP. But if Trump wins the presidency the GOP will never recover.
America needs a sane conservative party. Realistically after this election the GOP will be badly damaged no matter what the outcome, but electing Trump would be far worse than having Trump as candidate and watching him lose.
Realistically the GOP must fracture. It cannot contain the fascist-socialists (remember that "nazi" is a contraction of national-socialism), and serious battles remain among the rest.
I can understand any principled Republican supporting Kasich (even though I have some big issues with Kasich, his support for polluters right at the top, abortion stand ditto) to send a message of sanity to the party, and then doing what you need to do in the general election.
In this election I can understand any Republican pulling that curtain closed and voting Democrat for President, even if they vote straight Republican down the rest of the ballot ... and never wanting to admit it.
Trump, Rubio and Cruz are all terrible disasters to the GOP. But if Trump wins the presidency the GOP will never recover.
America needs a sane conservative party. Realistically after this election the GOP will be badly damaged no matter what the outcome, but electing Trump would be far worse than having Trump as candidate and watching him lose.
Realistically the GOP must fracture. It cannot contain the fascist-socialists (remember that "nazi" is a contraction of national-socialism), and serious battles remain among the rest.
Why does a blowout primary in a deep deep red state mean so much more to Clinton's chances than a blowout victory in a blue/purple state mean to Sanders'?
Clinton would be a much better president than any republican I can think of on the national stage, as far as climate matters. So would Sanders.
Clinton will not be as strong towards the banks and oligarchs who are also doing so much damage. It would really be something if our next president could take both on.
Clinton would be a much better president than any republican I can think of on the national stage, as far as climate matters. So would Sanders.
Clinton will not be as strong towards the banks and oligarchs who are also doing so much damage. It would really be something if our next president could take both on.
6
Psst. Florida.
I am much more worried about passing a dangerous environment to my children than I am worried about passing along the debt. Two maxims from my dear departed parents apply with some editing and enhancement:
1] It's only money; nobody died [ yet or will die any sooner];
2] Once you break something, it's never as good as it was.
The first applies to the debt; the second to the environment, if we can arrest the breakage, let alone, fix it.
1] It's only money; nobody died [ yet or will die any sooner];
2] Once you break something, it's never as good as it was.
The first applies to the debt; the second to the environment, if we can arrest the breakage, let alone, fix it.
5
Despite the deadly seriousness of climate change, moderators in the Democratic debates have paid the issue scant attention. (Full disclosure: I stopped watching the GOP events; there's only so much craziness I can stomach.)
Could the reason for omitting a full discussion of climate change be that both Democratic candidates are mostly in agreement about what needs to be done? In other words, they won't attack each other and create those crisp soundbites that boost ratings or go viral?
What a loss. It's a great opportunity to show the clear differences on this issue between the parties and present the counter-arguments to the GOP climate denial mythology.
Debate moderators: What are you waiting for? The seas to rise?
Could the reason for omitting a full discussion of climate change be that both Democratic candidates are mostly in agreement about what needs to be done? In other words, they won't attack each other and create those crisp soundbites that boost ratings or go viral?
What a loss. It's a great opportunity to show the clear differences on this issue between the parties and present the counter-arguments to the GOP climate denial mythology.
Debate moderators: What are you waiting for? The seas to rise?
6
Capital like the Pharaoh will not allow the people to go to the promise land until death visits their own children.No one gives up power and wealth no matter how good the reasons until they have no other choice.That is both the lesson of the Bible and history.Maybe you should reconsider supporting the Queen with Moses Sanders despite all your reasonable arguments not to.Desperate times call for leaps of faith.
2
Paul is calling the Dem primary with 4% of the vote in:
Clinton: 91/4051 = 2%
Sanders: 65/4051 = 2%
So it's 2% to 2% and Clinton is the winner. With 96% of the vote still to come, we're 96% sure (coincidentally) that Clinton will be the nominee. So let's just ignore Sanders and never once mention his name throughout the article. It's only fair.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/5-ways-the-media-is-grave_b_...
Clinton: 91/4051 = 2%
Sanders: 65/4051 = 2%
So it's 2% to 2% and Clinton is the winner. With 96% of the vote still to come, we're 96% sure (coincidentally) that Clinton will be the nominee. So let's just ignore Sanders and never once mention his name throughout the article. It's only fair.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/5-ways-the-media-is-grave_b_...
9
Already there are more jobs in solar energy than there are in coal...and that is just stateside. All it takes is some favorable regulation...and a sane approach to net metering, for this to turn in to a job-generating growth sector for a generation.
When the Republicans claim efforts to curb carbon have deleterious economic effects they are simply lying to their gullible base.
When the Republicans claim efforts to curb carbon have deleterious economic effects they are simply lying to their gullible base.
5
"But we’ve already had that miracle: the cost of electricity generated by wind and sun has dropped dramatically, while costs of storage, crucial to making renewables fully competitive with conventional energy, are plunging as we speak."
Good. Then enterprising people and companies will take advantage of that and produce all those wonderful items. And Republicans will be all too eager to help that environment thrive. There doesn't need to be yet another government-mandate "Power Plan" to make it happen, Paul.
Good. Then enterprising people and companies will take advantage of that and produce all those wonderful items. And Republicans will be all too eager to help that environment thrive. There doesn't need to be yet another government-mandate "Power Plan" to make it happen, Paul.
Are you advocating that the Supreme Court rubber stamp Clinton's enviormental agenda? I thought they are an independent body. Your implication to me is they are not
Second, I recall when Al Gore spoke at a Copenhagen climate change summit that showed that the Artic could be completely ice free in 5 years. In his speech Gore told the conference
"These figures are fresh Some fo the models suggests to Dr (Wieslav) Malowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north pole polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice free within 5 to 7 years."
But this was Maslowski's response
"It is unclear to me how this figure was arsrived at. I would never try to estimate anything as exact ast this."
Gore's office later admitted that the 75% figure was one used by Maslowski as a "ball park figure." several years aga in a consversation with Gore
Gore stands up in front of a body of scientists and intentionally misrepresents a conversation? Interesting
I find that as informative as the fact that the Paris accord is non binding unenforcebable and countries will collect their own data, as if those numbers could not be altered'
Finally, the freak show.Trump is that. But what I am more interested is the FBI investigating the Foundation for public corruption and the mounting scanals that is the email investigation. Do we refer to thaa as the indictment wawting to happen? Will Krugman write factually about that? About as much as the corruption in the ACA
Second, I recall when Al Gore spoke at a Copenhagen climate change summit that showed that the Artic could be completely ice free in 5 years. In his speech Gore told the conference
"These figures are fresh Some fo the models suggests to Dr (Wieslav) Malowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north pole polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice free within 5 to 7 years."
But this was Maslowski's response
"It is unclear to me how this figure was arsrived at. I would never try to estimate anything as exact ast this."
Gore's office later admitted that the 75% figure was one used by Maslowski as a "ball park figure." several years aga in a consversation with Gore
Gore stands up in front of a body of scientists and intentionally misrepresents a conversation? Interesting
I find that as informative as the fact that the Paris accord is non binding unenforcebable and countries will collect their own data, as if those numbers could not be altered'
Finally, the freak show.Trump is that. But what I am more interested is the FBI investigating the Foundation for public corruption and the mounting scanals that is the email investigation. Do we refer to thaa as the indictment wawting to happen? Will Krugman write factually about that? About as much as the corruption in the ACA
2
In the meantime, HealedByGo, the Arctic Ocean RIGHT NOW has the lowest sea ice coverage in recorded history. The prediction that Al Gore ran with was only 80-90% correct. His warning may have erred a bit on the alarmist side, but he was fundamentally right to be warning us. You are fundamentally (pun intended) wrong to be using his slight exaggeration as anything remotely close to a victory for your position (or the planet).
vebiltdervan: "In the meantime, HealedByGo, the Arctic Ocean RIGHT NOW has the lowest sea ice coverage in recorded history."
How far back does "recorded history" go? We only started taking serious temperature measurements since 1850, when there were only 100 reporting sites, mostly on land. Is it possible the ice coverage has been even less than it is now? If so were humans responsible for it?
How far back does "recorded history" go? We only started taking serious temperature measurements since 1850, when there were only 100 reporting sites, mostly on land. Is it possible the ice coverage has been even less than it is now? If so were humans responsible for it?
Krugman is right in his political analysis- but whether the kind of executive action he advocates is enough- is sadly doubtful. Activism is still the "trump" card. And speaking of Trump...nuclear war vies for environmental catastrophe as to likeliest outcomes of his Presidency.
Save your breath, Mr. Krugman. You may need it because Hillary is not going to beat Trump. She can rally the faithful but in order to beat Trump you need to bring in new voters. With her record and popularity, she will not do it. Bernie has a chance to do it.
Regardless, your effort should not be wasted. Trump may need your advice and, you know what, he may actually heed it.
Regardless, your effort should not be wasted. Trump may need your advice and, you know what, he may actually heed it.
1
"...we already know very well what will be at stake — namely, the fate of the planet."
"But I won’t forget that the stakes this time around are deadly serious. And neither should you."
Which party, again, reports to fear-mongering?
Reality: "US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100."
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-...
"But I won’t forget that the stakes this time around are deadly serious. And neither should you."
Which party, again, reports to fear-mongering?
Reality: "US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100."
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-...
2
Here's the problem, after admiring your work ever since I first met you (in the Times) I now find you to be saddled with support for the establishment. All the super delegates are Party insiders, who are crowning Clinton-for-President. These are the same people who got us into this mess; failed to stand firm against a crooked Republican Party, even failed to support Obama; now standing together for Clinton. She was the leader who gave us the disruption of governments' policies, and created ISIS. Her history as Secretary of State, where she led the government disruption in Libya and Ukraine, which pulled the tail of the Russian bear, and is the foundation for a Republican Presidential win.
I would love to vote for a woman, but not this flawed, oligarch-owned war-monger for profit. It is NOT her turn. She has done enough damage! Go to Bernie -- he is clean!
I would love to vote for a woman, but not this flawed, oligarch-owned war-monger for profit. It is NOT her turn. She has done enough damage! Go to Bernie -- he is clean!
5
Thank you so much, Paul Krugman. And please write about this again closer to the election. I hope you will remind people......our votes are responsible for all species, present and future, that make this, the only habitable planet in the universe we know of, their home. Personally, I've vowed to vote for no candidate who is a climate change denier (or "skeptic") on any level of government, from community to presidential. For policies on every level make a difference. I hope others will take this pledge too.
PS.....thank you, Leonardo diCaprio!
PS.....thank you, Leonardo diCaprio!
3
I just returned to Los Angeles from Phoenix where they have had record setting temperatures and a string of temperatures above average.
2
NO the Democratic nominee is NOT sure to be Hilliary Clinton. We don't know that at all! In order to save our planet, the most important thing for us to do is to fix our corrupt campaign finance system. The people who OWN and OPERATE this country are calling the shots. They are buying our elected people. The the people who own us benefit from wars and oil and banking "regulations". The Clinton campaign head, John Podesta, is a lobbyist for many of the corporations that benefit from war. Endless was is not going to save this planet. So we will get nowhere until our campaign finance is fixed and Hillary is not seriously interested in that. Campaign finance reform will need to happen before the people who profit from fossil fuels and war are no long pulling the strings. Perhaps we might consider bringing back "The Fairness Doctrine" (google it, you'll be surprised that we ever had such a thing!)
62
I am a lifelong Democrat. In fact a 3rd generation Democrat. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the party nominee. I won't vote for a Republican either. Krugman just could be wrong, again. The OKC Thunder had a "lead pipe cinch" going into the final 12 seconds of the Warriors vs Thunder game Saturday night in Oklahoma City. Then a miracle by the Name of Stephen Curry stepped up and along with Klay Thompson, et al., performed the impossible. Warriors 121 vs Thunder 118 OT. Bernie has already raised $36 M+ in February. It ain't over 'til it's over.
1
The actual goal of this Op-Ed is to get everyone talking about how to get clean energy, so that we won't talk about how the Democratic Political Machine is so corrupt. Hillary Clinton hasn't won the primary. 46 states still have to vote or caucus. What insanity is this? Readers just believe whatever they are told by authority?
The Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee just resigned from her position in the DNC because of the corruption in their rigging the system for Hillary.
Harry Reid used political influence to deliver Nevada for Hillary by "asking" the culinary union for casinos and hotels to caucus for her at the last minute. The union is currently in contract negotiations and had been publicly undeclared for a candidate until the day of the Nevada caucus. Where is this reporting?
Low Information Democratic Voters are the Blue Tea Party. How depressing. Go on readers. Talk about whatever whale-hugging issue the Democratic Machine thinks will divert your attention from the real news.
The Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee just resigned from her position in the DNC because of the corruption in their rigging the system for Hillary.
Harry Reid used political influence to deliver Nevada for Hillary by "asking" the culinary union for casinos and hotels to caucus for her at the last minute. The union is currently in contract negotiations and had been publicly undeclared for a candidate until the day of the Nevada caucus. Where is this reporting?
Low Information Democratic Voters are the Blue Tea Party. How depressing. Go on readers. Talk about whatever whale-hugging issue the Democratic Machine thinks will divert your attention from the real news.
3
The writing's been on the wall for Hillary for a long, long time. Some of you uber-idealists, too ignorant to know a 'democratic socialist' has not even a snowball's chance in hell of being elected president, have been misled by all the 'Feel the Bern' graffiti obscuring the obviousness of what is coming. That graffiti is about to be white-whashed. In ten days time, even you will have to admit that only a few more nails are needed in the coffin of Bernie's presidential campaign.
Stop trying so hard to be hip. Stop with all the fervent passion for a politician who is probably older than your grandparents and who's been in politics since Hillary was in high school. Stop criticizing her for being smart enough to beat the Repubs at their own fund-raising game, just like Obama did.
Yes, of course we need campaign finance reform. And Hillary wants that just like Obama does. But they're not stupid enough to seize empty moral high ground and, in doing so, sacrifice their opportunity to lead. If the candidate is not equipped to win, principled ideals can never come to fruition. Bernie is not equipped to win. Hillary is and that's what she's going to do. If you're unsure about this, pay close attention to primary results tomorrow.
You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. And you don't expect a 'democratic socialist' to be elected president of the United States unless you are utterly delusional. It will never happen.
Stop trying so hard to be hip. Stop with all the fervent passion for a politician who is probably older than your grandparents and who's been in politics since Hillary was in high school. Stop criticizing her for being smart enough to beat the Repubs at their own fund-raising game, just like Obama did.
Yes, of course we need campaign finance reform. And Hillary wants that just like Obama does. But they're not stupid enough to seize empty moral high ground and, in doing so, sacrifice their opportunity to lead. If the candidate is not equipped to win, principled ideals can never come to fruition. Bernie is not equipped to win. Hillary is and that's what she's going to do. If you're unsure about this, pay close attention to primary results tomorrow.
You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. And you don't expect a 'democratic socialist' to be elected president of the United States unless you are utterly delusional. It will never happen.
This is, unfortunately entirely correct. The situation of the biosphere will be decided in the next few years. Right now we are above 404 ppm of CO2, and above 450 ppm, considering all man-made greenhouse gases.
It is also true that the technology to stop the CO2 rise exists, and needs just to be deployed. A major help to do this would be to price carbon (CO2) emissions. That's a political decision.
Scientific papers published in the last three months show that we have at most ten years to stop the CO2 rise. At the present rate, including other man-made CO2 gases such as methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOx), fluorocarbons, etc., the atmosphere will reach 500 ppm in CO2 equivalent density.
At that density, three Antarctica's gigantic ice shields which rise on dry rock from below sea level will break up, as warm water sneaks below. That will bring gigantic flooding, worldwide.
Details in:
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/biblical-flood-starting-anew/
It is also true that the technology to stop the CO2 rise exists, and needs just to be deployed. A major help to do this would be to price carbon (CO2) emissions. That's a political decision.
Scientific papers published in the last three months show that we have at most ten years to stop the CO2 rise. At the present rate, including other man-made CO2 gases such as methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOx), fluorocarbons, etc., the atmosphere will reach 500 ppm in CO2 equivalent density.
At that density, three Antarctica's gigantic ice shields which rise on dry rock from below sea level will break up, as warm water sneaks below. That will bring gigantic flooding, worldwide.
Details in:
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/biblical-flood-starting-anew/
3
Recently Bill Gates declared, as he has a number of times over the past few years, that we need an “energy miracle”
An agnostic's way of saying: Let us pray.
So just where exactly on the long list of promises being made, is there any mention of the climate? And even if there were, what would make such a
"campaign promise" any more credible than the others that are usually made and then forgotten?
So absent political solutions (another oxymoron) and technological miracles (a literal oxymoron), what the hell, I'm voting for Trump because what is there to lose. At least go out with a big party and a laugh.
An agnostic's way of saying: Let us pray.
So just where exactly on the long list of promises being made, is there any mention of the climate? And even if there were, what would make such a
"campaign promise" any more credible than the others that are usually made and then forgotten?
So absent political solutions (another oxymoron) and technological miracles (a literal oxymoron), what the hell, I'm voting for Trump because what is there to lose. At least go out with a big party and a laugh.
For the team that believes technology will save us, that The Singularity is just around the corner, this certainly looks like our moment. The powers of willful ignorance are massed on one side of the table so, it's GO TIME. Let's focus attention on the issue of renewable, affordable, portable energy until something substantial is verified. Failure is assured, as are cheap shots from the opposition. Getting back up and trying again is what distinguishes the winning team from the layabouts.
1
It doesn't matter. Two things will change the world. Automatic cars. Cars are not going to be getting hundreds of miles per gallon, they will be getting thousands of miles per gallon. A superconduducting energy grid, which can all go underground. Everything else is small peanuts.
The problem is that these things do not create the appearance that Something Big is being done, it doesn't make people feel good.
The problem is that these things do not create the appearance that Something Big is being done, it doesn't make people feel good.
Great and timely column. As Senator Sanders stated in the first debate, Global Warming is the #1 national security issue. I believe HRC has also include this issue in her campaign. Our military and intelligence leadership has recommended to the Congress and President Obama that this is the #1 threat to the security of the US and its economy.
The military knows this but we need to launch a "Manhattan" and Defense Transportation projects to make the shift from fossil fuels that will improve our existing quality of living and also provide a return to investors.
A practical pathway is solar power, and a major international space solar initiative to create very cheap electricity by beaming 24/7 electrical energy to Earth. This can be done economically with Maglev launch of satellites to geosynchronous orbit.
Then use this very cheap electricity to make gasoline, diesell, and jet fuel from AIR and WATER enabling no net emissions.
Also using the high efficiency and speed of wheel less Maglev supplement our Interstate passenger and trucking by building networks along our existing rights-of-way.
This pathway to the future has been defined by Franklin Medalists for engineering Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby, formerly of Brookhaven National Lab in their books, "The Fight for Maglev" and "Maglev America" and coming soon, "Silent Earth" and "7 Big Projects".
For HRC and Bernie, please check www.magneticglide.com
The military knows this but we need to launch a "Manhattan" and Defense Transportation projects to make the shift from fossil fuels that will improve our existing quality of living and also provide a return to investors.
A practical pathway is solar power, and a major international space solar initiative to create very cheap electricity by beaming 24/7 electrical energy to Earth. This can be done economically with Maglev launch of satellites to geosynchronous orbit.
Then use this very cheap electricity to make gasoline, diesell, and jet fuel from AIR and WATER enabling no net emissions.
Also using the high efficiency and speed of wheel less Maglev supplement our Interstate passenger and trucking by building networks along our existing rights-of-way.
This pathway to the future has been defined by Franklin Medalists for engineering Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby, formerly of Brookhaven National Lab in their books, "The Fight for Maglev" and "Maglev America" and coming soon, "Silent Earth" and "7 Big Projects".
For HRC and Bernie, please check www.magneticglide.com
1
To paraphrase George W. Bush - "Sometines money trumos. . . Everything".
1
Democrats should not be confident that Mrs. Clinton's experience and knowledge will triumph.
Who was the "most experienced" and "most qualified" candidate in 2008? Partial-term Senator Obama, or Vietnam veteran/Congressman/Four Term (at the time)/introducer of multiple major legislation Senator McCain?
The vast majority of American voters don't watch debates, they watch reality TV shows.
But there's another aspect to consider. If elected, Mrs. Clinton would face the same stonewalling as Mr. Obama has. Desperate to "get things done", what will she horse-trade to polish her resume? A trillion-dollar-war against Assad in exchange for a bill granting employees three days of paid maternity leave? Loosening pollution laws for the Kochs in exchange for a fifteen-cent raise in the minimum wage? Mr. Clinton brought us the end of Glass-Stegal and NAFTA. Has those accomplishments helped the poor or middle class?
Mr. Krugman is rightly nervous; but I'm nervous about the things Mrs. Clinton could "get done".
Who was the "most experienced" and "most qualified" candidate in 2008? Partial-term Senator Obama, or Vietnam veteran/Congressman/Four Term (at the time)/introducer of multiple major legislation Senator McCain?
The vast majority of American voters don't watch debates, they watch reality TV shows.
But there's another aspect to consider. If elected, Mrs. Clinton would face the same stonewalling as Mr. Obama has. Desperate to "get things done", what will she horse-trade to polish her resume? A trillion-dollar-war against Assad in exchange for a bill granting employees three days of paid maternity leave? Loosening pollution laws for the Kochs in exchange for a fifteen-cent raise in the minimum wage? Mr. Clinton brought us the end of Glass-Stegal and NAFTA. Has those accomplishments helped the poor or middle class?
Mr. Krugman is rightly nervous; but I'm nervous about the things Mrs. Clinton could "get done".
2
Sarah Palin had quite a bit to do with that. Running against GWB did too.
Modest quibble department: Dr. Krugman's referencing of Predictwise's odds of Clinton & Trump nominations is unhelpful. My understanding is that Predictwise routinely lists prospective odds for candidates that cumulatively total over 100%, even as high in recent weeks as 190% on the republican side. Thus the quoted respective probabilities of Clinton (96%) and Trump (80%) are exaggerated false impressions.
1
Three things are clear to me. The first is that "global-warming skeptics" outnumber "the-sky-is-falling alarmists." It isn't that skeptics don't believe the earth is warming. It is just that they know "progressives" see GW as an opportunity to heavily tax and strictly control people in the name of saving them from themselves. Furthermore, most folks know government is far too inept and corrupt to positively contribute to anything as complex as the earth's climate through legislation.
Second, I also know "gun nuts" far outnumber "control freaks," a fact made evident by the enormous number of guns purchased by Americans in the seven years Obama has been president and preaching control. The numbers are so large that the confiscation objective of the control freak is no longer even a remote possibility. Democrats who embrace control are backing a lame horse in any race for political office.
Third, I realize Professor Krugman is a card-carrying economist, but he has surrendered any claim to objective economic analysis in favor of flacking for the Democrat Party. His manifest political motivation discredit his economic credentials.
Second, I also know "gun nuts" far outnumber "control freaks," a fact made evident by the enormous number of guns purchased by Americans in the seven years Obama has been president and preaching control. The numbers are so large that the confiscation objective of the control freak is no longer even a remote possibility. Democrats who embrace control are backing a lame horse in any race for political office.
Third, I realize Professor Krugman is a card-carrying economist, but he has surrendered any claim to objective economic analysis in favor of flacking for the Democrat Party. His manifest political motivation discredit his economic credentials.
2
The planet will be fine, it's been through a lot worse before humans arrived.
However, humanity won't be okay if we stick with primitive "green" tech such as wind and solar. We could have already had advanced fusion energy that provides us with limitless energy, but for decades the financing has been deliberately suppressed, money has either been flowing towards never ending wars of imperialism, bailing out the too big to fail and jail banks or into wind and solar. If solar and wind are so good then why isn't it our primary source of energy?
Problem with wind and solar is that they are both inefficient and unreliable, and wind in particular requires an insane amount of land just to power a small city. Also, the power generation is inferior compared to advanced fusion technology.
We could have a truly advanced space ship equipped with fusion energy as opposed to some solar panels or a windmill as Krugman and the "green" tech supporters advocate.
However, humanity won't be okay if we stick with primitive "green" tech such as wind and solar. We could have already had advanced fusion energy that provides us with limitless energy, but for decades the financing has been deliberately suppressed, money has either been flowing towards never ending wars of imperialism, bailing out the too big to fail and jail banks or into wind and solar. If solar and wind are so good then why isn't it our primary source of energy?
Problem with wind and solar is that they are both inefficient and unreliable, and wind in particular requires an insane amount of land just to power a small city. Also, the power generation is inferior compared to advanced fusion technology.
We could have a truly advanced space ship equipped with fusion energy as opposed to some solar panels or a windmill as Krugman and the "green" tech supporters advocate.
1
Paul, you are being rational. The GOP and its minions are not. They don't see opportunities in trying to improve our environment, protecting the planet for the future, or doing anything that might help anything or anyone other than their rich donors. The fate of the planet does not interest them because there is no money to be made in preserving wildlife unless it's cute (and insects that pollinate are not cute), nor is it glamorous to build affordable sustainable housing for the middle and working classes who also need a place to live. It's much better to create more problems like Flint, Michigan because those poor people deserve polluted water, polluted land, and decrepit housing. Middle and working class Americans no longer matter in America. Nor does climate change because they are not scientists so the conclusions that scientists come to have no meaning for them. Besides, they'll be with their rich donors in the panic room when the final tide comes in. The rest of us will be dead.
3
Dr. Krugman may be a "card-carrying economist," but this card-carrying energy engineer knows that time is no longer on our side and that planetary warming in excess of 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 deg. F) is all but inevitable at this juncture. Yes, bring on the renewables, but get ready for the consequences of an irresponsible Republican Party.
6
Watching Trump behave like a rude foul mouthed 16 yr old high school jock from the 1960's is bad enough, even when he is surrounded by others who are of the same mindset and trying to imitate him during the GOP debates, so imagine how he will appear next to Hillary - like an even bigger buffoon.
Imagine how we look to the rest of the world when one of our party's candidates could potentially be banned from one of our allied nations? So, I assure you, we are not the only ones nervous
Then there are the Bernie supporters who would rather stay home if their guy does not win, even in the face of such huge stakes. Sigh...I guess one party does not have a monopoly on immaturity, but at least the dems who are behaving that way are actually fresh out of high school and more gullible to conspiracy theories
If Bernie had not been so far out there with his Wall Street conspiracy theory attacks on Hillary, which made him seem a bit loony, I was 'temped' to board the Bernie Bus if he would simply rework his numbers on the cost and a way to pay for his programs, but that bus proved to be a few wheels short and unable to get us anywhere with logic.
When he was asked about the council of economic advisers in SC debate, an entire axle fell off
His supporters should go to the fact check sites and read how dispute his claims to the contrary, he voted for regime change on more than one occasion. He has not been painting an accurate picture of himself either - there goes the other axle
Imagine how we look to the rest of the world when one of our party's candidates could potentially be banned from one of our allied nations? So, I assure you, we are not the only ones nervous
Then there are the Bernie supporters who would rather stay home if their guy does not win, even in the face of such huge stakes. Sigh...I guess one party does not have a monopoly on immaturity, but at least the dems who are behaving that way are actually fresh out of high school and more gullible to conspiracy theories
If Bernie had not been so far out there with his Wall Street conspiracy theory attacks on Hillary, which made him seem a bit loony, I was 'temped' to board the Bernie Bus if he would simply rework his numbers on the cost and a way to pay for his programs, but that bus proved to be a few wheels short and unable to get us anywhere with logic.
When he was asked about the council of economic advisers in SC debate, an entire axle fell off
His supporters should go to the fact check sites and read how dispute his claims to the contrary, he voted for regime change on more than one occasion. He has not been painting an accurate picture of himself either - there goes the other axle
6
Trump is a factor in this cycle because Washington has let the people down.
I would also observe that the press has let the people down by following Washington's instructions.
The press is supposed to hold power accountable.
In Nevada a state that could be the Saudi Arabia of solar power there is a war between the electric utility monopoly and solar installers. The press should be all over this. That's the press's job especially since the governor is a possible nominee to the Supreme Court.
Environmental activism comes in all forms
I would also observe that the press has let the people down by following Washington's instructions.
The press is supposed to hold power accountable.
In Nevada a state that could be the Saudi Arabia of solar power there is a war between the electric utility monopoly and solar installers. The press should be all over this. That's the press's job especially since the governor is a possible nominee to the Supreme Court.
Environmental activism comes in all forms
4
Humans -- and, to be accurate, only a specific industrial civilization composed of particular humans -- have initiated a sixth mass extinction, top soil erosion is unprecedented (60 years of farming left), the climate has been altered (really just a "threat multiplier" looming over all of the ecocide -- and that is the military's term), and so forth. There are no serious plans from any government for these things because it means the end of the economic comforts and elegancies that people have become dependent upon, having become so deskilled at things like living off the land -- much of which has been wrecked by industrialism either through the conversion of forests to two-by-fours, general pollution, etc. Krugman is a smart guy -- but he is still an economist -- and this stuff is so out of his realm -- cap and trade won't solve these issues. And people think clowns like Donald Trump are "telling it like it is" -- ha!
1
Krugman is overly optimistic on renewables. The countries that have the highest share of renewable power, Germany and Denmark have sky high residential power prices (nearly thirty cents per KwH). We can't be sure that the Chinese reduction in solar costs might not be sustainable, as part of a subsidized export policy.
But more importantly, much of the world suffers from abject energy poverty. Energy availability and affordability, generally in the form of electricity, is a critical key to higher productivity and a better life.
The miracle we need is cheaper energy. So far renewables haven't come close to reducing energy costs.
But more importantly, much of the world suffers from abject energy poverty. Energy availability and affordability, generally in the form of electricity, is a critical key to higher productivity and a better life.
The miracle we need is cheaper energy. So far renewables haven't come close to reducing energy costs.
2
I believe Denmark has high electricity costs. But how much is that of the total household budget?
They seem to be doing very well and Forbes ranked them the number 1 country for business and ranked the US number 22.
http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/
Somehow they provide universal health care at half the cost per person and universal university.
And you won't find people there working two part-time minimum wage jobs below the poverty line, without health insurance and needing for food stamps.
They seem to be doing very well and Forbes ranked them the number 1 country for business and ranked the US number 22.
http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/
Somehow they provide universal health care at half the cost per person and universal university.
And you won't find people there working two part-time minimum wage jobs below the poverty line, without health insurance and needing for food stamps.
1
My point wasn't that the Danes (or Germans) can't afford it. My point was that the poor of the earth can't.
1
It's a mistake to rely on Hillary -- supported by a compliant Supreme Court -- to promulgate the magic answer to our conversion to clean energy. We should be relying on the private sector to ensure economically viable energy solutions that also happen to be environmentally friendly. That's the essential objective of Bill Gates's initiative. Read his website and you'll see that he's been able to bring about sensitive energy solutions that fit the needs of developing African and Asian countries by being economically viable. We have to stop relying on government to save the planet. Whether it's Hillary or Trump, we don't need decades of litigation -- which is what we have now -- to clean up our act.
I'd strongly suggest reviewing Tesla's legislative setbacks, and, more importantly, the entrenched 100 year old car dealership legislation that prevents Tesla from proper competition with traditional car dealerships before accusing anyone of not relying on the private sector enough. Tesla is literally prevented from listing prices or closing sales in it's showrooms because car manufacturers are legislatively prevented from selling their wares factory direct: a state of affairs that created the used car salesman stereotype we know today.
Private sector has hit a wall with regards to competition, the cases of Uber and Lyft, despite being large corporations that lack integrity in their employee treatment as much as retail stores, are also fighting entrenched legislation under the guise of public safety regulations for taxis... and this is an environmental problem these companies already contribute to solving privately. It's excessively old and well protected legislation that makes relying on the private sector further impossible, and conaervatives conveniently skip over resolving corporate kickbacks using social red herrings in the media.
Private sector has hit a wall with regards to competition, the cases of Uber and Lyft, despite being large corporations that lack integrity in their employee treatment as much as retail stores, are also fighting entrenched legislation under the guise of public safety regulations for taxis... and this is an environmental problem these companies already contribute to solving privately. It's excessively old and well protected legislation that makes relying on the private sector further impossible, and conaervatives conveniently skip over resolving corporate kickbacks using social red herrings in the media.
1
While renewables are beginning to approach carbon based energy in cost of generation, this is, by itself, insufficient to push the transformation through established utilities, and over the energy grid, which is sorely in need of significant upgrade.
The pathetic story of what has been going on in Nevada is ground for tempering one's optimism in the face of institutional inertia and head in the sand management. It is surreal that of all
the states where solar should dominate, Nevada power, the major supplier, was able to
convince the Nevada public utility commission to increase the charges that
sellers of solar generated energy back into the grid would need to pay. The
consequence was to drive the major solar panel installer out of the state. So who is now installing panels on roofs in the state that gets more sun than any
other state?? And how many per month are being installed?? If someone has recent numbers perhaps they can post them in a comment.
Being able to store, inexpensively, unused renewable energy on site for later use, or move it into the grid to the financial
advantage of the local generator of that energy, are two essential components for converting the economy into what is principally
a carbon free energy based economy. However neither seems to be available at present for widespread adoption.
Until both these "disruptive events" occur, it would seem as if a certain damping of optimism is called for.
The pathetic story of what has been going on in Nevada is ground for tempering one's optimism in the face of institutional inertia and head in the sand management. It is surreal that of all
the states where solar should dominate, Nevada power, the major supplier, was able to
convince the Nevada public utility commission to increase the charges that
sellers of solar generated energy back into the grid would need to pay. The
consequence was to drive the major solar panel installer out of the state. So who is now installing panels on roofs in the state that gets more sun than any
other state?? And how many per month are being installed?? If someone has recent numbers perhaps they can post them in a comment.
Being able to store, inexpensively, unused renewable energy on site for later use, or move it into the grid to the financial
advantage of the local generator of that energy, are two essential components for converting the economy into what is principally
a carbon free energy based economy. However neither seems to be available at present for widespread adoption.
Until both these "disruptive events" occur, it would seem as if a certain damping of optimism is called for.
The best hope for our acidifying oceans and warming planet is Bernie Sanders. We need to wrest control of government from the fossil fuel industry and financial institutions that back them. Hilary won't do that. Donald Trump may divert us from that major threat as we fend off a host of short-term crises.
If we care about the planet we leave children, grandchildren, and all forms of life that make up ecosystems needed for Earth's health, we need to vote for Bernie. When he is elected, we need to support him in the mighty battle that is Earth's best hope for survival. Of course, some plants and animals will thrive in changed and rapidly changing conditions, but we must not lightly sign off on the strife and deaths of so much of life as we know it.
If we care about the planet we leave children, grandchildren, and all forms of life that make up ecosystems needed for Earth's health, we need to vote for Bernie. When he is elected, we need to support him in the mighty battle that is Earth's best hope for survival. Of course, some plants and animals will thrive in changed and rapidly changing conditions, but we must not lightly sign off on the strife and deaths of so much of life as we know it.
A new study estimates that climate action could save 175,000 lives and $250 billion in health costs per year in the U.S. alone: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/22/emission-reductions-climat...
This is what "destroying our economy" looks like to Republicans.
This is what "destroying our economy" looks like to Republicans.
3
Bill Gates (who was never that great of a technologist anyway) is wrong to be looking for a miracle in energy production. What we need is a miracle in energy economics, beginning with the ever-elusive "price on carbon". Until energy economics is no longer to blind to that cost, it can't effectively be harnessed to solve the problem.
And, in spite of the efforts of several states to hold the country back by trying to stop the Clean Power Plan in court, it's turning out to actually be easier than we thought: the benefits are coming 14 years ahead of schedule:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/270544-achievin...
And, in spite of the efforts of several states to hold the country back by trying to stop the Clean Power Plan in court, it's turning out to actually be easier than we thought: the benefits are coming 14 years ahead of schedule:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/270544-achievin...
2
Krugman: "And this is by far the most important issue there is; it, er, trumps even such things as health care, financial reform, and inequality."
Although the reminder is appreciated, it was not needed for many of us, especially those of us with grandchildren and an interest in the public/common good.
My wife and I will support whoever is nominated as the Democratic candidate,since that nominee will be the only candidate with at least a minimal interest in advancing the common good, the major responsibility of those in political office, as Pope Francis reminded them in his address to Congress: "You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics."
Although the reminder is appreciated, it was not needed for many of us, especially those of us with grandchildren and an interest in the public/common good.
My wife and I will support whoever is nominated as the Democratic candidate,since that nominee will be the only candidate with at least a minimal interest in advancing the common good, the major responsibility of those in political office, as Pope Francis reminded them in his address to Congress: "You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics."
8
The pretension that humans control climate through CO2 emissions is an expensive folly.
The faster we get rid of this medieval superstition backed by medieval "consensus" pretend science, the better.
Australia has shown the way, by firing all climatologists while offering them productive jobs.
The faster we get rid of this medieval superstition backed by medieval "consensus" pretend science, the better.
Australia has shown the way, by firing all climatologists while offering them productive jobs.
1
Australia is a bad example for anything positively climate related. The entire island continent is an even less hospitable version of Texas: a tiny habitable coastline and primarily abandoned dustbowls and wastelands with few natural resources.
They are also suffering from the same electoral shocks as the United Kingdom politically, so there is nothing new to learn there as they are shooting themselves in the foot politically as bad as we have been the past 16 years.
They are also suffering from the same electoral shocks as the United Kingdom politically, so there is nothing new to learn there as they are shooting themselves in the foot politically as bad as we have been the past 16 years.
Speaking of "medieval superstition"...?
That people believe what they choose to believe and ignore or disdain anything with which their preconceived viewpoints disagree is certainly well-demonstrated by Adrian O's comments.
That people believe what they choose to believe and ignore or disdain anything with which their preconceived viewpoints disagree is certainly well-demonstrated by Adrian O's comments.
2
Adrian, I am trying to understand your position. Are you suggesting that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not rising or that that rise has no consequences?
1
Capitalism and a consumption-driven economy is powered by maximizing profits. This means lowest possible input costs and highest possible output prices. Until one is willing to compromise on this basic tenet, no progress on the environment can be made democratically. Republicans, who in the aggregate deny the dangers of a warming planet, will always scream "lowest input costs, maximum profits, and lowest consumer prices", and Democrats, who in the aggregate see the dangers of a warming planet in apocalyptic terms will always scream "higher input costs (carbon taxes or other mechanism), lower profits, and higher consumer prices". And those who advocate for a "technological revolution" as a means to bridge that divide should maybe be reminded that our cars still run on the basic internal-combustion engine invented more than a century ago. If technology alone could solve the problem, one would think that a more efficient way of powering our basic transportation means would have been invented long ago.
Maybe a president can slowdown the degradation of our planet by executive orders, but only at the margin. What is needed is compromise between the two distinct views of our economic system as far as the environment is concerned. Sorry Mr. Krugman, but living in a state, whose senior Senator throws snowballs in congress as proof that there is no global warming, I am not optimistic.
Maybe a president can slowdown the degradation of our planet by executive orders, but only at the margin. What is needed is compromise between the two distinct views of our economic system as far as the environment is concerned. Sorry Mr. Krugman, but living in a state, whose senior Senator throws snowballs in congress as proof that there is no global warming, I am not optimistic.
3
Climate change trumps the other issues? Inequality, racism, and financial corruption are symptoms of the larger causes that drive climate change: a failure to recognize that we are all part of a larger system, and that we ourselves suffer when we prey on "others," whether through throwaway consumerism, unbounded extraction, or marginalizing other people and denying them respect, well-being, and life itself.
4
I agree with every single statement in Professor Krugman's column with the exception of our planet having the good luck of Trump as the Republican nominee. I don't mean "good luck", of course, in the belief that Trump would be less radically anti-environment than his rivals. One can't be sure, of course, because the topic of climate change comes up less frequently in the Republican debates and political rallies than who has the more grotesque face. But I an sure that for the Donald a profusion of his golf courses and his towers would be far more important to him than clean energy installations. However, even for the reality denialist leaders of today's Republican party too many appreciate that having Trump at the head of the ticket would be politically apocalyptic for them not to somehow find a way to stop him. But I hope I'm wrong and Dr. Krugman is also right about this.
1
The problem is that our knowledge from science is always in terms of what we can expect in terms of likelihood not predictions that are absolutely certain. For science what actually happens is the final arbiter of the truth, not some deduction from the facts that fits some well known valid form of argument. Reasonably, we need to consider global warming so likely and so disruptive that we should already be arguing about ways to address it from ending our modern and technology dependent way of life to making the incremental changes that we can to delay the effects. Instead we are arguing over whether it will actually happen, even as the indications that it is are already being seen. The Republicans understand that global warming could be devastating but it's just a possibility, still, while actually doing something about it will be extremely costly.
If measures are taken which mitigate the damage and reduce the process, then the worst predictions will never happen and the proof that they were necessary will never be established. Then conservatives will claim that it was all a mistaken effort, that we sacrificed great wealth and prosperous living for decades when we need not have.
If measures are taken which mitigate the damage and reduce the process, then the worst predictions will never happen and the proof that they were necessary will never be established. Then conservatives will claim that it was all a mistaken effort, that we sacrificed great wealth and prosperous living for decades when we need not have.
1
We lost three trees in our yard last summer. Thats more than we've lost in the last 15 years. They, evergreens, died from extreme heat and lack of rain. We have two more in decay. Talked to a forester about this and she says its happening everywhere. Evergreens are good indicators of climate changes because the react to environmental changes slowly. Yes, the planet is on the ballot, but show is our forest.
9
The fossil fuel business is akin to the ferry business before the building of the Golden Gate Bridge: they tried everything to avert the building of the bridge, including hiring a diver to claim the foundation-rock unsuitable.
The reality is that new types of fuels that require public and private capital expenditure would be great for the economy, just like the bridge ended up being for the SF Bay Area.
What is more scary than businesses protecting their gravy train, however, is their supporters on the religious right for whom climate change is like abortion: it is about God's will. Many people long for biblical-scenario upheaval, and the death of the climate is part of the Latter Days. To fix our planet is aborting the plan.
The reality is that new types of fuels that require public and private capital expenditure would be great for the economy, just like the bridge ended up being for the SF Bay Area.
What is more scary than businesses protecting their gravy train, however, is their supporters on the religious right for whom climate change is like abortion: it is about God's will. Many people long for biblical-scenario upheaval, and the death of the climate is part of the Latter Days. To fix our planet is aborting the plan.
11
If the GOP has it's way, the U.S. attitude toward greenhouse gas and pollution will mirror that of China. We'll see NYC with a thick green haze and the LA basin will become the world's largest smog repository.
Of course, these problems will pale in comparison to the fallout problems we'll have after our first use of nuclear weapons since 1945. Donald Trump and Vladdy Poontang will start at least a limited nuclear war.
Of course, these problems will pale in comparison to the fallout problems we'll have after our first use of nuclear weapons since 1945. Donald Trump and Vladdy Poontang will start at least a limited nuclear war.
4
Los Angeles used to have thick, impenetrable smog. That is no longer the case. Thank you, government regulation.
3
I too share Paul Krugman's concerns and am just as afraid. My pessimism however is fed by something he does not mention and that is principly the exporting of our manufacturing base to other counties where smoke stacks can be a way to a modern economy.
China has world class air pollution catastrophe on its hands, at the same time in other parts of the world, such as Vietnam, development of export industries continues to be encouraged. This suggests that they too will soon succumb to the seduction of capital inflows and investment , not to their service sectors but to sectors involved in industrial production.
Our climate change policy that is aimed at our domestic situation does little to prevent the exportation of our smokestack mentality and as a result begs that we develop a strategy that globally applied will be acceptible to our trade partners . Simply saying our air is clean is not enough, we must start to accept our responsibility for air pollution where it has been created as a result of pressures that originate here on our own shores !
China has world class air pollution catastrophe on its hands, at the same time in other parts of the world, such as Vietnam, development of export industries continues to be encouraged. This suggests that they too will soon succumb to the seduction of capital inflows and investment , not to their service sectors but to sectors involved in industrial production.
Our climate change policy that is aimed at our domestic situation does little to prevent the exportation of our smokestack mentality and as a result begs that we develop a strategy that globally applied will be acceptible to our trade partners . Simply saying our air is clean is not enough, we must start to accept our responsibility for air pollution where it has been created as a result of pressures that originate here on our own shores !
6
This is what trade agreements are -- and always should be -- about. "We'll open our markets to you if you pay your workers a reasonable wage and hew to safety and environmental regulations."
1
Bernie Sanders is currently tied or leading in the polls nationally (and he polls significantly better than Hillary does against all the republican candidates). If, at this point in the nomination process, Hillary has a 96 percent chance then we have FAR more serious issues at hand than the fate of Obama's Clean Power Plan. I was shocked by this figure until I checked the weak and singular reference behind it and "prediction markets". Now I am shocked by the length that Krugman and his paper will go to shoe-in their chosen candidate. (Come to think of it, Kissinger also got a Noble prize.) The planet's future has far more to do with a functioning US democracy than a particular piece of its legislation. It like income inequality, the REAL issue right in front of us.
3
Income inequality pales in comparison to an uninhabitable planet.
2
The simple fact is that people born before 1975 cannot and will not vote for someone who describes themselves as 'Socialist'. Bernie is toast.
1
Totally disagree.
My friends and I born in the 40s and 50s are all in for Sanders' INTEGRITY.
My friends and I born in the 40s and 50s are all in for Sanders' INTEGRITY.
1
The Planet is going to be fine. It does not care about us. It did not miss the dinosaurs when they left.... the birds were pretty enough. And it won't miss us. Maybe some intelligent life form will arise and write the remarkable story of how we did ourselves in. If they write.
131
And yet, having achieved sentience and with such vast potential technologically, it seems criminal to allow the human race to bury itself (and this really lovely ecosystem) just because we're incapable of overcoming the greed of a small minority. It's a vast, dark, lonely stretch of universe we occupy - it's the ultimate criminal act to allow the light of sentience to be extinguished.
4
"The planet is going to be fine." Just what do you consider "the planet?" A rocky orb? If you are talking about life.....no, it is not "going to be fine." We're bringing on the ecocide of a Sixth Extinction on the one planet in the universe known to support life. If the selfishness, ingratitude and irresponsibility of that doesn't horrify you out of complacency, I can't imagine what on earth would.
47
They will snapchat!
Mr. Krugman's endorsement of Hillary and the ipso facto New York Times must be haunting them now that she seem a odds on favorite nomine. She will be the most reviled, disrespected, mistrusted, most corporately owned, presidential candidate in history. Many democrats will stay home rather than vote for her and that's the reality Mr. Krugman foresees.
Now from here to the election of the next president we will hear and read a cacophony of articles pumping Hillarys tires and a full court press demonizing Trump. The panic will get so shrill that most people will simple see it as a "methinks you protest too much" and stay the course with there non participation. In an election between Hillary and Trump; Trump wins.
Mr. Krugman's will need to look up lots of recipes for crow.
Now from here to the election of the next president we will hear and read a cacophony of articles pumping Hillarys tires and a full court press demonizing Trump. The panic will get so shrill that most people will simple see it as a "methinks you protest too much" and stay the course with there non participation. In an election between Hillary and Trump; Trump wins.
Mr. Krugman's will need to look up lots of recipes for crow.
2
I'm not sure if this is a pro-Trump or pro-Sanders fantasy, but either way, good luck with that. Trump's unfavourables are on a completely different plane than Hillary's, and the idea that huge numbers of Democrats will stay home and allow a Republican into the White House is a perennial fantasy. It was wrong when people said Clinton supporters wouldn't turn out for Obama, and it's wrong now.
2
Where do you see an endorsement of Hillary Clinton in this editorial?
1
People see an alternative to the prediction of global warming, no global warming, just a cyclical variation in weather. Remember, 60 % of people polled about evolution verses Genesis believe in Genesis not evolution. The fact is that people never know exactly what will happen tomorrow, we at best can imagine it and we can predict with some confidence that it will likely be something pretty close to what happened, yesterday, but we can't know for certain. The way of understanding the world, which includes the knowledge acquired through science, became our way of perceiving the world only about three hundred years old is just one way, and the ways of the world that preceded this era still conflict with this world view. The way that we all live is based upon this modern view of the world but most people's heads are in a place that mixes the thinking of many eras which are not really compatible in an intellectual hodge podge. The Republicans can see that climate change requires great changes, which means scrapping a lot of profitable ways of doing things, more taxes, more long term investments with not a lot of profitable gains to be realized soon, and something worse, still. What we have done with great energy and enthusiasm since the beginning of the industrial age we are being told is making our planet change into a less safe place for us and for many other forms of life. How could this be possible, we have not done anything wrong, so how could we be responsible?
1
In 2014 Texas generated only slightly less non-hydro renewable energy than California, 43,223 vs 41,548 GWh. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_product....
Texas gets almost all of its renewable energy from wind. On 12/20/2015, a windy day with low demand, wind contributed 45% of the Texas ERCOT grid (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/ercot-wind-energy-provided-record-45-of-.... ERCOT manages about 85% of the Texas electricity load.
I don't think many Republicans would say that renewable energy has destroyed the Texas economy.
Texas gets almost all of its renewable energy from wind. On 12/20/2015, a windy day with low demand, wind contributed 45% of the Texas ERCOT grid (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/ercot-wind-energy-provided-record-45-of-.... ERCOT manages about 85% of the Texas electricity load.
I don't think many Republicans would say that renewable energy has destroyed the Texas economy.
4
In fact, with oil at 35 $/bbl it may save it.
1
Isn't the apparent willingness of corporations to settle suits now that the Supreme Court faces a 4-to-4 deadlock on issues a pretty good indication that the Court is a political rather than a judicial arm? And, should Ms. Clinton become President Clinton, we know what to expect: another oath by Republicans to block every effort at every step they possibly can.
4
Great topic and timely, topic Mr. Krugman !
6
Executive action seems not to be written by the founders. As for climate change we did have a ice age 10,000 years ago. Do we have another one? Krugman seems to think climate warming is the big problem. Maybe yes and maybe no. It is a guess not a fact. On the other hand executive action was something Hitler ruled by. Not sure the results were that good for the general population in Germany. So I would not go overboard on these subjects.
I can't say I like either Hillary or Trump. Don't think it matters which gets elected. I did medical research on AIDS for 13 years and find that investment went for making profits but government basic research was a good investment. The medical field is likely to benefit from the latest research in Crispr/cas9 which does editing on DNA. True that climate does change which is why spring will follow this winter. What this has to do about congress I find hard to understand. Maybe At 80 years old I am losing brain cells or maybe Krugman is also losing them. Ageing is still a problem and has nothing to do with global warming. With low interests older people are having problems which is worse than hot weather.
I can't say I like either Hillary or Trump. Don't think it matters which gets elected. I did medical research on AIDS for 13 years and find that investment went for making profits but government basic research was a good investment. The medical field is likely to benefit from the latest research in Crispr/cas9 which does editing on DNA. True that climate does change which is why spring will follow this winter. What this has to do about congress I find hard to understand. Maybe At 80 years old I am losing brain cells or maybe Krugman is also losing them. Ageing is still a problem and has nothing to do with global warming. With low interests older people are having problems which is worse than hot weather.
1
What a joke, the planet will be just fine. Now some poor people will no matter what suffer and perhaps die. We in the US will spend money to adapt to those changes.
1
Then, with the planet in the balance, why do you support a candidate who can't win against Trump? (see your own reported polls.)
5
Please stop repeating this nonsense. Look here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_electi...
Clinton has never lagged behind Trump in the national polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_electi...
Clinton has never lagged behind Trump in the national polls.
3
Well Bless your heart Mr Krugman. Another "unbiased piece" that targets republicans. Keep pretending the democrats have done well in the last 8 years.
1
...and you keep pretending that the preceding 8 years were not disastrous.
2
Krugman is getting as difficult to read, with his Clinton fetish, as David Brooks.
6
No, the planet is not on the ballot. The planet needs disruptive, new approaches. What we have is a choice between the status quo and going back to the 1890's.
23
Paul, have you read the NYTimes 2 part story (thus far) on Libya? The prediction markets are all accurate until they're not.
2
Let's not forget the important Senate race, with around 34 seats up for grabs.
5
That thought really makes me feel secure. Thanks.
According to the same prediction markets Krugman cites as evidence, THE REVENANT had better odds of beating SPOTLIGHT for Best Picture than the Democrats do of winning the election. As any poker player knows, a fine hand can be beaten by a long-shot draw to a crappy hand with potential. Be afraid, be very afraid.
2
And yet states are passing laws that negatively impact entrepreneurs ie home owners who want to install their own solar and push the excess back into the grid.
144
This is not surprising, and business-as-usual. The utilities make the bulk of their money by producing electricity, not supplying it over all the hardware involved in distribution. They are the traditional source, have money and lobbyists, therefore state legislators listen to them, not us. Point Of Use power generation is of course superior to decentralized mass production, but who's making money from that? (By the way, I'm a solar electrician, previously employed in residential and commercial, but now working at a utility class site)
The first step is to vote for the Democrats this fall.
13
good work Kugman
2
Thanks Paul! Climate change is one of many issues that form a catalyst for voting responsibly this fall.
5
Anyone interested in a realistic view of the future of renewable energy should be aware that there are stumbling blocks ahead. An assessment by the National Academy of Sciences reveals that there are many chemical elements critical to renewable technology that are or will soon be in short supply. The report is at https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/elementsreport.pdf.
2
Quite true, but these are stumbling, not road, blocks. Some of these elements are now produced only as bi-products. Tellurium for example (used in high efficiency solar cells), is produced mainly as a byproduct from copper ores; there are no tellurium mines as such and there has been little effort to explore for telluium-rich deposits. With increasing demand, Te production can no doubt be ramped up. But as the report you cite explains, expanding production of "energy-critical-elements" will require action by both the private and public sectors. It can be done, but legislators will have to be on-board.
A geologist
A geologist
Has Trump even opined on environmental issues? I assume, like the Professor, that he would be in line with Repub orthodoxy but Trump has not shown any such tendency. I could see Trump surprising us on the environment, just as he casually claimed health care as a right ( 'we don't want people dying in the streets" for a Repub that is radical) at rally recently. The specter of a Clinton/ Trump election would be scary though. Clinton would cream Cruz but against Trump she may lose. Sander's would certainly ose to Cruz, but might beat Trump. Weird election.
1
Well said. Although politics is the art of the possible, as it looks into what needs to be done and when it may be feasible, depending on factors such as available technology, financing, labor, etc; in other words, its function is to find the best opportunity to join forces and do what's best and right in the mos expeditious and efficacious manner. For that to occur however, one needs political parties who base their decisions on reality as it is, not on a rigid ideology to maintain purity that will tie our hands forever. So, dogma, a make-believe set that does not allow discussion nor agreement even on the most basic and urgent needs of society, must be removed. And we ought to have science be a guide to know what is feasible and/or correct, so we can stop having a party obstructing progress...by denying already proven tenets (science, climate change, evolution). Willful ignorance is an aberration, a malignant one at that, highly destructive and should not have a place in our political discourse. Sure hope the G.O.P. intransigence, irrational as it is, is harnessed and exiled. Having our basics at hand, Trump's demagoguery, and Rubio/Cruz extremism ought to be a curiosity on the fringes, not the mainstay of republicanism. As it stands, Hillary may be our salvation, no matter how imperfect she may be. But democrats, if they want things done and appropriate laws passed, must regain at least the Senate, so to avoid stupidity to continue to reign supreme.
3
The fate of the planet is at stake and we're fed a candidate with a 53% unfavorable rating. maybe this is what ha
Here we go again, just like 10 months ago, Bernie was a speck, a bleep on any ones radar except for we the people who were turning out in the tens of thousands to hear the man. the media and pundits like all of them at NYT paid no attention to democracy in action and if they did it was arrogantly.
Now that Hillary finally won a southern state where a democrat presidential candidate has not won many of those states , all the pundits are saying we told you so, Bernie does not have a chance.
Like all the oligarchs, these pundits are bought and paid for and their opinions are just that opinions of wanting to keep their pay checks coming.
Now that Hillary finally won a southern state where a democrat presidential candidate has not won many of those states , all the pundits are saying we told you so, Bernie does not have a chance.
Like all the oligarchs, these pundits are bought and paid for and their opinions are just that opinions of wanting to keep their pay checks coming.
4
Look at the delegate math. Statisticians are pretty much unanimous on this point: it would take a huge change of course in the race for Sanders to win more pledged delegates than Clinton.
1
If you have any evidence of these "paychecks from oligarchs," please provide it. Otherwise, you are being just as willfully ignorant as the Republicans like George Will talking about climate change researchers, and their big fictitious paychecks.
1
The American military-industrial complex will be happy with either the 68 year old white female from New York or the 69 year old white male from New York becoming the next POTUS. Both Hillary and Donald are cynical corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare royalty. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump are beholden to the Wall Street predatory natural resource use and environmental abuse ruling reigning caste.
81
Is this supposed to be a constructive contribution to the debate?
2
"fate of the planet depends on it"
In my humble opinion Sanders has a better chance of defeating a racist bigot than Clinton ever will. She has no spirit for the future. "It's my turn" Hillery, and status quo will not defeat the ascending racism of Trump in America.
Have you considered the fact that you could be helping the GOP win by advocating Hillery instead of Sanders??
In my humble opinion Sanders has a better chance of defeating a racist bigot than Clinton ever will. She has no spirit for the future. "It's my turn" Hillery, and status quo will not defeat the ascending racism of Trump in America.
Have you considered the fact that you could be helping the GOP win by advocating Hillery instead of Sanders??
93
Sigh. Hillary beats Trump in head-to-head matchups, and he is far, far more disliked than she is.
The idea among Sanders supporters that Hillary is unusually vulnerable to Trump's supposedly widespread appeal (which is in fact limited to 30-40% of the GOP base) is nonsense.
The idea among Sanders supporters that Hillary is unusually vulnerable to Trump's supposedly widespread appeal (which is in fact limited to 30-40% of the GOP base) is nonsense.
2
It's a win-win for the editors and publishers at the Times. If Hillary wins the delegate race she will lose the general election because the youth won't show up. Trump wins: the conservatives at the Times and their equally conservative readers on Wall Street win. If Trump wins, he takes the path of least resistance and the conservatives win again. Get it? Nothing changes and the Times still keeps their skirts clean and white.
In case you haven't noticed there is actually a war on clean energy. In just one example the Nevada Public Utilities Commission jacked up the rates for solar power in the state. And this sin't an isolated incident. Some states actually charge "fees" on fuel efficient vehicles (e.g. Virginia and Washington). Look for these efforts to increase, especially in red states.
8
I'm to the point that I no longer look forward to your columns, now that you are simply a cheerleader for the establishment. The pundits don't get that the electorate no longer believes in your fairy tales.
I'm not sure what is next, but we need new voices, your time has passed.
I'm not sure what is next, but we need new voices, your time has passed.
5
Garrett, You have the republican establishment objections !!!! Dr. K is right. We need to eliminate fossil fuels
And, one might add, so has yours...
After reading the NY Time article "Scientists Protest Cuts and Commercialization at Australian Climate Center", where it states the new Csiro's mission as "The move, from a focus on the causes of climate change to developing profitable products to cope with its consequences ..." makes me very nervous.
One could interpret this as an incentive with profit to be made continuing to alter the Earth's climate, so that new profits can then be made from dealing with the consequences. What a shameful business model - one that is fully supported by the profiteers and financiers of the GOP.
One could interpret this as an incentive with profit to be made continuing to alter the Earth's climate, so that new profits can then be made from dealing with the consequences. What a shameful business model - one that is fully supported by the profiteers and financiers of the GOP.
3
Contrary to what Bill Gates asserts, we do NOT need a revolution in energy production to limit the impact of climate change. We simply need to apply the technology we already have in a thoughtful, coherent fashion while building in some provision to incorporate expected improvements in technology.
Small-scale solar projects in India are completely feasible and affordable once financing is provided. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/business/energy-environment/electrifyi....
The country of Morocco is on track to get 52% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/morocco-to-switch-on-...?
Now, all we need is an American president who has the same foresight and vision as Moroccan King Mohammed VI. The wealthiest democracy in the world should be able to someone who fits the bill. But it appears very unlikely that that someone will come from the ranks of the Republican Party.
Small-scale solar projects in India are completely feasible and affordable once financing is provided. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/business/energy-environment/electrifyi....
The country of Morocco is on track to get 52% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/morocco-to-switch-on-...?
Now, all we need is an American president who has the same foresight and vision as Moroccan King Mohammed VI. The wealthiest democracy in the world should be able to someone who fits the bill. But it appears very unlikely that that someone will come from the ranks of the Republican Party.
6
Climate change denial should be equated with holocaust denial...if not an outright crime then certainly an ethical one. I hope that one day, assuming the planet doesn't die, there will be a hall of shame and ignorance for the leaders of this country who failed to take action.
2
I am encouraged by Paul's thoughts on the matter of global warming. I only hope that he is right. I have always subscribed to the "pie" solution to global warming which advocates multiple solutions including nuclear power, and it would be great if solar and wind alone could be the two slices which make up the pie. Of another concern however is whether the tipping point on global warming has already been passed. If that is the case then we need a superman to move the earth further from the sun or artificially change the environment (geo-engineering) to save us.
Regarding the utter failure of the GOP to recognize the threat of GW I am still dumbfounded by Sen. McCain's silence on this matter. I recall him discussing the threat of global warming on Late night television after having traveled to the Artic. Despite his alarm about the future at that time, he now seems more concerned with saving the GOP than saving the earth. I guess we all have our priorities.
Regarding the utter failure of the GOP to recognize the threat of GW I am still dumbfounded by Sen. McCain's silence on this matter. I recall him discussing the threat of global warming on Late night television after having traveled to the Artic. Despite his alarm about the future at that time, he now seems more concerned with saving the GOP than saving the earth. I guess we all have our priorities.
3
Yes, global warming is a bad enough emergency that we clearly need to "do everything": doing research on new tech is a good idea, but betting the planet on technologies that aren't quite there yet isn't a good idea-- and that describes "renewable energy". Renewables have indeed made some nice progress of late, but the idea that a renewables-alone strategy can do the job requires some fancy-dancing about new energy storage technologies (or huge amounts of over-capacity and a beefed up long-distance power network).
That explains this: "Many people, including some who should know better, still seem oddly oblivious to the ongoing revolution in renewable energy." There's a long history of alternate energy enthusiasts seeing the world through solar colored glasses, they're very well-meaning and earnest, and they can even persuade people like Krugman that they know what they're talking about, even though he really should "know better".
That explains this: "Many people, including some who should know better, still seem oddly oblivious to the ongoing revolution in renewable energy." There's a long history of alternate energy enthusiasts seeing the world through solar colored glasses, they're very well-meaning and earnest, and they can even persuade people like Krugman that they know what they're talking about, even though he really should "know better".
Don't understand criticizing Bill Gates on this. Further breakthroughs in this area would certainly be a good thing!
Republicans are not content with simply destroying the United States these days. They have now set their aim on the entire human race, the planet and life itself. The neo-Confederates and theocratic-wannabees that run the GOP should stop pretending that they have our best interests at heart. Tearing everything down to avenge the Civil War or (worse) to get the planet ready for the return of Jesus is lunacy. Maniacs, criminals and idiots permeate the Republican Party.
And yet, despite all that, the Democrats still wind up losing elections to them. Which begs the questions: why is that happening? Why do so many voters hate the Democrats so?
Propaganda and misinformation is a big part of that; sure. But perhaps the combination of the Dems support for antiquated New Deal concepts along with simple opposition to the Conservative agenda is simply not enough to excite the voters anymore. The Dems need some new ideas.
Most elections over the past several decades have offered the voters the false choice of Big Business or Big Government. Neither are particularly palatable, and yet that is all that there is; the lesser of two evils. Whoopie.
I want a candidate that could offer a different vision of governance; one that takes on both of the 'Bigs'. Many think that we need one of the Bigs to fend off the other; we don't. Small, localized governments that are robust and active can work. And if they weren't driven into bankruptcy by the Bigs, small business can power the world.
And yet, despite all that, the Democrats still wind up losing elections to them. Which begs the questions: why is that happening? Why do so many voters hate the Democrats so?
Propaganda and misinformation is a big part of that; sure. But perhaps the combination of the Dems support for antiquated New Deal concepts along with simple opposition to the Conservative agenda is simply not enough to excite the voters anymore. The Dems need some new ideas.
Most elections over the past several decades have offered the voters the false choice of Big Business or Big Government. Neither are particularly palatable, and yet that is all that there is; the lesser of two evils. Whoopie.
I want a candidate that could offer a different vision of governance; one that takes on both of the 'Bigs'. Many think that we need one of the Bigs to fend off the other; we don't. Small, localized governments that are robust and active can work. And if they weren't driven into bankruptcy by the Bigs, small business can power the world.
46
Whenever PK writes an article speaking truth the usual suspects make comments that are pertinent to the issue raised. Reading Mr. Krugman
for a long time should make readers aware of his consistent concerns for the nation and the economy. Instead vicious language prevales ignoring facts and spouting ideology. Given the choices we have in this election it is obvious who should be our next president. Hilary Clinton is the only choice because of her foreign affairs experience. Bernie Sanders needs to stay in the Senate and fight for all that he believes in. Not everyone on Wall Street is an enemy or indifferent to our national needs. With luck half of the House may be limited by voter corrections.
for a long time should make readers aware of his consistent concerns for the nation and the economy. Instead vicious language prevales ignoring facts and spouting ideology. Given the choices we have in this election it is obvious who should be our next president. Hilary Clinton is the only choice because of her foreign affairs experience. Bernie Sanders needs to stay in the Senate and fight for all that he believes in. Not everyone on Wall Street is an enemy or indifferent to our national needs. With luck half of the House may be limited by voter corrections.
4
Just imagine Ms Clinton embracing economic populism without a real primary challenge from her Left. Mission accomplished.
Please remember -- Clinton was the Obama advisor who persuaded him to disrupt the existing government in Libya. She was the Secretary of State in partnership with Merkel to overthrow of Ukraine's elected government. Both of these "experiences" left countries in chaos, killed thousands of people in both places, tweaked the tail of the Russian bear, and left us all in a state of fear. ..... and the Democratic Party wants to side step the pesky voters, and give her the Presidency on a plate? This woman is flawed and shameless.
Talking about climate change yesteday Leonardo di Caprio obviously did not have Clinton in mind but Hillary...and so did the makers of the Big Short btw.
By voting for Hillary we are just kicking the can down the road Paul..get on board now or get run over.
By voting for Hillary we are just kicking the can down the road Paul..get on board now or get run over.
4
Please refer to Senator Sanders' record on the importance of Climate Change policy. At the People's Climate March in New York:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-climate-change/
From before the announcement of his campaign he stated there was one word for the Keystone Pipeline, "NO". Ms. Clinton triangulated that one some time last summer as his message began to resonate. Sen. Sanders ties Energy issues to Jobs and the Economy, to money in politics, to the bought and paid for Deniers. Ms. Clinton continues to navigate these critical issues by her ambition, not her evident ideals. Her 'blowout' in a state that has not been carried by a Democratic presidential candidate in 35 years impresses not at all.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-climate-change/
From before the announcement of his campaign he stated there was one word for the Keystone Pipeline, "NO". Ms. Clinton triangulated that one some time last summer as his message began to resonate. Sen. Sanders ties Energy issues to Jobs and the Economy, to money in politics, to the bought and paid for Deniers. Ms. Clinton continues to navigate these critical issues by her ambition, not her evident ideals. Her 'blowout' in a state that has not been carried by a Democratic presidential candidate in 35 years impresses not at all.
11
To claim that this critical problem of climate change can be easily solved with existing renewable energy technology is to believe in unicorns and rainbows.You should not be so dismissive of what Bill Gates has been saying on this matter. Gates actually knows what he's talking about and you should read and listen to what he's saying rather than relying on Joe Romm's ideologically driven critique of Gates.
If you're going to write about energy and climate from an economic perspective you should at least try to become better informed of the complexities of the issue. Cost is not the only consideration because comparing renewables to fossil, nuclear or hydro is comparing apples with oranges. One is an intermittent source of energy and the other is baseload. Without a "miracle" in energy storage, renewables cannot become a baseload source of 24/7 electrical energy, regardless of how inexpensive they are to deploy. And we are nowhere near powering New York City on a winter night on battery power. Nor do renewables solve the problem of supplying industrial heat, which accounts for about 30% of CO2 emissions worldwide.
You're an important voice in this conversation Mr. Krugman, but I strongly urge you to not rely on renewable energy ideologues as your sole source of information.
If you're going to write about energy and climate from an economic perspective you should at least try to become better informed of the complexities of the issue. Cost is not the only consideration because comparing renewables to fossil, nuclear or hydro is comparing apples with oranges. One is an intermittent source of energy and the other is baseload. Without a "miracle" in energy storage, renewables cannot become a baseload source of 24/7 electrical energy, regardless of how inexpensive they are to deploy. And we are nowhere near powering New York City on a winter night on battery power. Nor do renewables solve the problem of supplying industrial heat, which accounts for about 30% of CO2 emissions worldwide.
You're an important voice in this conversation Mr. Krugman, but I strongly urge you to not rely on renewable energy ideologues as your sole source of information.
102
Yes they are intermittent sources of energy, so what? What's your point? We only need to reduce our burning of fossil fuels not eliminate it. A 10, 20, 30% increase in renewable energy on the power grid allows us to use that much less polluting sources.
Natural gas and coal fired plants don't have to run at full power 24/7. They don't now. Power companies use "peaking plants" which come on line to supply additional power, when demand peaks. Specifically so "baseline generation" can be kept lower.
Natural gas and coal fired plants don't have to run at full power 24/7. They don't now. Power companies use "peaking plants" which come on line to supply additional power, when demand peaks. Specifically so "baseline generation" can be kept lower.
3
This is a completely baseless (as in no fact or citation) rant.
Intermittency is a real issue, but the facts of how it is managed (and it is managed today!) are simple:
In the last few years ALL new generating capacity has been wind, solar, or natural-gas peaking plants. The LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) from wind & solar is now less than the cost of the natural gas for the peaking plants -- collectively this is the lowest-cost system today (why companies are building it!)
"Baseline power" is meaningless in the competitive-auction RTO/ISO electrical systems of today.
New York city can be powered by renewables (psst, the wind blows at night, usually more strongly than during the day, and demand is lower), though New York city cannot be powered solely from resource within its boundaries (nor is it today).
Industrial heat can come from electricity from renewables ... or if it cannot then the CO2 produced can be sequestered. That's a simple cost tradeoff, given a price on CO2.
Intermittency is a real issue, but the facts of how it is managed (and it is managed today!) are simple:
In the last few years ALL new generating capacity has been wind, solar, or natural-gas peaking plants. The LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) from wind & solar is now less than the cost of the natural gas for the peaking plants -- collectively this is the lowest-cost system today (why companies are building it!)
"Baseline power" is meaningless in the competitive-auction RTO/ISO electrical systems of today.
New York city can be powered by renewables (psst, the wind blows at night, usually more strongly than during the day, and demand is lower), though New York city cannot be powered solely from resource within its boundaries (nor is it today).
Industrial heat can come from electricity from renewables ... or if it cannot then the CO2 produced can be sequestered. That's a simple cost tradeoff, given a price on CO2.
4
I agree, but the move we need to make is a campaign to use less energy. We must stop subsidizing polluters, and , if we MUST continue to heat New York homes (And other cold areas) above a health-sustaining 65 F, then the user should pay full price for all energy used over the amount needed to sustain life.
Want to help the environment? Cut military spending by half or more...
The armed forces are one of the biggest polluters in the history of the world.
The armed forces are one of the biggest polluters in the history of the world.
11
As usual Dr. K your column today draws the weird onto the comments section. I often wonder if we've all read the same words exactly as written, or if we humans have lost the ability to comprehend the individual points of each sentence as coherently as you wrote them. Anyway the topic of the planet and the way forward on "ENERGY" is not about population growth, sustainability, or a host of other progressive issues.
The column to today deals with how far advanced technology has become in generating electricity from "Renewable' sources that do not leave a carbon footprint: mainly Wind and Sun. The greatest drawback is "storage", i.e, " Batteries. So far the ion-lithium batteries have some of the best capacities to hold and maintain a charge. The trouble is that, as seen in all types of news reports, is the tendency to heat up, explode, and go on fire. Not a good way to cook that oven roast. The Tesla guy Elon Musk, is working on a whole house battery system with pilot programs in California.
The crux then of Dr. K's column is that the republicans have flatly refused to give any credence to "Global Climate Change", thus a huge roadblock awaits the likely next President, a Democrat most probably Hillary Clinton. He further states that executive action may well be enough to bypass the republican House's certain refusal as long as the Supreme Court doesn't stand in the way.
The column to today deals with how far advanced technology has become in generating electricity from "Renewable' sources that do not leave a carbon footprint: mainly Wind and Sun. The greatest drawback is "storage", i.e, " Batteries. So far the ion-lithium batteries have some of the best capacities to hold and maintain a charge. The trouble is that, as seen in all types of news reports, is the tendency to heat up, explode, and go on fire. Not a good way to cook that oven roast. The Tesla guy Elon Musk, is working on a whole house battery system with pilot programs in California.
The crux then of Dr. K's column is that the republicans have flatly refused to give any credence to "Global Climate Change", thus a huge roadblock awaits the likely next President, a Democrat most probably Hillary Clinton. He further states that executive action may well be enough to bypass the republican House's certain refusal as long as the Supreme Court doesn't stand in the way.
2
Mr. Krugman claims that the costs of energy storage are "plunging as we speak." A more honest phrasing would be "have gone from absurdly high to extremely high over recent decades."
44
nonsense. Wind and solar are now the lowest cost new-capacity electricity one can buy ... that's why electric companies are buying it!
1
Of course, if we priced in things like needing to build seawalls, or move communities, or finding water when the normal sources run dry, or the cost of post-fracturing water pollution, etc., then petro might be quite a bit higher. And yes, making solar panels and wind turbines takes up energy and pollutes as well, but I suspect over a period of time, it balances much more quickly.
2
Electric companies buy wind and solar because laws force them to.
No utility has ever purchased a single watt of wind or solar voluntarily.
No utility has ever purchased a single watt of wind or solar voluntarily.
The one question we should ask the Republican candidates as it relates to climate change is: is job growth going to matter when there's no clean water left on the planet?
3
To a Republican, G-d promising Noah to not destroy the Earth again is all they need
1
Yeah, the sky is falling, the sky is falling…..
Except that it really is. The media, owned by Corporations have created this utopian world of double speak. Sooner or later it will become life or death important on a massive scale. Scuse me while I just forget about that and go get my piece of the american dream? Yeah, the sky is falling, better hurry…..
Except that it really is. The media, owned by Corporations have created this utopian world of double speak. Sooner or later it will become life or death important on a massive scale. Scuse me while I just forget about that and go get my piece of the american dream? Yeah, the sky is falling, better hurry…..
In a time when there is No ground of Base in values...The Ten Commandments would be "in question" and the "historical Jesus" has been relegated to simple metaphor, simply depending upon Who is able to make News with Words. Popularity Trumps Reality. Truth is Trumped by vacuous visibility. We are Cruzing into a world controlled by a theosophy that Trumps theology. "Sticks and stones may break my bones"....and Words have just destroyed me!.
1
10,000 Years of global warming. What to do...what to do?
I held elected offices as both a Republican and a Democrat - now a Democrat.
I have tremendous experience working with both parties. Here are my observations.
Republican voters are often motivated by fear and hatred – fear of change, the unknown, other groups, and policies not their own – hatred of all things Democrat including all candidates and elected officials thereof.
Democratic voters are often motivated by principles – generally centered on the collective good.
Fear and hatred nearly always trump principles – Obama was an exception because some of the fear and hatred thing was at play in that no one wanted another Republican President after Bush.
Why does fear/hatred trump principles? Most Republican voters will vote for Trump even though he is not their guy because they fear and hate Hillary and everything she stands for (real and imagined). Not all Democratic voters will necessarily vote for Hillary because her principles are not their principles. The comments here and at other sites support this outcome in that many say they will stay home if Hillary is the candidate. I am not siding with either Sanders or Clinton – just observing.
So unless something significant and profound happens with respect to the primaries and candidates (such as another Obama moment) – a Trump win appears more and more likely than not. This means that we all have many major problems – including the continued destruction of the environment critical to our survival as a species.
I have tremendous experience working with both parties. Here are my observations.
Republican voters are often motivated by fear and hatred – fear of change, the unknown, other groups, and policies not their own – hatred of all things Democrat including all candidates and elected officials thereof.
Democratic voters are often motivated by principles – generally centered on the collective good.
Fear and hatred nearly always trump principles – Obama was an exception because some of the fear and hatred thing was at play in that no one wanted another Republican President after Bush.
Why does fear/hatred trump principles? Most Republican voters will vote for Trump even though he is not their guy because they fear and hate Hillary and everything she stands for (real and imagined). Not all Democratic voters will necessarily vote for Hillary because her principles are not their principles. The comments here and at other sites support this outcome in that many say they will stay home if Hillary is the candidate. I am not siding with either Sanders or Clinton – just observing.
So unless something significant and profound happens with respect to the primaries and candidates (such as another Obama moment) – a Trump win appears more and more likely than not. This means that we all have many major problems – including the continued destruction of the environment critical to our survival as a species.
3
A President Clinton, who is a brilliant woman, would use her own smarts to create a committee of experts to find out the best way to help our planet stop the destruction caused by fossil fuels. A president Trump would just shout innuendos. The choice is obvious.
2
If the planet is truly on the table, and I would argue that it is, why would Krugman openly endorse a corporate shill who has shown time and again that she is for sale to the highest bidder?
If you want someone with a track record on the environment, go with the person who was consistently against polluting projects like the keystone pipeline. Not a candidate who was for it before she was against it, and who has waffled endlessly on such issues depending on how the wind blows.
If you want someone with a track record on the environment, go with the person who was consistently against polluting projects like the keystone pipeline. Not a candidate who was for it before she was against it, and who has waffled endlessly on such issues depending on how the wind blows.
145
Do you seriously believe America will elect Bernie Sanders?
2
Ruthmarie, but if Sanders loses the nomination, then this isn't an option. If you're still determined to vote for Sanders, then you're effectively help elect a Republican, none of whom acknowledges the seriousness of climate change. At that point, you will be part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
1
Climate change is the new religion. It is just a matter of time before the tax for that and a total wealth tax on every working (or retired) American is put into effect. Chicago and Detroit are a mess and could have been cleaned up if Obama did not negotiate with auto dealers instead of going thru the bankruptcy proceedings and not writing one huge check to Iran. No one is talking about the deficit (as if it is invisible) but the next catastrophic economic crisis will change all of that. And people think things are going right? People see what they choose to see.
You make assertions you do not support which is a terrible way of critiquing a column. It imparts the notion that you are saying things by rote and without examining them. I'm sorry but this is how you come across. You need to work harder on your rhetoric and how you've developed your assumptions to support what you are trying to say. It's harder work,I know. But at least your opinions would sound more authoritative and not a bunch of soundbites it seems you are parroting. This goes for people on the right and the left, by the way.
1
"Climate change is the new religion."
Uh, huh. Yeah. Why don't you try telling that to the people who live in the Maldives islands, or Vanuatu, or Kiribati? Over the last few years, they have been watching their islands slowly being inundated by rising seas.
Uh, huh. Yeah. Why don't you try telling that to the people who live in the Maldives islands, or Vanuatu, or Kiribati? Over the last few years, they have been watching their islands slowly being inundated by rising seas.
1
Within years, not decades, the falling prices and increased efficiency of solar panels and storage batteries will have Americans of all political stripes unplugging from the grid by the tens of millions. Ironically, although fossil fuel barons like the Koch brothers created Tea Party populism to guarantee fossil fuels now and forever, GOP populists are likely to unplug from the big business, big government grid as enthusiastically as save-the-planet liberals. President Trump or President Clinton, this is a technological revolution that can’t be stopped. The salient question for our politicians is whether that technology will be manufactured in China or there US.
Yes, we all should show up to vote in November, to ensure no Republican is installed in the White House in January.
5
The fate of our planet is in the balance? A fine example of hyperbole. Let me predict no matter the outcome of this election, this statement will continue to be used time and time again. Doomsdayers unite, the sky is falling.
Hyperbole? Unprecedented temperature and ocean water level rises, and unprecedented consistent trends to match are real. Hardly an example of hyperbole.
2
We can save the planet in spite of initial Republican stonewalling. Economists should play a key role, but they need to understand the energy markets.
We need to discard the idea that unregulated free energy markets work. They have not worked since we deregulated, and over the last 15 years all energy markets have been dysfunctional, not meeting key customer and stakeholder needs. Customers overcharges in the US alone exceeded $4T due to lack of mostly green energy substitution, and resulted over $5T in capital mis-allocated to the fossil fuel sector instead of vehicle manufacturing, biofuels, transportation, tech sector, and general industrial manufacturing.
In July 2014, I attended a DOE public meeting, and pointed to several key indicators (including energy cost ratio of oil to natural gas) that showed the markets not working. I asked "Who's in charge?" of making sure the markets serve stakeholders.
Sec. Moniz explained how governments can't effectively control energy markets (I agree). A Republican congressman gave a lecture on the superiority of free markets, ignoring all contrary evidence (as well the presence of a cartel).
We should use a regulated private sector Energy Coalition to manage the energy markets, and the transition to green energy. Obama's proposal to add a tax of $10 per barrel to fund substitutes would be a start. The Coalition would direct incentives and drive substitution, causing oil prices to permanently remain below $40 as demand declined.
We need to discard the idea that unregulated free energy markets work. They have not worked since we deregulated, and over the last 15 years all energy markets have been dysfunctional, not meeting key customer and stakeholder needs. Customers overcharges in the US alone exceeded $4T due to lack of mostly green energy substitution, and resulted over $5T in capital mis-allocated to the fossil fuel sector instead of vehicle manufacturing, biofuels, transportation, tech sector, and general industrial manufacturing.
In July 2014, I attended a DOE public meeting, and pointed to several key indicators (including energy cost ratio of oil to natural gas) that showed the markets not working. I asked "Who's in charge?" of making sure the markets serve stakeholders.
Sec. Moniz explained how governments can't effectively control energy markets (I agree). A Republican congressman gave a lecture on the superiority of free markets, ignoring all contrary evidence (as well the presence of a cartel).
We should use a regulated private sector Energy Coalition to manage the energy markets, and the transition to green energy. Obama's proposal to add a tax of $10 per barrel to fund substitutes would be a start. The Coalition would direct incentives and drive substitution, causing oil prices to permanently remain below $40 as demand declined.
1
I submitted extensive comments to the DOE at the time. Simply search my name and DOE, if anyone wants to read more. Part 1 discusses the Energy Coalition, Part 2 the oil market, Part 3 covers electricity, Part 4 covers natural gas, and Part 5 pulls it all together to compare alternatives to managing energy/transportation markets.
The FAQs talks about issues related to using an oil tax to fund substitutes, and briefly discusses this alternative economic system of customer driven economic sector managers (aiming to unleash the power of free enterprise to innovate superior substitutes), compared to unregulated free market capitalism (that unleashes the power of existing capitalists to dominate markets without regard to customer/stakeholder needs).
In the energy/transportation sector, a broad political coalition of private sector companies who benefit from the transition, customers, environmental and national security organizations, and agricultural/forestry sector companies and organizations, can easily overpower a coalition of unregulated free market Republicans and fossil fuel interests.
This approach works much better than a carbon tax, cap and trade, emissions/environmental regulations, or government mandates. The government doesn't have the requisite skill sets to manage the necessary transition. But these government actions could work well if coordinated with the Energy Coalition efforts to drive investment into substitutes and energy efficiency improvements.
The FAQs talks about issues related to using an oil tax to fund substitutes, and briefly discusses this alternative economic system of customer driven economic sector managers (aiming to unleash the power of free enterprise to innovate superior substitutes), compared to unregulated free market capitalism (that unleashes the power of existing capitalists to dominate markets without regard to customer/stakeholder needs).
In the energy/transportation sector, a broad political coalition of private sector companies who benefit from the transition, customers, environmental and national security organizations, and agricultural/forestry sector companies and organizations, can easily overpower a coalition of unregulated free market Republicans and fossil fuel interests.
This approach works much better than a carbon tax, cap and trade, emissions/environmental regulations, or government mandates. The government doesn't have the requisite skill sets to manage the necessary transition. But these government actions could work well if coordinated with the Energy Coalition efforts to drive investment into substitutes and energy efficiency improvements.
Absolutely correct ... and, yet, the election itself may be determined by who can come up with the most effective dog whistles ... is this planet worth saving?
The Republican Party does not want to talk about climate change because they get their campaign contributions from the Koch Brothers. It has nothing to do with belief or non-belief, it has to do with the oldest profession in the world.
2
Big Oil, Big Money, that's what this election boils down to.
At the Oscars last night, Adam "McKay did not specify his allegiance in current race for the White House, but his comments most align with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the 2016 president candidate who has been the most outspoken against the role of money in government and who’s attacked opponent Hillary Clinton for paid speeches she has given to Wall Street elite."
“If you don’t want big money to control government don’t vote for candidates that take money from big banks, oil, or weirdo billionaires. Stop!” he said."
Its the Primaries. Got to vote with your heart, with your conscience. Do the right thing, vote for Bernie, he does not take money from big oil, big banks and big fracking hedge funders.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/26/hillary-clinton-doing-back-to-back-f...
At the Oscars last night, Adam "McKay did not specify his allegiance in current race for the White House, but his comments most align with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the 2016 president candidate who has been the most outspoken against the role of money in government and who’s attacked opponent Hillary Clinton for paid speeches she has given to Wall Street elite."
“If you don’t want big money to control government don’t vote for candidates that take money from big banks, oil, or weirdo billionaires. Stop!” he said."
Its the Primaries. Got to vote with your heart, with your conscience. Do the right thing, vote for Bernie, he does not take money from big oil, big banks and big fracking hedge funders.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/26/hillary-clinton-doing-back-to-back-f...
2
The betting line is the betting line. Perhaps we should consult it when we think of climate change.
My late father-in-law said of the odds, "All you need to know is that if it happens to you the odds are 100%."
We live in a fractured world replete with endless and empty data. We are awash in propaganda that has successfully suffocated the country's natural move toward a more and more progressive society.
The steely grip of those that control the levers of government is not to be underestimated.
"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world." John F. Kennedy
Where have all the flowers gone?
My late father-in-law said of the odds, "All you need to know is that if it happens to you the odds are 100%."
We live in a fractured world replete with endless and empty data. We are awash in propaganda that has successfully suffocated the country's natural move toward a more and more progressive society.
The steely grip of those that control the levers of government is not to be underestimated.
"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world." John F. Kennedy
Where have all the flowers gone?
1
Mr. Krugman:
If you think President Clinton is going to tackle climate change beyond putting up a few more solar panels, you are deluding yourself.
Meaningfully addressing climate change at this late stage will require a radical change in the way we live and relate to the planet. As Naomi Klein and others correctly argue, this means doing away with consumerism, extractivism, and the sacrosanct economic growth as we know it.
This means confronting head-on the powers that be - a political revolution that Clinton, compromised as she is, is unable and unwilling to assume.
Between saving capitalism and saving the planet it looks like you and the entire establishment have already chosen. We will all pay dearly for it.
If you think President Clinton is going to tackle climate change beyond putting up a few more solar panels, you are deluding yourself.
Meaningfully addressing climate change at this late stage will require a radical change in the way we live and relate to the planet. As Naomi Klein and others correctly argue, this means doing away with consumerism, extractivism, and the sacrosanct economic growth as we know it.
This means confronting head-on the powers that be - a political revolution that Clinton, compromised as she is, is unable and unwilling to assume.
Between saving capitalism and saving the planet it looks like you and the entire establishment have already chosen. We will all pay dearly for it.
141
I'm all for radical change, but I respectfully ask proponents of the same to ask themselves: if you can't get radical change, what is your second choice? Whether you make that choice or not, you're going to get one, so it's a lot better to make the choice. I, for one, don't subscribe to the idea that if we can't get utopia, we're better off with hell, so that people will really _burn_ for a change next time around.
50
jw, Have you looked up the policy statements by Hillary Clinton on climate change? Or are you merely being dismissive in a way that echoes the jerks on the right?
3
"As Naomi Klein and others correctly argue, this means doing away with consumerism..."
Good luck with that! :-)
Good luck with that! :-)
3
Thank you to Dr. Krugman for choosing to write about this. The planet - as a habitable living space for many of the species on it today -is definitely on the ballot in November.
Obama's made an excellent start on the problem. Let's keep it going! Don't let Trump win!
Obama's made an excellent start on the problem. Let's keep it going! Don't let Trump win!
2
The NYT and it's journalist work very hard at convincing us, of the forthcoming coronation. Does the press really believe, when the Clintons move into the Whitehouse, all this verifiable discontent and millions of de-franchised Americans, is simply going to go away. What one hears on main street is often no more Bush's no more Clintons. The Democrats would have been well served to run BIden.
1
It is the Koch-led oligarchy which stands in the way. It isn't that vast economic injustice is the environmental problem in itself, exactly. But it empowers those who prevent solution. Since a failure of solution will extinguish many millions of human lives more than died in World War II from all causes, the Kochs will have outdone one of their father's heros - Hitler - if we don't remove their power over our politics.
It's been confounding to me that a political philosophy, conservatism, or even the corrupting power of hyper-funded special interests, could result in an outright denial of science. Then... along came Trump (to the tune of "Along Came Jones"), and the size of his following 'splains everything. It's the voters, stupid.
2
Wind and solar power can't compete with $30 oil. And if we unilaterally adopt wind and solar, our economic and political competitors will engorge themselves on $30 oil, leaving us wondering for even longer why the middle class in the US is getting left behind.
It may seem as if the world's environment can only be saved by the US but that's hubristic fantasy. The US could completely eliminate its carbon effluence and worldwide CO2 would still grow.
And in any event, whichever candidate is elected, they will certainly not commit political suicide by forcefully reengineering the US economy through government environmental mandates. Not even Hillary. Just as Obama barely moved the needle on climate change, Hillary will be a big disappointment to the climate change faithful. It's just not feasible what the faithful seek to accomplish.
If CO2 in the atmosphere is harming the environment, the solution must come from the whole world, unless perhaps it is imagined that some sort of atmospheric wall can be constructed around the US. Trump has his geographic wall to keep out immigrants. Maybe Hillary can devise an atmospheric wall to keep out China's effluence. Otherwise, the US is just shooting itself in the foot.
I hope Mr. Krugman has some long, strong fingernails.
It may seem as if the world's environment can only be saved by the US but that's hubristic fantasy. The US could completely eliminate its carbon effluence and worldwide CO2 would still grow.
And in any event, whichever candidate is elected, they will certainly not commit political suicide by forcefully reengineering the US economy through government environmental mandates. Not even Hillary. Just as Obama barely moved the needle on climate change, Hillary will be a big disappointment to the climate change faithful. It's just not feasible what the faithful seek to accomplish.
If CO2 in the atmosphere is harming the environment, the solution must come from the whole world, unless perhaps it is imagined that some sort of atmospheric wall can be constructed around the US. Trump has his geographic wall to keep out immigrants. Maybe Hillary can devise an atmospheric wall to keep out China's effluence. Otherwise, the US is just shooting itself in the foot.
I hope Mr. Krugman has some long, strong fingernails.
Yes it can! Wind and solar will not only compete with, it will crush first coal then oil then gas. The only question is the timing. If America leads aggressively in developing and exploiting the renewables, the only "forceful reengineering" of our economy will be explosive growth with new (and far better) jobs in great quantity. If this is a "hubristic" just look at your statement "If CO2 is harming..." Takes a lot of hubris to deny the science. I resent seeing rational people categorized as "the faithful," whereas it is completely fair to call climate catastrophe deniers as somehow faith driven.
1
"And in any event, whichever candidate is elected, they will certainly not commit political suicide by forcefully reengineering the US economy through government environmental mandates."
You mean like Obama? Have you heard of the Clean Power Plan? It's not dead yet, seriously.
If it survives court challenges (and a decent supreme court appointment will help) then the EPA can do the job.
You mean like Obama? Have you heard of the Clean Power Plan? It's not dead yet, seriously.
If it survives court challenges (and a decent supreme court appointment will help) then the EPA can do the job.
Uh fella, nobody generates electricity with oil in the US, even with oil at $30/bbl
Wind and solar are killing off coal right now, and coal is far, far cheaper than oil.
Wind and solar are killing off coal right now, and coal is far, far cheaper than oil.
1
The GOP says they want stong Leadership but they offer us strong Deniership.
They reject: science, investment in infrastructure and research. prudent use of our natural resources and the economic viability of alternative energy.
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Mitch and Paul Ryan all are sailing on the ship of deniers while the rest of the world deals with the news that the seas are rising ever faster. Educators, particularly in non-union states, fear for their jobs if they teach Earth Science with facts instead of propaganda. National Geographic has been bought by Fox and the cult of their mis-information spreads like a pollution across the land.
We need everyone with a sense of foresight and prudence to bring their voice and vote to this issue. Everyone....Bernie, Hillary, Obama, Dems and sensible Independents and GOPers.
They reject: science, investment in infrastructure and research. prudent use of our natural resources and the economic viability of alternative energy.
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Mitch and Paul Ryan all are sailing on the ship of deniers while the rest of the world deals with the news that the seas are rising ever faster. Educators, particularly in non-union states, fear for their jobs if they teach Earth Science with facts instead of propaganda. National Geographic has been bought by Fox and the cult of their mis-information spreads like a pollution across the land.
We need everyone with a sense of foresight and prudence to bring their voice and vote to this issue. Everyone....Bernie, Hillary, Obama, Dems and sensible Independents and GOPers.
2
It wouldn't hurt to have a candidate or two who was willing to make climate change an issue and talk about it as if they understood what is at stake. Donald Trump has done one positive thing. He has shown that when a candidate speaks bluntly about things that matter to people they hear what he or she says. The question I have is whether Clinton or Sanders understands the gravity of the situation, and if they refuse to talk about it because they are afraid the electorate won't understand then how do I know they understand?
42
It may seem like hair-splitting to some, but it's important to understand that the planet Is going to be fine regardless of human activity. It has survived far worse than human disregard. IT IS LIFE that we need to be concerned about. Right now we're accelerating into the sixth mass extinction (Kolbert, 2014. The last one was 67 million years ago, so we should appreciate that we're living in a special time. Mass extinctions are rare events. Anyway, don't worry about the planet, worry about survival!
2
Bruce, Minneapolis....I think, when we are "going over the Cliff" they understand the Gravity of the situation. My fear is that "those like Trump" only Care about the air of their own vanity and personal ambition to Control. We, as well, may be on "Cruz control" with self-serving elective Non-Servants
1
Sanders has said again, and again that climate change is the single greatest threat we face. It is pivotal to his candidacy to stop Big Oil from destroying our planet. He has shown he gets the urgency and what it is going to take to break the hold business has over our species survival. It is this very reason that many of us are behind him. Unlike Clinton, who as SS approved Keystone, Sanders gets it has to remain in the ground for our survival.
When reviewing the policies of Clinton this lifelong Democrat would rather cast a vote for Bloomberg who has put his money where his beliefs are. He gets the urgency and at least he's upfront about his Wall Street connections. I'll take this over a political dynasty who has gotten rich over gas deals in Turkmenistan and holdings in fracking companies in the US.
When reviewing the policies of Clinton this lifelong Democrat would rather cast a vote for Bloomberg who has put his money where his beliefs are. He gets the urgency and at least he's upfront about his Wall Street connections. I'll take this over a political dynasty who has gotten rich over gas deals in Turkmenistan and holdings in fracking companies in the US.
3
At this point THE most important political action is appointing an environmental friendly Supreme Court justice to replace Antonin Scalia. It is SCOTUS not POTUS that is THE problem having over-stepped normal procedure and put a "temporary" halt to President Obama's EPA executive actions to halt coal-fired emissions. Forget about The Donald and The Hillary (Yes, I know it's hard, but please try.) and focus on what SCOTUS has been doing and could do if we don't get a new justice who is not pro-corporate, but has the future of the nation and the world as a guiding legal philosophical principle. We currently have a terrific President when it comes to the environment and we all need to focus all our (hopefully, green) energy on letting him and the U.S. Senate do their jobs as directly by Article II, Sec. 2 of our Constitution. There's absolutely no need to give up and wait until November!
179
If your president is so wonderful on environmental issues why is it then that he has forced the replacements of the head of the EPA and CSB? The current heads are so politically-correct one spent most of her career as a lawyer representing the tobacco industry. And, you think this president, or his shadow --- Hillary, will rock the boat and select anyone progressive? You must be dreaming.
1
"Republicans still robotically repeat that any attempt to limit emissions would “destroy the economy.”" What Republicans really mean is, attempts to limit emissions would destroy the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists--the special-interest money behind their campaign financing and the people who instruct Republicans on how to vote.
Any vote for Republicans disrespects our earth and condemns our grandchildren to survive in a Mad Max world.
Any vote for Republicans disrespects our earth and condemns our grandchildren to survive in a Mad Max world.
4
The question of whether or not, as Republicans [falsely] claim, that "any attempt to limit carbon emissions would destroy the economy" is moot.
Failing to limit carbon emissions, finding technologies that might in fact "scrub" at least some carbon FROM the atmosphere, and investing in protecting at-risk populations and infrastructure guarantees the destruction of society.
Humans might survive the mass extinction event, sea level rise and disruptive climate change that lie ahead on our current course, but our institutions, societies, and nations WON'T. Period.
Failing to limit carbon emissions, finding technologies that might in fact "scrub" at least some carbon FROM the atmosphere, and investing in protecting at-risk populations and infrastructure guarantees the destruction of society.
Humans might survive the mass extinction event, sea level rise and disruptive climate change that lie ahead on our current course, but our institutions, societies, and nations WON'T. Period.
190
You mean a Congress like the one we have today wouldn't survive? And survivors would have to learn to work together again, or perish? (Or am I just dreaming...?)
No Republican makes the case for a cost-benefits analysis of not doing something about global warming. What will be the economic costs if we do nothing?
One could just as well disparage Powel and Rice for the same behavior. For years the GOP has been waging a veritable war of attrition on the Clintons ... their legacy and their character. They have used every propaganda trick and legislative gimmick aimed to literally destroy them ... code-words, dog whistles. endless congressional investigations and widely publicized kangaroo-court-style hearings, and even pointless impeachment proceedings ... all based on contrived lies and obfuscations ... ultimately going no where. Yet these exaggerated notion's of Hillary Clinton's being "untrustable" and baseless one sided attacks on her record persist as evidenced in comments like this.
3
Unbelievable. I assume it is too late to indict Hillary, but if she is too far behind Trump, they may still do it.
But this is an election that shows a near-revolution against wage stagnation, except in the Bob Rubin wing of the right-wing party. So a "liberal" says the issue this year is the environment--presumably to ratify and continue the historic expansion of carbon energy production and opening of Alaskan fields by Obama.
The policy of constant distraction from economic themes and the enrichment of Wall Street through a policy of higher profits and a tripling of the market is at an end. And should be. Obviously every Bernie supporter should vote for Trump to open up the 2020 Democratic primary.Who know? Trump may even give us the New Deal he is promising.
But this is an election that shows a near-revolution against wage stagnation, except in the Bob Rubin wing of the right-wing party. So a "liberal" says the issue this year is the environment--presumably to ratify and continue the historic expansion of carbon energy production and opening of Alaskan fields by Obama.
The policy of constant distraction from economic themes and the enrichment of Wall Street through a policy of higher profits and a tripling of the market is at an end. And should be. Obviously every Bernie supporter should vote for Trump to open up the 2020 Democratic primary.Who know? Trump may even give us the New Deal he is promising.
1
If Mr. Trump is elected, there's a halfway decent chance there'll be no elections in 2020, or they'll be held with candidates and supporters being beaten and shot. Win this election, and continue to fight to keep a Democratic president's feet to the fire.
1
The greatest danger to humanity is the continued loss of individual liberty due to progressive liberal Marxist Democratic Party policies. Of course, the Marxists have good intentions, but there is a reason that there is the old saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Anyone who votes for any progressive liberal Marxist Democrat is an idiot.
Anyone who votes for any progressive liberal Marxist Democrat is an idiot.
1
Please give at least one example of a loss of Liberty. In my 67 years, I have experienced none.
1
Bruce (in the USA)
Really? In my world, idiots are those who call other people names!
Really? In my world, idiots are those who call other people names!
1
I have not read every comment but have scanned them to see if there was any reference to Al Gore's recent TED Talk on Climate Change. I did not notice anyone siting it, so here it is.
http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change...
I for one think that he has hit the nail on the head. The market IS going to be our salvation on this one or we will be part of the mass extinction event.
http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change...
I for one think that he has hit the nail on the head. The market IS going to be our salvation on this one or we will be part of the mass extinction event.
The truest statement I've ever seen from this column is " I don't know about you". You surely don't Shirley, or most other people either for that matter. Maybe your small and getting smaller left wing ideologue clique will readily accept your "we'll kill this dog unless you buy this magazine" plaint to elect HRC but most voters realize she's dishonest, with a laundry list of favors that would bankrupt the country. As for your fear mongering pseudo-scientific claptrap about that the world will end if the people don't vote your way, everyone knows who chicken little is and who's world will end.
1
Agree with your article about the importance of climate change legislation being enacted. But disagree with the implication that Queen Hill will be the person to do it with her ties to Wall Street and obligations to her corporate handlers.
Which is WHY voting for Mr. Sanders is SO important.
So hopefully you are wrong about the coronation in November!
Which is WHY voting for Mr. Sanders is SO important.
So hopefully you are wrong about the coronation in November!
Madam President Hillary may or may not do something about climate change. It all depends what Wall Street wants her to do. The Republicans may be beholden to Big Energy, but Hillary for her part is beholden to Big Money, and who knows what will be profitable for Goldman Sachs?
2
And so, your plan B if Senator Sanders loses is...watch the returns on TV?
1
I think you are missing 3 points here Professor:
1, Destroying the Planet is very profitable those who own the Government. The Banks and Corporations reap great short term profit from fossil Fuels and their not going to let anyone mess with their profits.
2, Like all armchair Generals you don't think the enemy will react to you strategy. If your hypothetical "Green" President tries to do things through existing regulations the House can pass restrictions on the agencies involved and cut their funding. Their is no chance that the Democrats will win enough of the Senate to stop Republican obstructionism so your President would be stifled.
3, Do you really think Hillary would turn on her friends and benefactors on Wall Street who made the Clintons so rich? Try saying " Hillary will clean up Wall Street" with a straight face.
I think things will have to get much worst before the American People wake up to the fraud the two major parties have pulled on us and form a new Party to save the Planet.
1, Destroying the Planet is very profitable those who own the Government. The Banks and Corporations reap great short term profit from fossil Fuels and their not going to let anyone mess with their profits.
2, Like all armchair Generals you don't think the enemy will react to you strategy. If your hypothetical "Green" President tries to do things through existing regulations the House can pass restrictions on the agencies involved and cut their funding. Their is no chance that the Democrats will win enough of the Senate to stop Republican obstructionism so your President would be stifled.
3, Do you really think Hillary would turn on her friends and benefactors on Wall Street who made the Clintons so rich? Try saying " Hillary will clean up Wall Street" with a straight face.
I think things will have to get much worst before the American People wake up to the fraud the two major parties have pulled on us and form a new Party to save the Planet.
To be optimistic for a moment, it's entirely possible that congressional republicans won't actually be interested in interfering with the EPA, what they may want is a situation where the EPA can clean-up CO2 emissions while they can gnash their teeth and complain about how it's all destroying the economy but there's nothing they can do about it while that democrat is president.
1
There is no Planet B. We must tenderly tend this one.
Hillary wants all states to become clean-energy self-sufficient.
Hillary wants all states to become clean-energy self-sufficient.
2
A Republican running for president who is not owned by the oil cartel? No wonder their elites are worried.
2
Hillary will support Cap and Trade: it's a fast buck for the Clinton machine. Never mind the fact that Cap and Trade is a joke in Europe. Here's what your colleague, Tom Friedman, had to say in his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded:"
"The case in point is the European experience: they spent $50 billion on carbon trading, their CO2 emissions actually increased, and the largest payment went to a German coal-burning utility!"
'Jim Hansen, NASA climatologist, describes it as a "Temple of Doom" for life on our planet.'
Tom proposes a carbon tax instead. Denmark has one and it works.
"The case in point is the European experience: they spent $50 billion on carbon trading, their CO2 emissions actually increased, and the largest payment went to a German coal-burning utility!"
'Jim Hansen, NASA climatologist, describes it as a "Temple of Doom" for life on our planet.'
Tom proposes a carbon tax instead. Denmark has one and it works.
1
It's a shame that the only economic policy proposals or analysis in this article is a comment on the declining cost of renewables and advocacy of "something like the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan". Instead, the column offers a political program: govern by executive order and control the Supreme Court. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? We shouldn't be so "light" about bypassing a branch of government. It's one thing when a president, elected twice with majorities, has seen legislation, even with bi-partisan support, obstructed, not brought to a vote, or held hostage by a minority of the opposition. It's another thing to premise a presidential campaign on simply acting by executive order. Since Dr. Krugman has become more focused on campaign politics than anything else, he might think about what kind of mobilization of voters would be needed, particularly in the face of potential Republican disarray, to create the mandate and majority that Secretary Clinton could use to enact progressive policies (if that's what she wants). Simply to abandon the House (Democratic just a few years back), and say "no, we can't", is not a recipe for the turnout Democrats will need to elect Secretary Clinton, turn the Senate, and, at least, lay a foundation for breaking Republican control of the House. I won't lose sight of that goal, and neither should Dr. Krugman.
1
"flexible regulations" = Arbitrary Taxes
Socialists always like "flexible regulations" because: The regulations will be used to punish anyone the ruling plutocracy decides needs to be punished.
This is why the Founding Fathers decided to pull America out of Britain's tyranny.
Socialism = Tyranny. An economist who deserves to carry such a "card" would know this.
Socialists always like "flexible regulations" because: The regulations will be used to punish anyone the ruling plutocracy decides needs to be punished.
This is why the Founding Fathers decided to pull America out of Britain's tyranny.
Socialism = Tyranny. An economist who deserves to carry such a "card" would know this.
1
OK, here's a puzzler that I haven't puzzled out yet.
Hillary Clinton, 68+ years old, with tons of money, becomes the First! Woman! President! of the USA.
Hillary Clinton, who is constantly accused of "saying anything to get elected", is now somehow going to be "beholden to Big Oil" or "beholden to Wall Street" because she has courted them for their contributions ???.
Are we supposed to believe she is not going to attempt-- even if you attribute it to ego, and a desire not to be disliked-- to establish a legacy based on the core values of the Democratic party, through SCOTUS appointments and attempts at legislation...????!
I don't get it. If anyone would be free to make some progress, she is it. Particularly if she follows my advice (given freely on comment threads, not personally) and finds an exceptional VP and chooses to do only one term.
The push has to be for the future, creating a "revolution" at the State level, and ending voter suppression and gerrymandering, and creating a "bench" of progressive and environmentally committed candidates for national office.
This is a tipping point, set up by President Obama's victory and excellent performance. Let's not blow it.
Hillary Clinton, 68+ years old, with tons of money, becomes the First! Woman! President! of the USA.
Hillary Clinton, who is constantly accused of "saying anything to get elected", is now somehow going to be "beholden to Big Oil" or "beholden to Wall Street" because she has courted them for their contributions ???.
Are we supposed to believe she is not going to attempt-- even if you attribute it to ego, and a desire not to be disliked-- to establish a legacy based on the core values of the Democratic party, through SCOTUS appointments and attempts at legislation...????!
I don't get it. If anyone would be free to make some progress, she is it. Particularly if she follows my advice (given freely on comment threads, not personally) and finds an exceptional VP and chooses to do only one term.
The push has to be for the future, creating a "revolution" at the State level, and ending voter suppression and gerrymandering, and creating a "bench" of progressive and environmentally committed candidates for national office.
This is a tipping point, set up by President Obama's victory and excellent performance. Let's not blow it.
3
You really underestimate what greed and the lust for power does to the Hillary Clinton's of the world.
"Let's not blow it" You hit the nail on the head! I'm no fan of the Clintons, but Secretary Clinton is not the "lesser of two evils" -- a lot of good can come of a Clinton presidency, and progressives can keep working hard to make sure even more good comes from it.
2
Here's how the scientists rank the candidates:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e946f29fa534a0b9c1d064b16e06b61/ap-fact-...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e946f29fa534a0b9c1d064b16e06b61/ap-fact-...
1
The part of that I found particularly sad and funny is
"Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had the lowest score, an average of 6 {out of 100). All eight(scientists doing the grading) put Cruz at the bottom of the class.
"This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner..."
"Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had the lowest score, an average of 6 {out of 100). All eight(scientists doing the grading) put Cruz at the bottom of the class.
"This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner..."
1
You think environmental concerns are paramount in this election, and you're favoring HRC over Sanders? Wow, she must have promised you something good.
2
Prof. Krugman made a choice. It's not my choice or that of many commentators, but it's not a wholly unreasonable choice. He has certainly been artless, to say the least, in communicating with Sanders' supporters, and, like other surrogates of Secretary Clinton, he has probably hurt his cause and the Democrats' chances. That said, it's no more constructive to hurl accusations of personal gain at Dr. Krugman than it is for him and others to imply that Sanders' supporters are just stupid. Let's get over it and win an election in November with whomever the Democrats nominate, and continue to fight after November for progressive causes.
1
Historically he has also favored Hillary over Obama..
1
The professor is correct about the ultimate importance of the environment. All other issues are small beer by comparison. I hope he is correct that executive action is a sufficient means for progress. although this is debatable.
Trouble is, the NYT's endorsed candidate has an indifferent environmental record. She is much more interested in "feel good" identity politics than in saving our planet.
ANY president is "in a position to steer us away from the precipice." That Ms. Clinton would be less retrogressive than Republican candidates is not enough.
Trouble is, the NYT's endorsed candidate has an indifferent environmental record. She is much more interested in "feel good" identity politics than in saving our planet.
ANY president is "in a position to steer us away from the precipice." That Ms. Clinton would be less retrogressive than Republican candidates is not enough.
2
While not an economist (I'm an ex-"climate scientist" now doing hurricane research) I want to address the issue of C&T vs a direct legislated carbon-tax rate. A very simple "theoretical" argument show that a C &T is the lowest cost way of meeting a specified numerical target for emissions, but ALL the experience with C&T schemes shows that they have a commonly-fatal defect: politicians (i.e. legal corruption).
* In 2008 Clinton, McCain, and Obama ALL called for a C&T on carbon with "no grandfathering." The house passed HR2454, that grandfathered the majority of the allowances AND exempted a variety of favored sources! the bill went nowhere in the senate. In my view that C&T scheme would have been a disaster for the country, indeed better it did not happen.
* The European C&T system collapsed because the political oligopoly gave too many allowances to too many buddies
* if a C&T scheme is implemented it is critical that the allowances have a relatively finite term (like 1 year), and either expire or are substantially devalued thereafter. This PREVENTS financialization. A theoretical economist argues that financialization of emission credits is "good;" all evidence shows that it is not.
* To avoid serious distortions of the economy a CO2 tax must tax all sources equally.
* In 2008 Clinton, McCain, and Obama ALL called for a C&T on carbon with "no grandfathering." The house passed HR2454, that grandfathered the majority of the allowances AND exempted a variety of favored sources! the bill went nowhere in the senate. In my view that C&T scheme would have been a disaster for the country, indeed better it did not happen.
* The European C&T system collapsed because the political oligopoly gave too many allowances to too many buddies
* if a C&T scheme is implemented it is critical that the allowances have a relatively finite term (like 1 year), and either expire or are substantially devalued thereafter. This PREVENTS financialization. A theoretical economist argues that financialization of emission credits is "good;" all evidence shows that it is not.
* To avoid serious distortions of the economy a CO2 tax must tax all sources equally.
5
Climate change is a real issue, but it is not the main issue. It is and has been since I was born equal opportunity for our children. The energy issue is the left's version of the right's balance budget jag. They are important issues and loom large in the future, but our children need to be prepared to be happy, functioning, and wise people like Paul Krugman.
Thank you for writing about this topic, which is the most serious problem facing the nation. I have a number of concerns about your framing of the problem, however, ranging from its scope to its most effective political advocate.
* Many technologists - including both myself and Bill Gates - are not nearly as sanguine about impending technological solutions to climate change. Saul Griffith has said "People say 'this is a Manhattan Project, this an Apollo Project'. Sorry, those are science projects. Fusion is a Manhattan Project or an Apollo Project... The rest of this is more like retooling for World War II, except with everyone playing on the same team." We need more than market forces and executive action to solve this problem.
* At the first democratic debate, Bernie Sanders said that the most important problem facing the nation is climate change, whereas Hilary Clinton responded with her usual laundry list of talking points. This problem requires thinking big and a laser like focus. Despite what you and others would like to believe, Sanders is not a one issue candidate - he simply focuses on the next problem to solve, and there is no way to deal with the climate crisis with large moneyed interests in the way.
* I have specific concerns about how Clinton would fare against Donald Trump. She has a lot of baggage and he would likely be very effective in using it to make her look defensive and weak.
Thank you for bringing this up but we must stop being so complacent.
* Many technologists - including both myself and Bill Gates - are not nearly as sanguine about impending technological solutions to climate change. Saul Griffith has said "People say 'this is a Manhattan Project, this an Apollo Project'. Sorry, those are science projects. Fusion is a Manhattan Project or an Apollo Project... The rest of this is more like retooling for World War II, except with everyone playing on the same team." We need more than market forces and executive action to solve this problem.
* At the first democratic debate, Bernie Sanders said that the most important problem facing the nation is climate change, whereas Hilary Clinton responded with her usual laundry list of talking points. This problem requires thinking big and a laser like focus. Despite what you and others would like to believe, Sanders is not a one issue candidate - he simply focuses on the next problem to solve, and there is no way to deal with the climate crisis with large moneyed interests in the way.
* I have specific concerns about how Clinton would fare against Donald Trump. She has a lot of baggage and he would likely be very effective in using it to make her look defensive and weak.
Thank you for bringing this up but we must stop being so complacent.
5
I'm inclined to agree with you about Bernie being better than Hillary, but just for arguments sake, it could turn out that on energy policy a "pragmatist" does a little better than an idealist like Bernie: he's made some anti-nuclear noises, albeit not loud ones, and we desperately need more nuclear capacity at this point: it's a large scale, reliable, proven energy source, and believe it or not it's also clean and safe. (The fact that sounds like an absurd thing to say to many shows how weak our collective understanding is in these areas, and that's a problem that ranks up there with "money in politics"... maybe it's an even bigger problem).
For the sake of argument, let's give the GOP its due by accepting the argument that any effort to control carbon emissions will "destroy the economy." Let's ask Republicans to acknowledge in return that failure to control carbon emissions will destroy human life as we know it.
Then we can pick our poison: economic strength on an irremedialky degraded planet or a healthy environment with (yes, wait!) an even more robust economy that features industrial activity dedicated to advancing a sustainable ecology for future generations.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Then we can pick our poison: economic strength on an irremedialky degraded planet or a healthy environment with (yes, wait!) an even more robust economy that features industrial activity dedicated to advancing a sustainable ecology for future generations.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
That's a sucker gambit. There's no reason to think that re-working our energy infrastructure will destroy economic growth, the opposite is far more likely: big government-supported projects in a depressed economy act to "jump-start" it. Try reading some stuff by that guy Krugman.
1
If we lived in a democracy we would be able to vote on the environment. (We could easily, given our present technology). But we live in a representative democracy where the representatives do not have the same interests as the 99%. The well-heeled, as always, will move to higher ground. Only a political revolution will fix these environmental problems-- our numbers that fuel climate and extinction, clean air and water. We could also vote on wars, healthcare, education and money--but the 1% have us believing that we can't really govern ourselves.
4
If we (the US) were looking at another country whose government and political system looked as ours does, we would be calling for UN monitors and possible regime change. We would cry out that this nation has a large nuclear, biological and conventional arsenal, and yet it's election practices are at the very best, faulty and more likely corrupted. It's legislative body is incapable of governing, it's court merely a front for partisan interests, and, should one of the GOP ninnies be elected, the chief executive and CinC ethically bankrupt and intellectually challenged.
There's the future of our species riding on the actions we take, or don't take, in the next few years.
There's the future of our species riding on the actions we take, or don't take, in the next few years.
8
The only candidate during the debate who answered the question "What is the greatest security risk to this country" with "Climate Change" was Bernie sanders. I wish Hillary would put more of a focus on this, but I am sure she will since, well Bernie has helped craft her narrative since he entered the race.
21
Just show up and vote the Democratic slate in November. And don't let anyone you know sit it out.
2
In November we have the choice between the Democratic party and the republican religion, which is now have a cult within that religion of conservatism. They have stood Christianity on its head believing that not only should the rich inherit the Earth but should govern it beginning with the USA even if they have to destroy it to do so.
I agree that Trump is a con man, a liar, a narcissistic xenophobe who is unequiprd and unfit to govern which does not matter because so are the other 2 top contenders. While Trump is in my opinion better than either Cruz or Rubio because the latter would make GWB look like a liberal and the other who wants become our first true conservative dictator.
,
Just as the new GOP has a scortched earth policy to gain power and intends to burn our constitutional, majority rule democratic system to the ground, they also have a scorched planet policy. What they intend destroy government itself the vacuum being replaced by the super rich and multinationals. .
HRC when she is president will have her hands full with obstructive political terrorism unless we get these so called conservatives out of office or power. If the cult of reaction and rights based on ownership wins, America loses: The environment, government assisted health care, public education, women’s rights to control their bodies, the Sup. Ct, and we will lose freedom which we will never recover as government is destroyed. We will go from oligarchy to plutocracy.
I agree that Trump is a con man, a liar, a narcissistic xenophobe who is unequiprd and unfit to govern which does not matter because so are the other 2 top contenders. While Trump is in my opinion better than either Cruz or Rubio because the latter would make GWB look like a liberal and the other who wants become our first true conservative dictator.
,
Just as the new GOP has a scortched earth policy to gain power and intends to burn our constitutional, majority rule democratic system to the ground, they also have a scorched planet policy. What they intend destroy government itself the vacuum being replaced by the super rich and multinationals. .
HRC when she is president will have her hands full with obstructive political terrorism unless we get these so called conservatives out of office or power. If the cult of reaction and rights based on ownership wins, America loses: The environment, government assisted health care, public education, women’s rights to control their bodies, the Sup. Ct, and we will lose freedom which we will never recover as government is destroyed. We will go from oligarchy to plutocracy.
13
I wouldn't want to be invested in the fossil fuel industry. The ground under their feet is slipping away due to the increasing competitiveness of wind and solar and the every more pressing need to confront climate change.
I'm glad Paul Krugman is raising awareness of how much the cost of wind and solar energy has declined. Good news tends to be ignored, and this is too important to be ignored.
I'm glad Paul Krugman is raising awareness of how much the cost of wind and solar energy has declined. Good news tends to be ignored, and this is too important to be ignored.
4
Not just action, but speedy action must be taken to save the planet. The oil and gas industries are not incorporated to go out of business and have mineral rights on reserves sufficient to keep producing high profits quickly for investors for the next thirty years -- while most climate scientists say that, if the two-degree limit on global warming called for by the Paris agreement is not met before then, disastrous climate change will be irreversible.
4
"So I’m going to be hanging on by my fingernails all through this election. No doubt there will be plenty of entertainment along the way, given the freak show taking place on one side of the aisle. But I won’t forget that the stakes this time around are deadly serious. And neither should you."
As much as I dislike Mrs Clinton I would rather vote for any Democrat I don't care who it is. Any of the GOP candidates will take us back to the stone age.
As much as I dislike Mrs Clinton I would rather vote for any Democrat I don't care who it is. Any of the GOP candidates will take us back to the stone age.
12
Agreed, contest is "likely" between Trump vs Clinton. But what's the hurry? We are still going by statistics. Meanwhile let the democracy play its role. Let all the voices be heard. They need to be heard. It does not matter that Clinton won Iowa. She moved to the left because she realized that is what the voters want. She had to move to the left to win Nevada. Let there be more debates. Let us hear what Sanders is telling his supporters. Let us hear what Clinton is telling her supporters (and I do not mean the speech transcripts). Let us mull over why Rep. Tulasi Gabbard resigned. Let us not shove all this information under cheap and sensational news. Even if thousands of people gather to protest, they get more coverage than anything Bernie is doing. This is appalling. It is even more appalling that now Ms. Clinton is very likely to win, there is no need to suppress opposing voices. But they are. What is media afraid of?
This looks to me more and more like oligarchy. Maybe someone needs to come and bring democracy here.
This looks to me more and more like oligarchy. Maybe someone needs to come and bring democracy here.
5
One difference between Sen. Sanders (I-VT) and former Secretary Clinton (D-USA) is flexibility and adaptability to changing circumstances or conditions.
Bernie is so sure of the superiority of his policies that he is not likely to consider alternatives. On the other hand, Hillary, like President Obama, is willing to look at alternatives and be swayed by them. Her views on issues can "evolve", as the euphemism goes. Therefore, to dredge up decade-old articles as evidence that Hillary is not to be trusted on environmental issues is not much of an argument. As a quick study, she will come, she will see and she will conquer future problems based on the best solutions that are available now, and not based on solutions that she might have advocated decades ago.
Bernie is so sure of the superiority of his policies that he is not likely to consider alternatives. On the other hand, Hillary, like President Obama, is willing to look at alternatives and be swayed by them. Her views on issues can "evolve", as the euphemism goes. Therefore, to dredge up decade-old articles as evidence that Hillary is not to be trusted on environmental issues is not much of an argument. As a quick study, she will come, she will see and she will conquer future problems based on the best solutions that are available now, and not based on solutions that she might have advocated decades ago.
9
Krugman states that its economics not ideology that will determine whether or not we embrace the change to clean energy. I agree, but think he's missing something in his calculations.
The Sultans of Cheap and Easy Oil have given notice they will no longer prop up the price of oil so producers of expensive oil can make a living. The days of hundred dollar a barrel oil are over for a long long time. Will we still forge ahead and do the right thing by switching over to a clean energy source when the one we are used to is more affordable than ever?
We should do it. Most of us would like to think we still will. But my guess is we won't. Sales of gas guzzling trucks will soar. Thermostats will be set comfortably high. We will spew our carbon into the air with impunity. Gas is cheap and life is good again. Until the next time.
Now our overheated economies, drunk and giddy on cheap oil, will drive up the price again and those clever Sultans of Cheap Oil who have now drummed the frackers and tar sand barons out of business, will have created another oil shortage, rumors of $200 peak oil will abound, spawning talks of investing in cleaner energy and so on and so on and so on.
We don't learn. It's like watching cows break down the fence into the hay lot. There they are, happily munching away, standing, waist deep in gorgeous plenty, excreting with abandon, trampling it all into a big old mess. Moo they complain to the farmer. We have nothing to eat now. Wha' happen? That's us.
The Sultans of Cheap and Easy Oil have given notice they will no longer prop up the price of oil so producers of expensive oil can make a living. The days of hundred dollar a barrel oil are over for a long long time. Will we still forge ahead and do the right thing by switching over to a clean energy source when the one we are used to is more affordable than ever?
We should do it. Most of us would like to think we still will. But my guess is we won't. Sales of gas guzzling trucks will soar. Thermostats will be set comfortably high. We will spew our carbon into the air with impunity. Gas is cheap and life is good again. Until the next time.
Now our overheated economies, drunk and giddy on cheap oil, will drive up the price again and those clever Sultans of Cheap Oil who have now drummed the frackers and tar sand barons out of business, will have created another oil shortage, rumors of $200 peak oil will abound, spawning talks of investing in cleaner energy and so on and so on and so on.
We don't learn. It's like watching cows break down the fence into the hay lot. There they are, happily munching away, standing, waist deep in gorgeous plenty, excreting with abandon, trampling it all into a big old mess. Moo they complain to the farmer. We have nothing to eat now. Wha' happen? That's us.
8
Too true. As soon as the Saudis have burned through their cash reserves oil will go back to $100 a barrel and more. And loads of nit wits will once again be stuck with gas guzzling SUVs and sports cars.
What most people (apparently, including Krugman) don't realize is that C02 can be removed from the atmosphere economically at-scale. If you do the math, it works out to approximately $1/gallon-of-gas. This surely means the fossil fuel industry will eventually submit to an equivalent tax once society collectively accepts climate science. No need for renewable energy or electric cars, just common-sense regulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal
1
No need to build some gargantuan machines to remove C02 from the atmosphere.
Trees have done it well for millions of years.
Trees have done it well for millions of years.
4
And algae. Which is where the fossil fuels come from in the first place.
1
Yes, it is past the point where just reducing burning of carbon based fuels can mitigate climate change to prevent destruction of the earth as a viable habitat for humanity, and technologies more advanced than trees are needed to reduce CO2 from the atmosphere.
But it is exceedingly dangerous, probably fatal, to adopt the view that the CO2 removal technology will come in time and therefore we need not concern ourselves with the burning of fossil fuels.
First, the removal technology may not come fast enough to mitigate the certain major damage that will be caused with uncontained burning of fossil fuels, starting with the most obvious, rising ocean levels and massively destructive weather patterns, but also including changes to the ecology due to warming, possibly including extermination of species.
But more important than that, burning fossil fuels releases much more than relatively benign CO2 into the atmosphere. There are many other substances released from burning and mining that are likely to damage or kill us.
Finally, consumption of oil is responsible for much of the geopolitical turmoil in the world, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia; which has to stop.
Please don't assume that PK, or any of the rest of us non-republicans, are not aware of the potential of CO2 removal by technology more advanced than trees.
Many of us are aware of it but strongly believe we need to replace fossil fuels by solar and wind for many reasons only one of which is high CO2 levels.
But it is exceedingly dangerous, probably fatal, to adopt the view that the CO2 removal technology will come in time and therefore we need not concern ourselves with the burning of fossil fuels.
First, the removal technology may not come fast enough to mitigate the certain major damage that will be caused with uncontained burning of fossil fuels, starting with the most obvious, rising ocean levels and massively destructive weather patterns, but also including changes to the ecology due to warming, possibly including extermination of species.
But more important than that, burning fossil fuels releases much more than relatively benign CO2 into the atmosphere. There are many other substances released from burning and mining that are likely to damage or kill us.
Finally, consumption of oil is responsible for much of the geopolitical turmoil in the world, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia; which has to stop.
Please don't assume that PK, or any of the rest of us non-republicans, are not aware of the potential of CO2 removal by technology more advanced than trees.
Many of us are aware of it but strongly believe we need to replace fossil fuels by solar and wind for many reasons only one of which is high CO2 levels.
Donald Trump is running against the Republican party, as well as against the Democrats. Will his supporters vote for Republicans further down the ticket? Even if they do, will those establishment Republicans vote for his initiatives? Will the Supreme Court allow those initiatives if he attempts to push executive orders through or if they pass Congress? A Trump presidency is the strongest argument yet for the separation of powers. Somethings inaction is better than foolish action.
1
Along with a carbon neutral energy plan, we need a plan to expose the culturally induced ignorance propagated by the republican party and its supporters. It is hard to implement a plan while many people still believe the republican stance that global warming is not caused by carbon emmisions.
4
Krugman takes a far more optimistic attitude about the progress of non-fossil technology than most of those who are knowledgeable in the subject - he declares that the "miracle" has already occurred based on recent rates of progress rather than the actual state of technology. As a card-carrying American economist he also has great faith in the capitalist free-market system. Would it be sufficient just to tweak the free-market system with McCain's (or someone's) tax plan? This has not been demonstrated, nor that existing regulations can do it. Major crises usually require government action in the form of major investment and direction. The influence of very powerful vested interests would have to be overcome.
Unfortunately significant action will probably require an effective government revolution in the US - or at the least solid control of Congress by Democrats. The Republican Congress will not be passing new laws and the powers of the EPA are actually limited. Krugman seems to think that a Democratic President would have dictatorial powers in the face of opposition from Congress and the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately significant action will probably require an effective government revolution in the US - or at the least solid control of Congress by Democrats. The Republican Congress will not be passing new laws and the powers of the EPA are actually limited. Krugman seems to think that a Democratic President would have dictatorial powers in the face of opposition from Congress and the Supreme Court.
4
"Krugman takes a far more optimistic attitude about the progress of non-fossil technology than most of those who are knowledgeable in the subject ..."
Yup. The IPCC says we need renewables, CSS and nuclear. Krugman and friends insist renewables-alone will fix the problem. They know better than the IPCC, but this is a *completely different* thing than those climate-denialists...
Yup. The IPCC says we need renewables, CSS and nuclear. Krugman and friends insist renewables-alone will fix the problem. They know better than the IPCC, but this is a *completely different* thing than those climate-denialists...
Cap and trade. Sounds so-...well fair.
Except-the citizens of the US will pay for this. For all the complaints about wealth inequality, skyrocketing energy bills-along with the prices of everything else we purchase, will only make this worse. The increased cost of energy will fall hardest on the middle class and poor. Giving politicians more of our hard earned money to increase control of our everyday activities will only hurt our nation economically.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/blockbuster-study-working-...
I support all forms of energy generation. Wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear, and yes even coal. We should strive for balance with the cost of generation and the market should be the determining factor.
Having the feds ram down another "save the planet" scheme will only damage our country's economic and job growth. You do remember growth right?
Except-the citizens of the US will pay for this. For all the complaints about wealth inequality, skyrocketing energy bills-along with the prices of everything else we purchase, will only make this worse. The increased cost of energy will fall hardest on the middle class and poor. Giving politicians more of our hard earned money to increase control of our everyday activities will only hurt our nation economically.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/blockbuster-study-working-...
I support all forms of energy generation. Wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear, and yes even coal. We should strive for balance with the cost of generation and the market should be the determining factor.
Having the feds ram down another "save the planet" scheme will only damage our country's economic and job growth. You do remember growth right?
1
Oh, yeah, unregulated growth. In our economy it's republicanism - it our bodies it's cancer.
1
It appears there's a 96% probability that I will *not* be voting in November. Basically, the choices are between someone backed by the operators of the stock casino and and someone who built a bunch of bankrupt gambling casinos. Either way, it looks like a bad bet. The only way to win is not to play...
10
What exactly are you going to win?
1
I refuse to vote for another corrupt Clinton. If she is the Democratic party choice I will write-in Bernie Sanders and let the cards fall where they may.
2
Whoever the Dem nominee turns out to be, they would be a million times better than any of the psychopaths currently in the running. Not only do they support fossil fuel consumption at big levels since the Koch brothers pay the bills, they are defunding and vilifying Planned Parenthood which provides birth control and safe abortions- the planet needs less population for its very survival.
The GOP doesn't even mention global warming unless it is to deny climate change or say it god's will. They're gearing up for end times anyway- so the destruction of the planet fits into their own crazy death wish.
The GOP doesn't even mention global warming unless it is to deny climate change or say it god's will. They're gearing up for end times anyway- so the destruction of the planet fits into their own crazy death wish.
9
I can imagine a specific not very bright candidate that would qualify perfectly in lowering the surplus population.
The hubris of the human race is astounding.
For the past 10,000 years or so our climate has been relatively stable allowing for one thing the growth of human' civilization'. But if science has proven one thing it is that change in climate can happen extremely quickly and dramatically. The green house effect is real folks and as the percentage of carbon dioxide increases beyond almost twice the historical amount the earth will heat up causing world wide changes in sea levels and rain patterns among many other things.
These things are not just ideas, but realities repeated endlessly by people who care and science to the point that many of us especially in this country have become blasé and even deny it completely. Our attention spans and ability to see consequences of our actions becomes miniscule. It is great that technology is advanced enough to begin dealing with global warming, but the political realities of denial and obstruction are live and well and this could be our great downfall.
For the past 10,000 years or so our climate has been relatively stable allowing for one thing the growth of human' civilization'. But if science has proven one thing it is that change in climate can happen extremely quickly and dramatically. The green house effect is real folks and as the percentage of carbon dioxide increases beyond almost twice the historical amount the earth will heat up causing world wide changes in sea levels and rain patterns among many other things.
These things are not just ideas, but realities repeated endlessly by people who care and science to the point that many of us especially in this country have become blasé and even deny it completely. Our attention spans and ability to see consequences of our actions becomes miniscule. It is great that technology is advanced enough to begin dealing with global warming, but the political realities of denial and obstruction are live and well and this could be our great downfall.
15
The hubris of the human race on this subject at least, has until recently been based on ignorance, which unfortunately persists. But the.way forward depends on leadership that will move us in the right direction against the resistance of ignorance. We have only one choice of candidate who can and will do that - Hilary Clinton. I'm not looking for a perfect candidate, I'm looking for the most qualified candidate, and she is the only choice.
1
Why not stop contributing so much fifth hand hot air to it? It's a twofer, global warming will be eased greatly.
I do not think the battle of climate change will be fought by government policies and actions, this battle will be fought by technology and innovation. Already, wind and solar technology changed the game considerably - Bill Gates and other visionary billioners already investing on technology that will make carbon based fuel source irrelevant. Let us keep faith on humanity's power of ingenuity and creativity and discount the political capacity of democratic countries. More and more, the political capacity of liberal democracy is becoming limited to dissipate the destructive energy of the diverse groups by posturing. There is very little creative activity at government level we see now that liberal democracy can demonstrate.
1
Gates and a few other liberal billionaires are spending some money on new technology, but the really big money is backing the continuation of fossil fuels. This is not just the Kochs but all the corporations involved in fossil fuels. The liberal billionaires are not likely to win a battle against the conservative billionaires. This is an area where government must step in, and a President can't do it alone with existing regulations.
3
You say that such things as health care, financial reform, and inequality are back seat to environmental health. I agree, but there's a straight line from each of these three to the energy sector. And that line isn't six degrees of separation from the energy sector.
I'll add a forth. The energy sector is directly responsible for the collapse of the Middle East. So let's tie the need for clean energy to four of our most dire needed changes, along with health care, financial reform, and inequality, the enemy of freedom which resides in the Middle East.
I'll add a forth. The energy sector is directly responsible for the collapse of the Middle East. So let's tie the need for clean energy to four of our most dire needed changes, along with health care, financial reform, and inequality, the enemy of freedom which resides in the Middle East.
12
Bernie Sanders is the candidate endorsed by Bill McKibben and Friends of the Earth. Sanders was against the TPP from the start. In Clinton's campaign mailings, I have seen little sign that an inhabitable planet (as opposed to matters such as ending gender inequality in salaries) is a major priority for her. Renewable energy is wonderful, but we need a candidate who has not taken money from the giant corporations that seek short-term profits, no matter what the cost to the planet. We are losing the ice caps, for heaven's sake....This is no time for half measures.
37
This grossly over-rates South Carolina, while ignoring Hillary's troubles in states actually likely to vote Democratic in the general election.
Anyway, we are unlikely to triangulate our way to a climate solution. That is a Blairism used to justify surrender to corporate interests.
If Clinton's approach was going to help on climate change, it would have shown that a long time ago. The DNC and Democratic power structure has done nothing for us on climate, and never would.
Either it is Bernie, or more of the same. If you say that is impossible, then you also say we are doomed.
Anyway, we are unlikely to triangulate our way to a climate solution. That is a Blairism used to justify surrender to corporate interests.
If Clinton's approach was going to help on climate change, it would have shown that a long time ago. The DNC and Democratic power structure has done nothing for us on climate, and never would.
Either it is Bernie, or more of the same. If you say that is impossible, then you also say we are doomed.
46
Could you PULEEZE not start out a comment on "planet on the ballot" with the continued talking point/rant/dismissal by the BernieBros of the significance of SC, because SC itself hasn't voted Democrat for president in a long time? It is tiresome, and it makes it clear that either you are as ignorant as the common Republican, or you think we are.
It is irrelevant to the issues of restraining CO2.
It is not raised as an argument about SC per se, but rather for its direct impact on the delegate count AND as foreshadowing what is very likely to happen in Florida (a critical swing state) AND to point out that Bernie has very sharply limited regional appeal.
Super Tuesday is tomorrow. It is likely to further "clear the air."
To simplify electoral college arithmetic and forecasting down to perhaps the simplest useful approximation: in the current epoch it is "win Florida, win the presidential election." This rule is nearly ironclad for a Republican: very hard to construct a plausible path to the presidency for a Republican without it. (The obvious corollary for a Democrat is "take Florida, you are nearly home free.")
In theory there are paths for a Democrat to lose Florida and take the presidency in a nail-biter ... but one sure wouldn't want to depend on it.
It is irrelevant to the issues of restraining CO2.
It is not raised as an argument about SC per se, but rather for its direct impact on the delegate count AND as foreshadowing what is very likely to happen in Florida (a critical swing state) AND to point out that Bernie has very sharply limited regional appeal.
Super Tuesday is tomorrow. It is likely to further "clear the air."
To simplify electoral college arithmetic and forecasting down to perhaps the simplest useful approximation: in the current epoch it is "win Florida, win the presidential election." This rule is nearly ironclad for a Republican: very hard to construct a plausible path to the presidency for a Republican without it. (The obvious corollary for a Democrat is "take Florida, you are nearly home free.")
In theory there are paths for a Democrat to lose Florida and take the presidency in a nail-biter ... but one sure wouldn't want to depend on it.
1
Mr. Thomason, I have been reading these comments for a while. I always have respected your opinion. Why do you think an avowed Socialist, democratic or not, has a chance in the Deep South, or anywhere, for that matter, except the coasts and New England? Whether you like her or not, Hillary is the best chance we have of keeping the White House in Democratic hands. The Republicans, any of them, will not be as amenable to environmental concerns as Hillary. And no, she hasn't sold her soul to the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry.
3
The technology is here. I am happy to report that after one full year of operation, my solar system had an deficit of about 200 kilowatt hours. That's less than $25 worth of electricity, taxes and fees included. In other words, I was able to generate 96% of my annual usage. My air conditioner is old with an EER of 10. When I get a new high efficiency one, I will be able to generate an annual surplus. Fortunately for me, the local utility, KCPL, promotes solar power.
Next is the electric bicycle. I can't stress enough how practical and fun one of those things are. My bike cruses at 20 to 23 miles per hour ( I pedal it) which gets me around quickly. I can carry two full bags of groceries on it. It gives me a moderate workout without getting all sweaty when I use it.
Wind power farms are going up all over the plains and they work. Their life cycle costs are comparable to coal plants. Even Sam Brownback is in favor of wind power and he is so far to the right that he fell off the platform.
The next big hurdle is erecting high power transmission lines to distribute the new power. Rural people hate transmission lines. We need some kind of legislation or executive order that compensates them for the use of the land. I would give them a toll for the power transmitted. The state houses are filled with anti-wind, coal fired fanatics. It is essential that the yahoos in the state houses are voted out in Nov.
Next is the electric bicycle. I can't stress enough how practical and fun one of those things are. My bike cruses at 20 to 23 miles per hour ( I pedal it) which gets me around quickly. I can carry two full bags of groceries on it. It gives me a moderate workout without getting all sweaty when I use it.
Wind power farms are going up all over the plains and they work. Their life cycle costs are comparable to coal plants. Even Sam Brownback is in favor of wind power and he is so far to the right that he fell off the platform.
The next big hurdle is erecting high power transmission lines to distribute the new power. Rural people hate transmission lines. We need some kind of legislation or executive order that compensates them for the use of the land. I would give them a toll for the power transmitted. The state houses are filled with anti-wind, coal fired fanatics. It is essential that the yahoos in the state houses are voted out in Nov.
19
I commend your efforts. Bit the sky is falling because there are too many people and they fuel climate change, the 6th mass extinction and depletion of most resources, including air and water. The number of humans that recycled voluntarily was 15% and I see no decrease in big trucks, suv's or Christmas lights. Our species is what it is. When we face that we can lower our numbers, which will lower CO2, extinctions and fouled air and water. Band-aiding the effects of our numbers is simply playing whack-a-mole. My fifth graders understand that there can only be so many fish in an aquarium--no matter how clean.
8
How about undergrounding the transmission lines?
Stephen,
There are no insulated cables at the voltages required to transmit such high levels of power. Also, the cost of burying even the highest voltage rated cables in concrete encased duct (a necessity) would be about 10 times higher than using overhead lines. It just wont happen.
There are no insulated cables at the voltages required to transmit such high levels of power. Also, the cost of burying even the highest voltage rated cables in concrete encased duct (a necessity) would be about 10 times higher than using overhead lines. It just wont happen.
"Paris agreement from last year means that if the US moves forward on climate action, much of the world will follow our lead."
I hope if not for anything else, Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) will be the next president. The world will be a better place than otherwise if it were to happen.
Each US general election comes to be so much more important than any other global issues. And US citizens need to be a lot more vigilant than they have been so far.
I hope if not for anything else, Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) will be the next president. The world will be a better place than otherwise if it were to happen.
Each US general election comes to be so much more important than any other global issues. And US citizens need to be a lot more vigilant than they have been so far.
8
I would appreciate it if Paul would explain his position on growth. Many believe that as we approach and exceed planetary limits the economy should be restructured to support sustainability -- prosperity without growth hopefully. As to mechanisms to control climate change, James Hansen is calling for a revenue neutral tax on fossil fuels at the well. Carbon sequestration without cost. Warming and climate are not the only ecological disaster that we face, but it is certainly the most pressing and has a solution ready at hand -- renewable energy, electric cars, etc.
10
The mains source of economic growth is technical change. if LEDs light bulbs replace incandescent, or higher yielding crops replace other varieties, we can get more output from the same land, minerals, factories and workers as before. If we replace coal generators with solar arrays, we can similarly produce just as much output, or more, while diminishing the threat of drowning in our own waste. To equate "sustainability" with "no growth" makes no sense.
6
Mr. Krugman still is ignoring the role that nuclear power needs to play in dramatically reducing carbon emissions. Wind and solar alone cannot replace fossil fuels for electricity generation. Solar currently supplies about 0.4% of the utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S. and wind supplies about 4.4%. Since the sun doesn't shine all of the time and the wind doesn't blow everywhere and all of the time, solar and wind require a backup power source to generate the electricity we need. This backup power currently is supplied predominantly by coal (39%), natural gas (27%) and nuclear (20%) with some contribution from hydroelectric (6%), biomass (2%) and biomass (0.4%). Therefore, expansion of nuclear power is required to replace fossil fuels if we are to do so in the near future. Research into energy storage, mainly batteries and thermal storage is advancing, but storing the vast amount of energy that we use while wind and solar are not generating electricity is impossible in the foreseeable future. For too long the discussion of nuclear power has been dominated by fear-based anti-nuclear ideologues, who are just as much science-deniers as those who deny anthropogenic climate change due to greenhouse gases. We need a serious commitment to expanding nuclear power in this country, and worldwide, to meet the power demands of the future.
4
Fukushima!
1
I meant to say "geothermal (0.4%)" not biomass (0.4%). Sorry for the typo.
What's at stake is nations with much, much larger carbon foot print telling nations with much smaller carbon foot prints how to live. At the heart of it, wealthy white people of the western world trying to control the developing world. They need steel mills not westerners with suitcases of money paying oft corrupt officials to go green.
1
As a Bernie Sanders supporter, I wish to thank you for emphasizing the importance of addressing climate change and why it must be addressed soon.
Supporting Keystone Pipeline is not a position that will help address climate change. Moreover, continuous war and toppling of foreign leaders are not agencies of people who want to save the planet.
Supporting Keystone Pipeline is not a position that will help address climate change. Moreover, continuous war and toppling of foreign leaders are not agencies of people who want to save the planet.
30
MOST URGENT Of all the issues facing the next President will be the survival of the planet. Hillary, I believe, is the only one of the hopefuls who has any significant experience with how to work on climate change. I'm certain that, as Secretary of State, sworn to defend the US, she was privy to security plans to minimize the impact of global climate change on our nation and the world. But, predictably, the GOP seems only interested in generating a great deal of CO2 about Benghazi and her personal computer server. The bad news is that those two problems will not save the planet. But executive action will, if used effectively to enforce and implement environmental laws already on the books. It's a sad commentary on the sabotage of the Congress by GOP extremists with no experience in government and no desire to legislate or to govern. It looks like they'd like to see things really heat up, to the point where climate change will definitely threaten national security globally. If you doubt that, just look at the ongoing stream of refugees that have entered Europe recently and the number who have fled their homelands, made unlivable by war. In fact, the next great military failure will be the GOP's denial that the refugee crisis will be at our shores sooner rather than later, tacitly invited her by the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty, Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free. Will the GOP censor that? How will it protect us?
4
Hillary Clinton’s Complicated Ties to Big Oil
Brian Johnson, Greenpeace | January 20
While it’s true that Clinton’s campaign committee has not taken any money from Exxon or Exxon’s political action committee, it has taken money from fossil fuel lobbyists. Analyzing just Exxon, seven of the company’s lobbyists gave the maximum allowable amount to Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Clinton’s campaign bundlers also have strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. Bundlers act as lobbyists for campaigns, recruiting other people they know to make individual donations. Outside analysis showed that nearly all of the Clinton campaign’s registered bundlers have worked for the fossil fuel industry.
Secretary Clinton clearly understands what it means to truly separate oneself from industry. It only makes sense that she go all the way on dirty energy. That means no money from fossil fuel companies, fossil fuel PACs, fossil fuel executives or board members or lobbyists.
As a presidential candidate, Secretary Clinton was notoriously slow in announcing her stance against the Keystone pipeline. And a pro-Clinton super PAC is already promoting Clinton’s support for natural gas. Which company is the nation’s largest natural gas producer? You guessed it: Exxon.
http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/20/clinton-ties-to-big-oil/
Brian Johnson, Greenpeace | January 20
While it’s true that Clinton’s campaign committee has not taken any money from Exxon or Exxon’s political action committee, it has taken money from fossil fuel lobbyists. Analyzing just Exxon, seven of the company’s lobbyists gave the maximum allowable amount to Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Clinton’s campaign bundlers also have strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. Bundlers act as lobbyists for campaigns, recruiting other people they know to make individual donations. Outside analysis showed that nearly all of the Clinton campaign’s registered bundlers have worked for the fossil fuel industry.
Secretary Clinton clearly understands what it means to truly separate oneself from industry. It only makes sense that she go all the way on dirty energy. That means no money from fossil fuel companies, fossil fuel PACs, fossil fuel executives or board members or lobbyists.
As a presidential candidate, Secretary Clinton was notoriously slow in announcing her stance against the Keystone pipeline. And a pro-Clinton super PAC is already promoting Clinton’s support for natural gas. Which company is the nation’s largest natural gas producer? You guessed it: Exxon.
http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/20/clinton-ties-to-big-oil/
32
If Hillary wins the presidency, do you seriously think that she will turn around with an evil grin, and join the fossil fuel industry? If you do, I have some land in Arizona to sell you. She would be savaged by her own party if she tried to do that. Which she wouldn't ever do, despite what you Hillary-haters and Hillary-conspiracy mongers say.
63
I hope you are right, but I am not very optimistic. It is not turning around with an evil grin that I am afraid of. I fear that Mrs. Clinton will not fight very hard to make significant changes.
2
America is collectively the most greedy country in the world, we have supported a multitude of vicious dictators in an effort to enrich the powerful and the few. Do you really think our rulers really care about carbon emissions? Do you think that if Hillary were elected our governement would make substantive efforts to save the planet? Of course not, Hillary and Congress are bought and paid for by that new hybrid of people that don't think or breath, Corporations.
The only thing that will turn the table on planet killing pollution and carbon emissions is nothing short of a peoples revolution, larger and more sustained than the anti Viet Nam war and Civil Rights demonstrations.
We can no longer listen to the Carbon Barons tell us to Eat Cake, it is time to figuratively cut their heads off. Kill the carbon generating market and let the energy technology market finally move forward unhindered by the Carbon Barons and the fixed energy market.
The only thing that will turn the table on planet killing pollution and carbon emissions is nothing short of a peoples revolution, larger and more sustained than the anti Viet Nam war and Civil Rights demonstrations.
We can no longer listen to the Carbon Barons tell us to Eat Cake, it is time to figuratively cut their heads off. Kill the carbon generating market and let the energy technology market finally move forward unhindered by the Carbon Barons and the fixed energy market.
18
Funny, because we're also delivering hand-over-fist an incredible amount of cash to people outside this country. That means we are altruistically sacrificing the wealth earned by so-called "greed". So it balances, right?
1
It is refreshing that Mr. Krugman is talking about the environment, but without a scientific background. If you look at all the sciences together, it is clear that global warming is only one of a host of problems that result from our out of control exploitation of earth's resources. Since the evolution of the species millennia ago we have been pushing aside natural limits to growth and have during my lifetime more than tripled earth's population. Now we have hit the earth's limits - lots of them at once - and one of them is bound to take us down. Our solutions are too little, too late. It feels truly unbelievable to conclude, as I have been forced to conclude, that civilization is in the process of violently coming apart, but the conclusion is inevitable. We are in the end animals operating on the basis of emotion and built-in reactions. For all practical purposes, psychologists have found, reason can be discounted as a driver of behavior. It doesn't matter who wins the election.
6
Psychologists have found reason can be discarded, as evidenced by the fact that 60% of the psycho literature irreproducible, thus rendering the entire literature a steaming pile.
Quoting "psychologists studies" to support any position is laughable.
References
Open Science Collaboration. Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 (2015).
Show context
Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012)
ArticlePubMedChemPort
Show context
Quoting "psychologists studies" to support any position is laughable.
References
Open Science Collaboration. Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 (2015).
Show context
Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012)
ArticlePubMedChemPort
Show context
Perhaps, maybe even probably, you're correct about our long term prospects. It is however foolish to say that it doesn't matter who wins the election. It's as simple as do we try to save ourselves or do we accelerate the fall.
Dr. Krugman is right, Sec. Clinton will, e-mail issues allowing, be the Party's nominee and the stakes this election are very high. Which is why I wish that, before her coronation was announced, she had done more to reassure as to her ability to win actual votes in swing states than roll over an unknown, elderly, self-identified socialist from a minor northern state in an odd southern state where Jessie Jackson has won twice. Clearly, this primary process has been fixed by the Party's establishment from the beginning. At this point, I'm rootin' for them. I hope they haven't put the Party, the country &, as Dr. Krugman points out, the world at unnecessary risk. If they have, I really hope they get lucky.
6
The railroads are shutting down famous routes, such as the Clinchfield and what is left of the Virginian. Why? Coal is being replaced rapidly by natural gas. Obama did not need to say a word about the changes: he only can claim credit. But to go farther now and get rid of all power plants and say batteries will let us use solar at night? No way for the next 25-50 years. Even electric cars will require traditional electric generation plants.
1
Yes, Dr. K., our planet is on the ballot. And the freak show taking place on one side of the aisle is enough to scare the heebie-jeebies out of the other side of the aisle. The fate of our planet hangs in the balance. In five months the DNC and RNC conventions will nominate their candidates for the Presidency (and Vice-Presidency) and meanwhile, we, like you are hanging on by our fingernails in the hope that effective action on climate change will take place. Already the die is cast. Renewable sources of energy have been born, and the "energy miracle" is afoot, electricity generated by wind and sun are no longer pipe dreams. All well and good. Fossil fuels are dying, as they have been dying since they were born - see how North Dakota is now in durance vile by the failure of the "Gold Rush" fracking dream bubble. It is the great nations of India and China which have contributed to the pollution of our air and water and no amount of legislating their climate controls will make a whit of difference in the fate of our planet.
1
What isn't greatly realized is that if not for Ronald Reagan canceling research that Presidents Ford and Carter had started in the 70s, this entire discussion would be moot. The United States would today be completely energy independent and would be the world's largest green energy and green technology exporter. All this - every single renewable - would have been available at least 20 years ago, and the rest of the world would've followed suit. One can only guess what the political environment worldwide would be now. RR destroyed that entire possible future with no more than a flick of a pen, since all the funding for the research had been done through Executive Orders. (it was actually routed through the funding to the National Science Foundation)
2
Professor Krugman envisions a tidy presidential race between Trump the Republican and Clinton the Democrat. I'm not so sure.
The Republican establishment is still terrified of Trump, and will do everything it can - if in fact it can do anything - to bring about a brokered convention that will deny Trump the nomination. Paul Ryan's name has already been bandied about as the "acceptable" Republican that might come out of such a convention.
That would leave Trump with the choice of dropping out or running as a third-party candidate. I don't see him dropping out.
And if Sanders can't viably win after Super Tuesday, what will his supporters do? Would an independent run by Sanders be out of the question?
I rarely disagree with Professor Krugman, but in this case I do. I don't see the rest of this presidential race being tidy at all. Whatever happens, it will be a train wreck.
The Republican establishment is still terrified of Trump, and will do everything it can - if in fact it can do anything - to bring about a brokered convention that will deny Trump the nomination. Paul Ryan's name has already been bandied about as the "acceptable" Republican that might come out of such a convention.
That would leave Trump with the choice of dropping out or running as a third-party candidate. I don't see him dropping out.
And if Sanders can't viably win after Super Tuesday, what will his supporters do? Would an independent run by Sanders be out of the question?
I rarely disagree with Professor Krugman, but in this case I do. I don't see the rest of this presidential race being tidy at all. Whatever happens, it will be a train wreck.
6
"Would an independent run by Sanders be out of the question?"
Yes it would be, and he has said so. He has more sense than some of his supporters who would rather let a Republican in than vote for Hillary. Why do you think he didn't run third party?
Yes it would be, and he has said so. He has more sense than some of his supporters who would rather let a Republican in than vote for Hillary. Why do you think he didn't run third party?
10
Sanders has said in more than one occasion that he is not going to run as an independent.
Hell if he wanted to run as a third party, he could have do just that without joining the Democrats to participate in their primary.
Hell if he wanted to run as a third party, he could have do just that without joining the Democrats to participate in their primary.
2
But why would capitalism ever concern itself with the environment when it is too busy consuming it? Although it is comforting to hope a future Clinton or Trump would change environmental issues, to imagine it actually happening involves delusion. Where is there a reason to believe Clinton (and even less so) Trump would work to protect the environment? (Honestly, placing 'Trump' and 'the environment' in the same sentence is comical juxtaposition in itself.) Neither Clinton nor Trump wholly have the American people's physical and economic in mind, but they sure have capitalism, supporting what is best for the coorporations that are supporting them in this election.
The only candidate not backed by corporate money is Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate that almost everyone fails to mention (even in an article recognizing the 'deadly serious' stakes of environmental action...). Although Dr. Stein is running for the Green Party and it might be assumed she is only concerned with the environment, her platform reaches far beyond environmental issues. Her political ideas are practical enough for implementation and radical enough to stimulate change. If one laughs at the mere mentioning of an under dog, unorthodox Green Party candidate winning the election, before I got stick to my stomach, I was laughing about Trump too. Trump's success shows that Americans are looking for a drastically-different, new voice. That voice could be Dr. Stein, who works for people, not corporations...
The only candidate not backed by corporate money is Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate that almost everyone fails to mention (even in an article recognizing the 'deadly serious' stakes of environmental action...). Although Dr. Stein is running for the Green Party and it might be assumed she is only concerned with the environment, her platform reaches far beyond environmental issues. Her political ideas are practical enough for implementation and radical enough to stimulate change. If one laughs at the mere mentioning of an under dog, unorthodox Green Party candidate winning the election, before I got stick to my stomach, I was laughing about Trump too. Trump's success shows that Americans are looking for a drastically-different, new voice. That voice could be Dr. Stein, who works for people, not corporations...
8
Sabrina,
While it's fun to root for an underdog, as in sports for example, elections have real consequences as Dr. Krugman points out. You need to be more strategic. Dr. Stein has zero chance of becoming president.
While it's fun to root for an underdog, as in sports for example, elections have real consequences as Dr. Krugman points out. You need to be more strategic. Dr. Stein has zero chance of becoming president.
1
After being a life-long Democrat, I switched to the Green Party a few years ago. But I switched back so I could vote for Bernie Sanders - and I will come November.
1
When I think of what could have been done since the 70's oil crisis, but what we did instead with trickle-up economics, I shake my head The innovation, re-tooling, and renewal of our energy economy could have yielded profits and growth for the entire economy. We instead chose to support the vested interests, pour more money into propped up dictators in the Middle East, and even go to war, rather than kick the oil habit. We have lost our edge and are falling behind the rest of the world. How can we change this? Campaign finance reform is the first step. The people must reclaim their government from the corporations. Nothing will change for the better until we do.
111
There are probably a significant number of citizens who consider themselves Republicans, but who believe that global warming from greenhouse gases is real. These Republicans, who may be very conservative and reactionary on many issues, can be freed from the lock-step G.O.P. adherence to protecting the fossil fuel industry.
In the 2016 political campaign, we need to address only three issues to persuade these moderates -- realists is a better word – to vote differently in local, state and congressional elections. Some may even change their presidential choice.
The three environmental issues which Democrats should be stressing are the urgency of government action here at home, the fact that American leadership will have a positive effect even if greenhouse gases are continuing to increase around the world, and that taking action will not have a harmful net effect on American jobs.
Republicans are no different than other Americans is their human tendency to procrastinate, and they must be persuaded that procrastination is not an option on reducing carbon emissions.
Secondly, we need to remove the argument that American action is futile if the rest of the world does not change. The rest of the world will have no choice to alter behavior, if we lead.
Finally, we need to show that domestic job creation will occur in the United States, as we change our energy industries, to offset many losses in the coal mines and oil fields.
We can do this. We must do this.
In the 2016 political campaign, we need to address only three issues to persuade these moderates -- realists is a better word – to vote differently in local, state and congressional elections. Some may even change their presidential choice.
The three environmental issues which Democrats should be stressing are the urgency of government action here at home, the fact that American leadership will have a positive effect even if greenhouse gases are continuing to increase around the world, and that taking action will not have a harmful net effect on American jobs.
Republicans are no different than other Americans is their human tendency to procrastinate, and they must be persuaded that procrastination is not an option on reducing carbon emissions.
Secondly, we need to remove the argument that American action is futile if the rest of the world does not change. The rest of the world will have no choice to alter behavior, if we lead.
Finally, we need to show that domestic job creation will occur in the United States, as we change our energy industries, to offset many losses in the coal mines and oil fields.
We can do this. We must do this.
12
The elephant in the race is that in each state that has caucused or primaried so far, the Democratic turnout has been lower than 2008; and the Republican turnout has been at record levels. The proven voter enthusiasm, so far, is on the Republican side.
Sanders and Clinton, the whole Democratic Party, and everyone who does not want a Trump, Rubio or Cruz presidency, have to urgently figure this out.
Sanders and Clinton, the whole Democratic Party, and everyone who does not want a Trump, Rubio or Cruz presidency, have to urgently figure this out.
50
Obama. That's why.
Yes, and add to that voter suppression legislation in the South and in Northern states like Ohio, and the outlook is pretty grim for hundreds of thousands of voters.
1
Bernie has been inspiring young voters as much as Obama did back in 2008. Hillary does not do well in this group, at all. In SC what we saw was a failure for the voters to get to know Bernie well, for reasons that are complex-- among many others, ranging from name recognition, to Hillary's assurance to voters that she was Obama incarnate, and to an indifference of voters to someone who would not pander to organized religion, a secular white Jew.
By attaching herself to Obama's coat tails or apron strings whichever analogy works for you, Hillary is trying hard to assure African american voters that she is the one who will keep black interests at heart. Her motives are suspect. She is also trying to bring out women voters, especially African American women. If Hillary is the nominee, Bernie supporters might not turn out for Hillary. I myself would consider holding my nose to vote for her, but my millennial kids might just not vote for her, they have valid reasons.
By attaching herself to Obama's coat tails or apron strings whichever analogy works for you, Hillary is trying hard to assure African american voters that she is the one who will keep black interests at heart. Her motives are suspect. She is also trying to bring out women voters, especially African American women. If Hillary is the nominee, Bernie supporters might not turn out for Hillary. I myself would consider holding my nose to vote for her, but my millennial kids might just not vote for her, they have valid reasons.
1
A point that most are missing is that technology (better solar, wind and conservation) has already brought an energy revolution.
The revolution is about to accelerate, as electrically-powered cars become more common, leading to a rapid decline in the usefulness of oil over the next decade, summarized concisely here by Bloomberg Business: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/
This revolution can't be stopped by the Koch Brothers or the rest of the hydrocarbon lobby, even as they cling desperately to the subsidies and preferences they've enjoyed for decades. But we really won't need them anymore, and other businesses (Tesla, Toyota, GM, etc, etc) will eat their lunch. Wall Street, currently in an odd funk over oil prices, will quickly sign on to the new opportunities.
With the passing of Justice Scalia, the 4-4 SCOTUS is unlikely to do anything with its unprecedented stay of President Obama's CO2 regulations. An Obama/Clinton/Sanders appointee to the Court will allow those sensible regulations to go into effect.
It's now just a matter of time.
But don't forget to vote in November!
The revolution is about to accelerate, as electrically-powered cars become more common, leading to a rapid decline in the usefulness of oil over the next decade, summarized concisely here by Bloomberg Business: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/
This revolution can't be stopped by the Koch Brothers or the rest of the hydrocarbon lobby, even as they cling desperately to the subsidies and preferences they've enjoyed for decades. But we really won't need them anymore, and other businesses (Tesla, Toyota, GM, etc, etc) will eat their lunch. Wall Street, currently in an odd funk over oil prices, will quickly sign on to the new opportunities.
With the passing of Justice Scalia, the 4-4 SCOTUS is unlikely to do anything with its unprecedented stay of President Obama's CO2 regulations. An Obama/Clinton/Sanders appointee to the Court will allow those sensible regulations to go into effect.
It's now just a matter of time.
But don't forget to vote in November!
53
So Dr. Krugman--do you think Hillary should release transcripts of her speeches to special interests or keep them secret? I know, we aren't supposed to bring that up. But now that she is your presumptive nominee, I would think you would want to get that issue out of the way before Trump gets his teeth into her. And make no mistake about it, he will.
I know, we are talking about the environment and how much better Hillary will be then Trump on this issue. Remind me--has she or the Foundation taken speaking fees/contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Never mind. I am sure it would not affect her judgment. As for her support of fracking--sorry I brought it up.
Pillaring Trump and the Republicans is not going to elect Hillary. You need to get tough on your favorite candidate and make her disclose those transcripts, just like your employer advocated last week. Silence is complicity for secrecy and unlike Sanders, Trump won't be so nice.
You are preaching to the choir when criticizing Trump and the Republicans. But come November, the choir is going to include another choir that absolutely hates Hillary and the Establishment politics she represents and is funded by.
Any chance you might get on board with Sanders before its too late? Didn't think so.
I know, we are talking about the environment and how much better Hillary will be then Trump on this issue. Remind me--has she or the Foundation taken speaking fees/contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Never mind. I am sure it would not affect her judgment. As for her support of fracking--sorry I brought it up.
Pillaring Trump and the Republicans is not going to elect Hillary. You need to get tough on your favorite candidate and make her disclose those transcripts, just like your employer advocated last week. Silence is complicity for secrecy and unlike Sanders, Trump won't be so nice.
You are preaching to the choir when criticizing Trump and the Republicans. But come November, the choir is going to include another choir that absolutely hates Hillary and the Establishment politics she represents and is funded by.
Any chance you might get on board with Sanders before its too late? Didn't think so.
161
Why do you hate Hillary so much? She took the fee that they offered for her speeches. She likes money. I do too. I don't know about St. Bernie, since he didn't draw a regular paycheck until he was forty years old. There has never been anything proven against her. Just a lot of slurs and assumptions. So much of it is blatantly sexist. I know I won't change your mind about her, so I won't try. I'm just pointing a few things out to anyone who might be open-minded enough to realize that Hillary is a progressive's friend. Please stop drinking the Republican Kool-Aid.
5
Sanders is an amateur that never had a chance. No socialist will ever lead america. Thank god for that.
3
Personally if I were Hillary I would refuse to do so unless the Republicans all released all of their private speeches ... The demand that Hillary release all of her private speeches is just a demand for opposition-research discovery. Obviously the Bernie fans want it ... obviously the Republicans want it more.
You aren't going to hear any Republican's talking about private speeches ... except through the BernieBro catspaw.
You aren't going to hear any Republican's talking about private speeches ... except through the BernieBro catspaw.
4
The only thing scarier than climate change is that we have probably already selected the two candidates who will be running against one another in the general election after only four states have voted in the primaries.
24
This column and most others that discuss the fate of the planet never address agriculture as one of our principal problems, and solutions, to climate change. If you google "4 per 1000", you will find that changing the way we treat our soils is one of the largest, least expensive, and most effective ways to reverse climate change. We need to stop the plowing that releases large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, and practice no-till practices that do not use toxic herbicides. We need to end the use of microbe-killing chemicals on our fields, so that soil microbes can do their natural job of turning the sugars produced from photo-synthesis into soil carbon, effectively sequestering the carbon from the atmosphere back into the soil. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is a shill for Monsanto and the chemical companies that thrive on the planet-altering chemical farming. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that understands that we must address our farming practices. as well as fossil fuel emissions, if we are to truly make a change in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
Paul Krugman would do well to take a look at what the soil scientists, and the French Minister of Agriculture, and HRH Prince Charles and others have to say about healthy soils saving our planet.
Paul Krugman would do well to take a look at what the soil scientists, and the French Minister of Agriculture, and HRH Prince Charles and others have to say about healthy soils saving our planet.
55
Current no-till as practiced in large scale, commercial agriculture depends on heavy applications of glycophate herbicides (Roundup, etc.) to control weeds from, as opposed to plowing them under. Later applications of herbicide replace hand weeding / cultivating - both prohibitively labor intensive and expensive for feed crops.
In early spring, after mowing last seasons stubble, fields are sprayed. It's pretty weird to drive through the country side around here (NC) and see field after field dead and brown in early spring when road banks and yards are are bright green; a few weeks later you can see the first sprouts of row crops peeking up out of the brown.
There are plenty of good no-till, no-herbicide techniques for vegetables and fresh produce; but for corn, cotton, soy beans, or wheat it's just too much acreage for mulching to be practical; and if the prior year's crop leaves enough cover to prevent weeds it's also about enough cover to prevent successful planting.
In early spring, after mowing last seasons stubble, fields are sprayed. It's pretty weird to drive through the country side around here (NC) and see field after field dead and brown in early spring when road banks and yards are are bright green; a few weeks later you can see the first sprouts of row crops peeking up out of the brown.
There are plenty of good no-till, no-herbicide techniques for vegetables and fresh produce; but for corn, cotton, soy beans, or wheat it's just too much acreage for mulching to be practical; and if the prior year's crop leaves enough cover to prevent weeds it's also about enough cover to prevent successful planting.
3
I agree that soil management practices are important, but obviously the largest driver of climate change is not soil practices, it is the burning of fossil fuels.
Not only are you incorrect about Hillary's being "a shill" for Monsanto (she is NOT), she had an excellent environmental voting record in the Senate, as evidenced by her League of Conservation Voters score, which only dipped down into the high 80 percents during 2008 when she missed a few votes because she was running against Barack Obama for the Presidency.
Not only are you incorrect about Hillary's being "a shill" for Monsanto (she is NOT), she had an excellent environmental voting record in the Senate, as evidenced by her League of Conservation Voters score, which only dipped down into the high 80 percents during 2008 when she missed a few votes because she was running against Barack Obama for the Presidency.
3
Thank you!
Quite right, Prof. Krugman, this is by far the most important issue in this election. With each passing year the frightening consequences of burning fossil fuels come more clearly into focus yet the Republican party continues to deny the near unanimous agreement among scientists that we must change our ways and soon.
Thank you for writing about this and knocking down the myth that carbon-free energy will destroy the economy.
A scientist.
Thank you for writing about this and knocking down the myth that carbon-free energy will destroy the economy.
A scientist.
33
There may today, Paul, be a 97% chance that your candidate will get elected, but there is a 100% chance that, according to her own emails, she instructed her closest aides to break the law and strip SAC-level documents of their security headers and send them to her HOME.
I wouldn't be so sure of your odds until Director Comey has had his say. He doesn't have to indict Hillary. My guess is that a case against Jake, Cheryl or Huma would effectively cause the party to ask her to stop her bid.
Wait, I take that back. With DWS at the helm and every pol committed to maintaining their office, they may not. And that might make your hope for a greener planet go up in smoke.
I wouldn't be so sure of your odds until Director Comey has had his say. He doesn't have to indict Hillary. My guess is that a case against Jake, Cheryl or Huma would effectively cause the party to ask her to stop her bid.
Wait, I take that back. With DWS at the helm and every pol committed to maintaining their office, they may not. And that might make your hope for a greener planet go up in smoke.
7
re "according to her own emails, she instructed her closest aides to break the law and strip SAC-level documents of their security headers and send them to her HOME."
This is just baseless conjecture spurred by relentless GOP anti Clinton propaganda.
This is just baseless conjecture spurred by relentless GOP anti Clinton propaganda.
3
As I've commented below, I agree wholeheartedly with the climate change portion of your article.
As to the Clinton coronation - not so much.
Just checked back in with the "prediction market" link - predictwise.com - which you give as support for your astonishing assertion that Hillary "has it " with a 96% probability after her South Carolina "blowout".
Sorry - predictwise also predicted that "Revenant" would win the Oscar over "Spotlight" 75% to 14%. Ooops.
As to the Clinton coronation - not so much.
Just checked back in with the "prediction market" link - predictwise.com - which you give as support for your astonishing assertion that Hillary "has it " with a 96% probability after her South Carolina "blowout".
Sorry - predictwise also predicted that "Revenant" would win the Oscar over "Spotlight" 75% to 14%. Ooops.
34
I still remember when we got rid of leaded gas. Seems it took about 18 months to turn it over. Time for the US to ban internal combustion engines and get rid of all coal plants. Phase that over 5-10 years. Time to make chemical companies stop producing certain pesticides to start with. We did ban DDT quickly and the world didn't fall apart. We can do it.
18
The negative effects on health of leaded gas were well known in the 1920's. New York City, New Jersey and Philadelphia even banned it briefly. But collusion between oil companies and the Coolidge administration resulted in a bogus study which found that leaded gas presented "no danger," and the bans were lifted. It was only in 1986 that leaded gas was finally banned in the US.
Wired magazine has a brief version of a longer article on the subject that appeared in The Nation.
http://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-h...
Wired magazine has a brief version of a longer article on the subject that appeared in The Nation.
http://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-h...
2
Yet another aside that- even though only a tiny fraction of the voters have cast ballots- that Hillary is a shoo-in and we shouldn't even consider Bernie. Iowa and South Carolina get to pick the president and you're fine with that. I told myself I'd give $10.00 every time I heard or read someone slip in a line about how, "While Bernie can't win..", or "Since Hillary is going to win for sure..."
I find myself going broke. I'm inundated daily by these little subliminal messages that I'm wasting my vote for someone that wants the whole system to change. Pie-in-the-sky. Maybe our only hope we have is pie-in-the-sky.
I find myself going broke. I'm inundated daily by these little subliminal messages that I'm wasting my vote for someone that wants the whole system to change. Pie-in-the-sky. Maybe our only hope we have is pie-in-the-sky.
29
I'm good with pie-in-the-sky. That's what got explorers exploring, inventors inventing, or anyone getting married, having kids, reaching into the future. Our Founding Fathers reached for the stars, in the face of overwhelming odds. Again, can you imagine Dr. King shouting, "Follow me, I have half a dream!" Dr. Krugman, I have been a fan of yours for years. I must respectfully disagree with your coronation of HRC. She' s another slimy pol, albeit in a skirt. If not Bernie, then we wait until the whole thing blows up and rebuild from the ashes.
1
During a primary season that has surprised everyone, no one should glibly quote the "prediction markets" as sure indicators of the future. These are the same markets that predicted Jeb Bush and his $130M would conquer the Republican field. And...it's still February.
16
NO NO Professor Krugman, it should still be the economy and the mounting debt which should be on the ballot, cupid. Tell me why the national economic security and paying down the debt does not matter and instead under the pretext of propping your candidate, the planet is of foremost importance above and beyond clean air, clean water and reduction of industrial and individual pollution. That is already an agency assigned to ensure that, why does a Nobel laureate for Economics need to prioritize it. Tell me how the debt can be eliminated and borrowing ceased or find another planet.
4
Because the agency -- the EPA -- assigned to ensure reductions in industrial pollution, is being fought tooth and nail, and often successfully, by the Republican Party. At least one GOP candidate for president wants to abolish the EPA.
2
If Il Duce Trump were to win the White House the planet and all her sentient beings would lose. Cap-and-trade is not a good system because the main beneficiaries are not the people. A better carbon-reduction methodology is the Fee and Dividend supported by James Hansen, Bill McKibben and some US representatives.
There is also the proposal of a Tierra Fee and Dividend social system that, based upon social, climate and monetary justice, would transform the present unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system into a just, sustainable and, therefore, stable international monetary system by basing it on the monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of this carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
There is also the proposal of a Tierra Fee and Dividend social system that, based upon social, climate and monetary justice, would transform the present unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system into a just, sustainable and, therefore, stable international monetary system by basing it on the monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of this carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
5
If only the Supremes didn't appoint W President, this wouldn't be a problem. Gore had a clear vision of the problem and was intent on solving it. But After Al won the election, the Supremes decided to take the Presidency from him and give it to W who gave us a Mid-East in constant violent turmoil and an economy that tanked. Now we are confronted with a Blabber Mouth bully who thinks he can control the world. And Y'all know that leader of the Senate, ole boy Mitch will never allow a reasonable Justice to be appointed to the court no matter who is elected President. Whatever will be left of the Republican Party after this nominating process will be bitter and angrier than now. So let's be clear. The fight to save the planet will be a momentous struggle against those who don't care about anything but some insane ideology. I say bring it on and let the games begin. I am with you Paul!
36
Death, taxes, laundry, pregnancy, war, and a climate that's out of whack. Aldous Huxley was prescient when he wrote Brave New World (1931). But he knew more about biological science than about psychology. The new stratified societies he imagined were created by cloning and gene manipulation. But we have mind-bent clones already today without all that complex Jurassic Park stuff.
And while we're fulminating about immigration, let's remember that some LEGAL immigrants have a much more toxic effect on society than the illegals. I give you Rupert Murdoch and his mind-numbing machine.
And while we're fulminating about immigration, let's remember that some LEGAL immigrants have a much more toxic effect on society than the illegals. I give you Rupert Murdoch and his mind-numbing machine.
35
You are so right Paul. This is our planet that we are jeopardizing by giving any validity to the circus on the right. The death warrant is drafted and is in danger of being signed.
8
Still agnostic about it. I know that people are very convinced one way or another, but almost all of them have as much climatology training as I do -none. The media is convinced, but there are climatologists on both sides. As it cannot be proved experimentally, and the less than inexorable logic of it has not overwhelmed me the way other scientific theories have (and I could be wrong about them too), I'm not making up my mind because most people or even scientists say so, because there is apparently no ether and you can definitely split an atom, and many brilliant scientists believed in the former and did not believe in the latter. As Einstein pointed out, early on, belief in relativity also seemed linked to party affiliation. But, whether I think is not going to affect the reality just as the fact that some people did not believe there were exoplanets did not mean they weren't there. More likely than through political pressure, levels of carbon emission will fall if technology allows sufficient cheap power and energy so that we no longer need to rely on fossil fuels. Because in the end, the economics of the matter will probably control (though extreme weather could affect the economy). If reduction of carbon emissions leads to a significant lowering of the temperature trend while I'm alive, I will probably be convinced, rightly or wrongly, whatever the theories. Obviously, my agnosticism will not satisfy those who are sure they know.
2
David,
Climate change can be proved using computer modeling. This form of proof was first used, to my knowledge, to prove Euler's Four Color Theorem in 1976. Euler theorized that all you needed would be four colors to color a map. The model, developed by Appel and Haken was run hundreds of thousands of times.
Although climate change is a more complex problem, weather models are getting better. These have encorporated induced climate theories and many have been proved.
Climate change can be proved using computer modeling. This form of proof was first used, to my knowledge, to prove Euler's Four Color Theorem in 1976. Euler theorized that all you needed would be four colors to color a map. The model, developed by Appel and Haken was run hundreds of thousands of times.
Although climate change is a more complex problem, weather models are getting better. These have encorporated induced climate theories and many have been proved.
5
That carbon dioxide is a green house gas is an inexorable fact. That we're increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a inexorable fact. That the warming up of the earth (which is a small trend masked by the large annual variations in the weather) has been measured - the signal in all the noise - is an inexorable fact. What is not known is in detail how this global warming is going to impact some area or other of the earth.
To remain agnostic in the face of inexorable facts is an abdication of responsibility of sorts.
To remain agnostic in the face of inexorable facts is an abdication of responsibility of sorts.
7
David -- I'm a scientist, an atmospheric physicist who has done a considerable amount of "climate science" and now does hurricane research.
Why did I shift into hurricane research? Because all the reasonably-easy problems in "climate science" are solved (particularly so in atmospheric radiation transfer, the area I was working in), time to move on. This includes all the "really big issues" that need to be known to do policy, and because of that funding is in fact decreasing ... in the US and around the world. That is rational.
No one but cranks argue now over the fundamentals. Science always has a few cranks in any field; often these are older scientists who are sadly going down the pre-Alzheimers path -- it's also a peculiarity common to physics that "big thinkers" in high-energy physics have a propensity to become elderly cranks in areas of applied physics where their crankery consists of over-simplifying and refusing to look at data from other disciplines.
If you want to study the math and the physics, you too will either become convinced, or you will win a Nobel prize and the undying gratitude of the fossil fuel industries for proving the contrary. I do not expect the latter.
You will not experience a reversal of the climate trends in your lifetime -- further warming is inexorable for at least 200 years, even if we cut manmade CO2 to zero tomorrow. (not happening folks!). It is only the rate of that increase and it's ultimate plateau that we control now.
Why did I shift into hurricane research? Because all the reasonably-easy problems in "climate science" are solved (particularly so in atmospheric radiation transfer, the area I was working in), time to move on. This includes all the "really big issues" that need to be known to do policy, and because of that funding is in fact decreasing ... in the US and around the world. That is rational.
No one but cranks argue now over the fundamentals. Science always has a few cranks in any field; often these are older scientists who are sadly going down the pre-Alzheimers path -- it's also a peculiarity common to physics that "big thinkers" in high-energy physics have a propensity to become elderly cranks in areas of applied physics where their crankery consists of over-simplifying and refusing to look at data from other disciplines.
If you want to study the math and the physics, you too will either become convinced, or you will win a Nobel prize and the undying gratitude of the fossil fuel industries for proving the contrary. I do not expect the latter.
You will not experience a reversal of the climate trends in your lifetime -- further warming is inexorable for at least 200 years, even if we cut manmade CO2 to zero tomorrow. (not happening folks!). It is only the rate of that increase and it's ultimate plateau that we control now.
6
"sacrificing the planet in the name of conservative ideology." is adopting "the language of our enemies". Kissinger warned that our planning could be perverted when our adversaries governed the metaphor. Because they call themselves conservatives makes us mindful of the National Socialist Party.
We need an economist tackle the cost justification of abandoning hydrocarbons as a National Security item, and as a budgetary item. How much do Americans spend on the externalities of hydrocarbon dependence? How much of our military spending is devoted to protecting our hydrocarbon interests? How much of our healthcare spending is a consequence of exposure to hydrocarbon products and pollution? What are the total tax exemptions, grants, and credits to fossil fuels that decrease our total tax revenues? How much money could be saved if our energy was generated from renewable sources in America? How much would America have to invest to achieve a shift to renewable energy? What would the timeline be on a return on such an investment be if America treated such a reform as a National Security priority? Americans deserve to know.
Trump does not factor into any rational approach to global warming. Clinton can be relied on to embrace change. Sanders can be relied on to provide the blueprint of change and provide the popular base to convince enough Americans to the facts that non-polluting domestic energy will increase our assets and decrease our liabilities.
We need an economist tackle the cost justification of abandoning hydrocarbons as a National Security item, and as a budgetary item. How much do Americans spend on the externalities of hydrocarbon dependence? How much of our military spending is devoted to protecting our hydrocarbon interests? How much of our healthcare spending is a consequence of exposure to hydrocarbon products and pollution? What are the total tax exemptions, grants, and credits to fossil fuels that decrease our total tax revenues? How much money could be saved if our energy was generated from renewable sources in America? How much would America have to invest to achieve a shift to renewable energy? What would the timeline be on a return on such an investment be if America treated such a reform as a National Security priority? Americans deserve to know.
Trump does not factor into any rational approach to global warming. Clinton can be relied on to embrace change. Sanders can be relied on to provide the blueprint of change and provide the popular base to convince enough Americans to the facts that non-polluting domestic energy will increase our assets and decrease our liabilities.
9
First, almost ALLl the primaries are ahead of us. Hillary Clinton has merely one decisive victory behind her; so does Bernie Sanders. So... so much for "what's left of the primaries!" What's more polls show us that the Vermont senator leads his opponent nationwide. Second, any serious student of climate change knows that "free trade," of which Clinton is an ardent supporter, is a huge environmental disaster. She only supports policies that benefit her financial benefactors. And she belittled Mr. Sanders for labeling climate change his number one national security concern - which it is.
17
Sanders has no chance.
Hard to keep all the Dems with you when you alienate half of them. It's why all the common sense, reasoning and data have not worked with the Republicans, and now you're cutting out more people. You're going to be an army of one without some minimal pleasantness. You can let go of the horse race, and just discuss the issues. The winner will win without your prognosticating.
4
I'm afraid that Hillary is only an environmentalist when compared to Trump, but that her commitment to slowing, stopping, and reversing climate change will not be sufficient.
This is not a time for compromising with the 1%, who are the market force in destroying our planet. This is not an issue where we need to appease the coal industry, the oil and gas industry, the crackers or the nuclear "it's a great temporary measure" industry. It's time we turn our economy around by investing in renewable energy, in renewable energy jobs, and in renewable energy politics.
This is not a time for compromising with the 1%, who are the market force in destroying our planet. This is not an issue where we need to appease the coal industry, the oil and gas industry, the crackers or the nuclear "it's a great temporary measure" industry. It's time we turn our economy around by investing in renewable energy, in renewable energy jobs, and in renewable energy politics.
20
HDNY, Hillary has an excellent environmental record, as evidenced by her high voting scores with the League of Conservation Voters, so your statement is untrue. I plan to vote for the environmental candidate in November, and it will certainly be Hillary Clinton.
5
Three words: The Walking Dead ( neo conservative economic & Christian fundamentalists).
6
Hillary will probably sell the U.S. to the Chinese (anything for a dollar) and we won't even know it. This is exactly how this woman operates.
2
In my opinion, there is nothing more important than Democrats, and people who care about the planet, put aside our differences and get behind the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. At this point, it looks like Hillary, but even though she is my choice, I would feel the same way if it was Bernie. I've heard all the slurs and tropes against Hillary, and I'm not going to take the space to fight them here. Concerning this topic, what progressives need to remember is that Hillary is a friend of the planet. TrumpCruzRubio is not.
8
When (then) Senator Clinton campaigned in Charles City, Iowa, in 2008, her two-SUV motorcade idled outside her rally for 1 hour and 20 minutes. Being a "friend of the planet" was less important to her than an air-conditioned ride.
4
So now the good Doctor and the NY Times are using climate change as a vehicle to guilt the electorate in to supporting their candidate.
Allow me to paraphrase the author:
'Nice climate you've got there. It'd be ashamed if something happened to it.
Vote for Hillary Clinton because only she and her super delegates will be able to save our good mother earth.'
I say Balderdash. Vote for Bernie Sanders!
Right for the climate and the rest of us too!
Allow me to paraphrase the author:
'Nice climate you've got there. It'd be ashamed if something happened to it.
Vote for Hillary Clinton because only she and her super delegates will be able to save our good mother earth.'
I say Balderdash. Vote for Bernie Sanders!
Right for the climate and the rest of us too!
34
Vote your choice in the primary. Vote Democrat in the election ... if you give a damn about the planet.
2
So Big Business is killing the planet and only the Democrats can stop them. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. Therefore only Hillary Clinton can save the planet?
President Obama tried but could not get much accomplished. I guess you can call the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline a victory but then the EPA released thousands of gallons of poisoned water into a river.
Seems like a wash to me.
Dr. Krugman, Donald Trump seems to be the presumptive Republican candidate for President. Bernie Sanders is polling much stronger against "The Donald". Why do you support Hillary Clinton for President?
I'd like to cast aspersions as to your lack of integrity, that Hillary promised you a nice cushy Cabinet job but I will resist the urge to do so.
Are you ignoring the polls? Do you think millions of Americans are going to come to their senses on election day and NOT vote for Trump? Do you think that millions of Americans who think Hillary is the Devil incarnate are going to start loving her?
Have you even looked at independent voters? They are more willing to support Bernie because Hillary is considered dishonest and untrustworthy by many independents.
You are a smart man Dr. Krugman, I just hope you come to your senses now before you have to write an election post-mortem column analyzing how "The Donald" out of nowhere to win the Presidency.
You don't want to have to write it, I don't want to have to read it.
President Obama tried but could not get much accomplished. I guess you can call the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline a victory but then the EPA released thousands of gallons of poisoned water into a river.
Seems like a wash to me.
Dr. Krugman, Donald Trump seems to be the presumptive Republican candidate for President. Bernie Sanders is polling much stronger against "The Donald". Why do you support Hillary Clinton for President?
I'd like to cast aspersions as to your lack of integrity, that Hillary promised you a nice cushy Cabinet job but I will resist the urge to do so.
Are you ignoring the polls? Do you think millions of Americans are going to come to their senses on election day and NOT vote for Trump? Do you think that millions of Americans who think Hillary is the Devil incarnate are going to start loving her?
Have you even looked at independent voters? They are more willing to support Bernie because Hillary is considered dishonest and untrustworthy by many independents.
You are a smart man Dr. Krugman, I just hope you come to your senses now before you have to write an election post-mortem column analyzing how "The Donald" out of nowhere to win the Presidency.
You don't want to have to write it, I don't want to have to read it.
11
What do conservatives conserve anyways? The Republican party of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act died a long time ago.
27
They conserve their wealth and compassion for themselves.
10
There is nothing more pressing than the environmental issues we face today. Prof. Krugman is right. After all, whether we are talking about climate change, ocean acidity, toxins in the environment, and global environmental degradation, we are talking if not about our very survival, about our children's well-being.
I understand the use of executive orders and there is no doubt whatsoever that a Democratic president would be better from that score, but executive orders can be a two way street if an anti-environmental president is elected.
Executive orders should be used sparingly and not as a substitute for legislation. But, it is the intransigent, obstructionist right-wing Republicans in Congress that are pushing the President to the use of executive orders. Ironically, these same folks are self-described "constitutionalists" who love the constitution but only it seems when it benefits them.
I understand the use of executive orders and there is no doubt whatsoever that a Democratic president would be better from that score, but executive orders can be a two way street if an anti-environmental president is elected.
Executive orders should be used sparingly and not as a substitute for legislation. But, it is the intransigent, obstructionist right-wing Republicans in Congress that are pushing the President to the use of executive orders. Ironically, these same folks are self-described "constitutionalists" who love the constitution but only it seems when it benefits them.
6
Krugman doesn't realize that he advocates a backwards policy. Windmill and solar tech are primitive, lower forms of energy, that are not conducive to a real space program, they doom humanity to being confined to the planet. How can we travel to the stars and explore the galaxy when NASA continues to be underfunded and so called "green" tech is promoted? Krugman believes he's saving the planet by supporting green energy, that he's cutting down on pollution, but he's actually preventing mankind from developing, and in effect supporting an evil Zeus like policy that says humans can't develop more advanced forms of fire. Also, in the name of "protecting the environment" we must live like animals with lower energy sources. And just like animals we must be confined to the planet.
Humanity needs advanced fusion (nuclear) energy to power them on Earth and to the stars, not the so called "green" zero growth policy that Krugman pushes. His vision of a green utopia with zero carbons actually violates natural law by imposing artificial limitations on mankind's technological progress and development! We need a Promethean energy policy!
Humanity needs advanced fusion (nuclear) energy to power them on Earth and to the stars, not the so called "green" zero growth policy that Krugman pushes. His vision of a green utopia with zero carbons actually violates natural law by imposing artificial limitations on mankind's technological progress and development! We need a Promethean energy policy!
1
I'll light up my house with solar, thank you.
1
We'll all be dead before Fusion comes on line, unless, of course, there are interim renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, to get us through to your utopian vision.
3
We already have safe thermonuclear power; it's 93 million miles away and it's called the sun. Solar power and wind power will do the job just fine, especially with the rapid development of energy storage to solve the problem of intermittency.
6
"if the U.S. moves forward on climate action, much of the world will follow our lead."
The Americans haven't led on the environment for forty years. Per capita Americans are by far the worst polluters of all major countries, and that's not going to change after Paris. So there is no American lead to talk about. The Europeans are the leaders, the Asians are the followers, and the Americans - well, they're far back, just trying to do the minimum.
The Americans haven't led on the environment for forty years. Per capita Americans are by far the worst polluters of all major countries, and that's not going to change after Paris. So there is no American lead to talk about. The Europeans are the leaders, the Asians are the followers, and the Americans - well, they're far back, just trying to do the minimum.
22
Dr. Krugman, I believe you are one of the few staying awake at night over climate change. Don't you realize the average citizen has the attention span of a gnat? How can you expect Americans to focus on something they are being told will happen, when they don't have enough science in their experience to see the signs in full view?
I agree with your basic premise: no other issue matters if were suddenly all under water. Our environment is our life source, the air we breathe, the value of our homes, the quality of life we lead, from commuting times, social activities, outdoor sports, and the very fabric of business.
But getting Americans to wake up to this fact - and I mean all Americans not just the " liberal elite" who get up in arms about this stuff anyway - is a Herculean task. The answer lies obviously in electing someone sane for our next president, not an automatic science denier or someone who willappoint Senator Inhofe to head the EPA!
Only one party cares about this and we all know which one it is. It's really now up to the American people isn't it?
I agree with your basic premise: no other issue matters if were suddenly all under water. Our environment is our life source, the air we breathe, the value of our homes, the quality of life we lead, from commuting times, social activities, outdoor sports, and the very fabric of business.
But getting Americans to wake up to this fact - and I mean all Americans not just the " liberal elite" who get up in arms about this stuff anyway - is a Herculean task. The answer lies obviously in electing someone sane for our next president, not an automatic science denier or someone who willappoint Senator Inhofe to head the EPA!
Only one party cares about this and we all know which one it is. It's really now up to the American people isn't it?
22
Clinton will be as solicitous about addressing the problems of climate change as Democratic neo-liberal economists of the last two generations like Krugman have been at addressing inequality (support for "free" trade, financial deregulation, ...). She'll fight as hard to do what is necessary on global warming as she has in dealing with Wall Street. She'll tell everybody to just "cut it out." Clinton will take the problem of AGW like Paul Krugman takes the problem of universal health care: by worrying about the currently stakeholders -- who didn't earn their stakes -- instead of dealing with the problem as it has to be dealt with. And you can see how urgent the non-technical Clinton -- like Obama, like all the Democratic neo-liberal, market mediocrities -- will consider the problem of AGW by parsing how they dealt with what should have been the easy political problem of Keystone XL: silence and tail-tucking for 6 years while waiting for a convenient moment for action that did nothing to change the conversation.
Nothing gets better until the political conversation changes. Krugman and the rest of the neo-liberal Democrats -- like Clinton -- are either too politically stupid to know this or are doing all they can to stop it from happening in order to, like all entrenched interests, preserve their own positions of influence and unearned privilege. There is only one person running for President who is attempting to change the political conversation. It isn't Clinton.
Nothing gets better until the political conversation changes. Krugman and the rest of the neo-liberal Democrats -- like Clinton -- are either too politically stupid to know this or are doing all they can to stop it from happening in order to, like all entrenched interests, preserve their own positions of influence and unearned privilege. There is only one person running for President who is attempting to change the political conversation. It isn't Clinton.
10
Reaganetc: If your reference is to Sanders, I'm compelled to point out that impassioned freshman speeches don't get the job done. I'm embarrassed at how Bernie appears to think he's thought some original thoughts. I'm more embarrassed to see that so many Americans think so too. What a condemnation of our education system! (In Ireland 100 years ago, some patriots called the imperialistic education system the "Murder Machine," meaning that it destroyed young minds.)
2
Educate yourself and learn what a neo-liberal is.
1
Why not offer a lesson or two? Maybe I should give back my Ph.D.?
2
Paul, it seems to me that politics has become more like corporate planning for the short term to maximize executive profits. There's no question that saving the environment is critical in the long run. But politics must concentrate on short-term results, to deliver now in order to get bragging rights for the next re-election cycle. I don't place much faith in Hillary's progressive battles for change. She is of the system, by the system and for the system- in other words she represents the status quo.
33
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the planet is surely doomed because the probably of Donald Trump being president is now almost assured. Clinton has even worse unfavorability ratings than Trump, and will surely the independent voting block.
We are one indictment, or one Wall Street speech transcript away from total and epic disaster. Bernie Sanders is the planet's only hope. He is the only candidate who has linked climate change to the rise of terrorism after the climate-induced "Arab Spring".
We are one indictment, or one Wall Street speech transcript away from total and epic disaster. Bernie Sanders is the planet's only hope. He is the only candidate who has linked climate change to the rise of terrorism after the climate-induced "Arab Spring".
17
Other comments have addressed the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. For me, a serious commitment to act on climate change (and respect for science more broadly) is by far the most important issue facing the nation and the global community today. In the interests of our grandchildren, and coastal communities everywhere, I invite other readers to weigh this issue heavily in determining their vote.
4
I'd invest in a life raft if I were you because oceans are rising while our politicians have been bought off by Exxon Mobile and the "Clean Coal" industry as they now call themselves.
5
Seriously Dr. Kruger? Do you seriously believe that Hilary Clinton and the oligopoly have any intention of taking any substantive steps to address climate change?
From where I sit I see no chance that anything short of a total restructuring of the current economic system will be necessary to replace the carbon energy economy in time to mitigate climate change in any substantive way.
Hilary Clinton is far more likely to pay lip service to climate change mitigation measures than she is to take any effective action. The Republicans of course will do nothing.
It makes no difference if our choice is between no effort to control anthropomorphic climate and too little effort to late.
Our more realistic and pessimistic climatologists say it is very likely already too late to stop major human displacement and suffering. Now is not the time for halfway measures. Cap and trade will not work we need to stop burning any form of carbon energy and massively change how we generate energy. Hilary Clinton and her cronies in the oligopoly will not do this. It will take a major change in how we operate society.
From where I sit I see no chance that anything short of a total restructuring of the current economic system will be necessary to replace the carbon energy economy in time to mitigate climate change in any substantive way.
Hilary Clinton is far more likely to pay lip service to climate change mitigation measures than she is to take any effective action. The Republicans of course will do nothing.
It makes no difference if our choice is between no effort to control anthropomorphic climate and too little effort to late.
Our more realistic and pessimistic climatologists say it is very likely already too late to stop major human displacement and suffering. Now is not the time for halfway measures. Cap and trade will not work we need to stop burning any form of carbon energy and massively change how we generate energy. Hilary Clinton and her cronies in the oligopoly will not do this. It will take a major change in how we operate society.
13
Richard -- nothing like what will be needed will get through a Republican-dominated Congress. You want a 'revolution?' With guns?
Otherwise work to change congress. You are either a Sanders or Trump supporter, I would infer Sanders ... but the point either way is that neither of the two has any plans or means to change congress systematically: to do that involves INVESTING in a party rather than running against it.
Both of them are attempting to cannibalize a party; Trump to far more dangerous ends, but if either is elected the country will have the spectacle of the vast fraction of the legislators of their party openly running against them and refusing to back their policies.
Otherwise work to change congress. You are either a Sanders or Trump supporter, I would infer Sanders ... but the point either way is that neither of the two has any plans or means to change congress systematically: to do that involves INVESTING in a party rather than running against it.
Both of them are attempting to cannibalize a party; Trump to far more dangerous ends, but if either is elected the country will have the spectacle of the vast fraction of the legislators of their party openly running against them and refusing to back their policies.
2
It would be nice if we could recapture some of the CO2 already in the atmosphere, and make a profit doing it.
Paul:
I get your angst. And to a certain extent I share it; especially when viewed thru the eyes of my grand-children, who will inherit the planet from us. But....I'd like to think an old Winston Churchill quote will help?
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
Right now we've been well into the "everything else" phase. But the realization is sinking in...and the phase is fading away as We the People begin to do the right thing. Hell...as you note...we've well underway in that process. Especially since Capitalists have figured out there's "money to be made in that thar solar stuff." Ummm....so to speak.
It's just that most are so caught up in the day to day...laboring in the trenches of life (as it were)....that we don't quite see the fact that the minority opinion, as expressed by a party I no longer consider to be Republican, is going the way of all such past ways of thinking. It is being consigned to the dust-bin of history. This is as sure as the nose on your face. It's just that those, by their lives, expressing the history cannot yet see it for what it is. I'll leave that to the historians. Now let's get back to it shall we?
John~
American Net'Zen
I get your angst. And to a certain extent I share it; especially when viewed thru the eyes of my grand-children, who will inherit the planet from us. But....I'd like to think an old Winston Churchill quote will help?
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
Right now we've been well into the "everything else" phase. But the realization is sinking in...and the phase is fading away as We the People begin to do the right thing. Hell...as you note...we've well underway in that process. Especially since Capitalists have figured out there's "money to be made in that thar solar stuff." Ummm....so to speak.
It's just that most are so caught up in the day to day...laboring in the trenches of life (as it were)....that we don't quite see the fact that the minority opinion, as expressed by a party I no longer consider to be Republican, is going the way of all such past ways of thinking. It is being consigned to the dust-bin of history. This is as sure as the nose on your face. It's just that those, by their lives, expressing the history cannot yet see it for what it is. I'll leave that to the historians. Now let's get back to it shall we?
John~
American Net'Zen
2
I'm so confused.
PK says one thing, Fox News says the opposite.
Who to believe? Who to believe?
PK says one thing, Fox News says the opposite.
Who to believe? Who to believe?
4
Follow the money and then vote the opposite.
4
Maybe President Trump will deport immigrant Rupert Murdoch.
We humans need nature. But more and more it's so clear that nature, in the form of catastrophic natural disasters, is working against humanity. The latest event being the category 5 hurricane which swept through the Fiji Islands, leaving tens of thousands homeless. And will those islands even be there much longer? And how many more US communities have unsafe water?
I am right now watching a beautiful sunrise. I can look out over a small city park. But downtown there is a terrible smokestack belching heaven knows what! It's a very dirty downtown. For a State Capitol, no less!
I agree completely with Paul that our top priority this election season is the future of the planet, our only home as Pope Francis reminded us. And the reason why the make-up of the Supreme Court is also crucial.
Protect the vote!
I am right now watching a beautiful sunrise. I can look out over a small city park. But downtown there is a terrible smokestack belching heaven knows what! It's a very dirty downtown. For a State Capitol, no less!
I agree completely with Paul that our top priority this election season is the future of the planet, our only home as Pope Francis reminded us. And the reason why the make-up of the Supreme Court is also crucial.
Protect the vote!
8
This is what keeps the elites up at night? Millions live paycheck to paycheck, they don't care.
6
What pledges has Hillary made on climate change?
Also, it's carbon taxes we need -- steepening ones -- as cap and trade has already proved highly gameable.
Also, it's carbon taxes we need -- steepening ones -- as cap and trade has already proved highly gameable.
3
You can find Hillary's platform statement here:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
Also note that Hillary ran in 2008 (as did Obama, and McCain!) on a platform of a C&T with "no grandfathering" ... and look at HR2454
I agree entirely with your "cap and trade has already proved highly gameable," almost everywhere it is tried, Europe embarrassingly so.
I would remark that any consideration of either C&T or carbon taxes must deal with two things:
* the reality is to change CO2 emission rates reasonably quickly there will be substantial "stranded assets" -- these are already happening in the electric power industry right now. As CO2 pricing is broadened in will effect transportation (cars) and houses and much more. Owners aren't dumb, they'll fight that stranding tooth-and-nail.
Getting a system in ASAP with low rates, and KNOWN AND FIXED rate rises will reduce sure-to-be-stranded investments today. In this regard a president (with that Bully Pulpit) can do some good simply by warning the public that it will come, in a future presidential term if not this one.
Either C&T or carbon taxes are regressive. Something will need to be done to cushion the impact on the poorest up through the lower middle class. I favor a simple broad carbon tax with the revenues rebated per capita to every adult citizen resident in the US (I would accept a fractional share for children) -- this will make the tax automatically revenue-neutral and progressive.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
Also note that Hillary ran in 2008 (as did Obama, and McCain!) on a platform of a C&T with "no grandfathering" ... and look at HR2454
I agree entirely with your "cap and trade has already proved highly gameable," almost everywhere it is tried, Europe embarrassingly so.
I would remark that any consideration of either C&T or carbon taxes must deal with two things:
* the reality is to change CO2 emission rates reasonably quickly there will be substantial "stranded assets" -- these are already happening in the electric power industry right now. As CO2 pricing is broadened in will effect transportation (cars) and houses and much more. Owners aren't dumb, they'll fight that stranding tooth-and-nail.
Getting a system in ASAP with low rates, and KNOWN AND FIXED rate rises will reduce sure-to-be-stranded investments today. In this regard a president (with that Bully Pulpit) can do some good simply by warning the public that it will come, in a future presidential term if not this one.
Either C&T or carbon taxes are regressive. Something will need to be done to cushion the impact on the poorest up through the lower middle class. I favor a simple broad carbon tax with the revenues rebated per capita to every adult citizen resident in the US (I would accept a fractional share for children) -- this will make the tax automatically revenue-neutral and progressive.
1
Krugman: Thank you for your reliable and articulate sanity--your voice gives me hope. --Pat Onion, Maine
4
Professor Krugman. You are spot on about climate change. You have made no secret of your preference for Secretary Clinton. Which candidate named climate change as the greatest threat to our national security???????
16
Whether we pull the lever for red or blue we are voting for our children's future.
7
I think it's important to vote. Politicians pay attention to votes.
1
"All we need is an executive willing to take that action, and a Supreme Court that won’t stand in its way."
We are a democracy, not China.
We are a democracy, not China.
3
Presumably, the next POTUS will be elected?
Dr. Krugman states correctly that the CPP is within the authority of Executive Action BECAUSE it is within the legislative authority of the Clean Air Act of 1990 (which it should be remarked was a signature achievement of the GHWB, passing the house with only 21 nay votes, 16-R 5-D, one of whom was John Kasich, the man who never found a pollutant he didn't love).
However the regulation of cars & trucks and electric power production is effectively the limit of the CAA, and the regulatory tools of the CAA are not all that well matched to dealing with CO2.
In my judgement Dr. K. is correct that the CPP is "enough to get us going" for perhaps another two 4-year terms ... but not adequate in the long haul and distorting if one attempts to tighten it up too much without dealing with other areas of the economy.
However the regulation of cars & trucks and electric power production is effectively the limit of the CAA, and the regulatory tools of the CAA are not all that well matched to dealing with CO2.
In my judgement Dr. K. is correct that the CPP is "enough to get us going" for perhaps another two 4-year terms ... but not adequate in the long haul and distorting if one attempts to tighten it up too much without dealing with other areas of the economy.
I agree with everything you say Professor Krugman and while you do mention Republican Orthodoxy I believe there is a litany of names that should be mentioned also. We know the Koch Bros. are just really horrible human beings using Libertarianism as their shield. Big oil has known of the dangers of Climate Change for decades and kept their findings hidden. All the usual players except for one name not mentioned by most people, Warren Buffet. Our friendly little rich guy is one of the biggest investors in fighting against Solar Power. In Nevada some of his actions, if generally publicized would tarnish his image and he knows it. He has fought tooth and nail against Solar Company's getting reimbursed for selling power back to energy suppliers to homes and residences getting ANY kind of tax adjustment. His name should be publicized more on this level that what a great investor he is.
18
Thanks for calling out Warren Buffett...his actions in Nevada are shameful and surprising and damaging.
6
The upper East Side of New York City, home of the columnist, a mere 12 000 years ago was covered with a one mile thick sheet of ice.
The planet will be fine.
Green policy, though, will be on the ballot.
The planet will be fine.
Green policy, though, will be on the ballot.
1
Of course the planet and the ecosystem will survive over geological time. The question is whether our civilization will be dramatically disrupted by rising temps and ocean levels. Things will get pretty ugly over the next 50 years. Hopefully a new equilibrium (with a smaller human population) will be reached.
4
Paul, thanks for bringing up the context of geologic time and toning down the rhetoric. Part of the shrillness of the climate change debate comes from the inability for most people to think on time scales that apply to global systems and changes.
As for the size of the human population, ironically that might be the most important thing. Since the 1970's Americans have reduced their total per capita oil consumption by half. But since we more than doubled the population, the total use (and impact) has increased.
As for the size of the human population, ironically that might be the most important thing. Since the 1970's Americans have reduced their total per capita oil consumption by half. But since we more than doubled the population, the total use (and impact) has increased.
1
The planet will always be fine. Human beings, on the other hand....
2
Here's how to talk to your Republican friends about clean energy. Do not mention catastrophe. Just say that clean energy technology is a huge growth industry and that those who take advantage of it will get very rich. In other words, it's an opportunity, not an obstacle.
This is the counterargument to my junior senator's robotic babbling on the subject.
This is the counterargument to my junior senator's robotic babbling on the subject.
11
Bill Clinton proposed a carbon tax in 1993. The Republicans defeated it.
Neil Young warned us and the first Earth Day was in 1970.
Act now!
Neil Young warned us and the first Earth Day was in 1970.
Act now!
4
"Many people, including some who should know better, still seem oddly oblivious to the ongoing revolution in renewable energy."
Let us remember, Clinton supported Keystone until she could no longer get away with it. I will find it difficult to vote for someone with such infallibly poor judgment.
Let us remember, Clinton supported Keystone until she could no longer get away with it. I will find it difficult to vote for someone with such infallibly poor judgment.
15
As Secretary of State, in her official capacity, yes.
2
There is a well established consensus amongst scientists that global warming is happening, and even a consensus as to its cause. However there are diverging opinions on consequences, even within our lifetime. The genie is now out of the bottle but what it will do is still largely speculative where there is little or no consensus. Conceivably our goose is cooked already regardless what we may or may not do. Physicist Stephen Hawking observes ''it is not clear yet that intelligence has any long-term survival value''.
19
Intelligence? Umm, I look around and I see bread and circuses for the ever increasing population.
Thanks for another Hillary Coronation lead-in, Professor.
But back to planet Earth, our slow-roasted Easy Bake Oven home.
Annual global carbon emissions from fossil fuel use are over 30 billion tons.
Climate change deniers suggest that injecting this unbelievable amount of gas into our finite atmosphere has no real impact on the environment.
You'd have to be completely devoid of math, logic and science skills to deny climate change, and Republistan is, which is why Mitch McConnell and the Kochtypus wants a renaissance in coal energy and other 1800's sensibilities to take our country back to the coal mining glory days.
Fossil fuel emissions accounted for 91% of CO2 emissions from manmade sources in 2014 --- coal (42%), oil (33%), natural gas (19%), cement (6%) and gas flaring (1%).
In 2013, the largest national contributions to the net growth in total global emissions were China (58% of the growth), USA (20% of the growth), India (17% of the growth), and European Union (a decrease by 11% of the growth).
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
But last year, renewables accounted for nearly half of all new generating capacity worldwide. Wind and solar generating installations and capacity will continue to multiply and significant cost reductions and business opportunities will occur.
The only idiots opposed to this reality and future is the Grand Opposition Party.
Nice people...trying to roast you, your children and your grandchildren.
Gas Oil Pollution 2016
But back to planet Earth, our slow-roasted Easy Bake Oven home.
Annual global carbon emissions from fossil fuel use are over 30 billion tons.
Climate change deniers suggest that injecting this unbelievable amount of gas into our finite atmosphere has no real impact on the environment.
You'd have to be completely devoid of math, logic and science skills to deny climate change, and Republistan is, which is why Mitch McConnell and the Kochtypus wants a renaissance in coal energy and other 1800's sensibilities to take our country back to the coal mining glory days.
Fossil fuel emissions accounted for 91% of CO2 emissions from manmade sources in 2014 --- coal (42%), oil (33%), natural gas (19%), cement (6%) and gas flaring (1%).
In 2013, the largest national contributions to the net growth in total global emissions were China (58% of the growth), USA (20% of the growth), India (17% of the growth), and European Union (a decrease by 11% of the growth).
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
But last year, renewables accounted for nearly half of all new generating capacity worldwide. Wind and solar generating installations and capacity will continue to multiply and significant cost reductions and business opportunities will occur.
The only idiots opposed to this reality and future is the Grand Opposition Party.
Nice people...trying to roast you, your children and your grandchildren.
Gas Oil Pollution 2016
587
Basically all true ... BUT .. you are missing some fine points and they matter.
In the US virtually ALL of the new capacity installed was EITHER wind and solar renewables OR natural-gas "peaker" plants.
People get confused about what a "megawatt" of these mean to annualized energy production, because they don't understand capacity factors.
In the US wind-power from good sites (bad sites don't get installed) runs CF's of 0.3 to 0.4 .. the latter only at marine sites or really remarkable ones on land.
Solar power runs CFs from about 0.24 "on down" ... the best CFs in the american southwest and the worst CFs set by a lower limit of economic utility/sanity. It doesn't make sense to install solar if the CF will be below 0.15, in almost all cases.
And now, here's the point that a lot of people don't 'get:' peaker plants run rarely. They aren't economic to run unless the price of power is high. Commonly they obtain CFs of 0.05 or so (and they make money at that, only running when the price of electricity spikes).
Once you realize these realities, basically ALL the new capacity coming on line in the US is renewable, and the peaking/backup it needs, but that peaking/backup will not generate much total electricity or CO2.
"Baseline power" doesn't mean anything anymore.
In the US virtually ALL of the new capacity installed was EITHER wind and solar renewables OR natural-gas "peaker" plants.
People get confused about what a "megawatt" of these mean to annualized energy production, because they don't understand capacity factors.
In the US wind-power from good sites (bad sites don't get installed) runs CF's of 0.3 to 0.4 .. the latter only at marine sites or really remarkable ones on land.
Solar power runs CFs from about 0.24 "on down" ... the best CFs in the american southwest and the worst CFs set by a lower limit of economic utility/sanity. It doesn't make sense to install solar if the CF will be below 0.15, in almost all cases.
And now, here's the point that a lot of people don't 'get:' peaker plants run rarely. They aren't economic to run unless the price of power is high. Commonly they obtain CFs of 0.05 or so (and they make money at that, only running when the price of electricity spikes).
Once you realize these realities, basically ALL the new capacity coming on line in the US is renewable, and the peaking/backup it needs, but that peaking/backup will not generate much total electricity or CO2.
"Baseline power" doesn't mean anything anymore.
2
What you you doing personally to reduce your carbon footprint? Now, show up and make sure no Bernie supporter sits on their hands this November.
3
To paraphrase George W. Bush - 'Somtimes money trumps . . . everything'.
Thanks Paul. There is a steely determination in those who would impose God's love on us but not share their own love with the only planet on which they or their children will ever live. Sure, Newt Gingrich had a plan to get some of us to the Moon once the Earth becomes uninhabitable, and some Republican had the same idea about Mars. The GOP plan: Slash and burn.
Of course, none of the resistance to scientific reality has such roaring traction without the loving ministrations of various 501(c)(3) and (4) foundations and super PACs funded by those lovable brothers from Wichita. Trashing the planet for money has its upside for everyone, but because the fellas also spend millions to suffocate progressive tax laws, that upside remains limited.
My generation came of age watching broadcasting icons such as Chet Huntley, Harry Reasoner, and David Brinkley. Walter Cronkite put his career on the line in order to sound the alarm about our costly and bloody adventure in Vietnam. When Rachel Carson wrote, "A Silent Spring," people were alarmed that the pesticides that made their apples less wormy were also smothering the environment in which those apples grew. New information was available, it was propagated by responsible people, and both Republicans and Democrats took heed.
The Clean Water Act, which is still on the books, was signed by Richard Nixon.
Your father's Republican Party favored business but wasn't insane. This year, defeat Charles and David and their deluded minions.
Of course, none of the resistance to scientific reality has such roaring traction without the loving ministrations of various 501(c)(3) and (4) foundations and super PACs funded by those lovable brothers from Wichita. Trashing the planet for money has its upside for everyone, but because the fellas also spend millions to suffocate progressive tax laws, that upside remains limited.
My generation came of age watching broadcasting icons such as Chet Huntley, Harry Reasoner, and David Brinkley. Walter Cronkite put his career on the line in order to sound the alarm about our costly and bloody adventure in Vietnam. When Rachel Carson wrote, "A Silent Spring," people were alarmed that the pesticides that made their apples less wormy were also smothering the environment in which those apples grew. New information was available, it was propagated by responsible people, and both Republicans and Democrats took heed.
The Clean Water Act, which is still on the books, was signed by Richard Nixon.
Your father's Republican Party favored business but wasn't insane. This year, defeat Charles and David and their deluded minions.
185
We must eliminate carbon emissions, this is true. But we cannot in the process constrain energy availability. This distinction gets overlooked in the debate, and you Dr. Krugman make the same mistake.
**Anything that amounts to energy austerity (carbon taxes at the top of the list, but many other policies can have a similar outcome) has the same effect as other forms of economic austerity.** This Congressional Budget Office report thoroughly summarizes the literature https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223 . And as a chart in the CBO report points out, all carbon tax impacts point to "lower output". Not what we need at a time of global weakness.
We also have to be concerned about the Total Factor Productivity challenges which come with renewables--especially as regards transportation and manufacturing. Reliable electric trucking is a long way off, and even electric cars represent an enormous constraint on personal freedom when compared with their internal combustion brethren. If forced, productivity can and will suffer.
Please think through the **energy austerity** issues much more carefully Dr. Krugman. We need your smarts, and we need your voice and we need you to be thoroughly informed about enormous economic transition we have to engineer. Unravelling and rebuilding every level of every economy on earth all at once--sans the convenience and energy density of fossil fuels--is a task fraught with unexpected and unintended consequences.
**Anything that amounts to energy austerity (carbon taxes at the top of the list, but many other policies can have a similar outcome) has the same effect as other forms of economic austerity.** This Congressional Budget Office report thoroughly summarizes the literature https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223 . And as a chart in the CBO report points out, all carbon tax impacts point to "lower output". Not what we need at a time of global weakness.
We also have to be concerned about the Total Factor Productivity challenges which come with renewables--especially as regards transportation and manufacturing. Reliable electric trucking is a long way off, and even electric cars represent an enormous constraint on personal freedom when compared with their internal combustion brethren. If forced, productivity can and will suffer.
Please think through the **energy austerity** issues much more carefully Dr. Krugman. We need your smarts, and we need your voice and we need you to be thoroughly informed about enormous economic transition we have to engineer. Unravelling and rebuilding every level of every economy on earth all at once--sans the convenience and energy density of fossil fuels--is a task fraught with unexpected and unintended consequences.
1
The claim "We must eliminate carbon emissions, this is true. But we cannot in the process constrain energy availability" is as silly as the false paradox "What happens when an irresistible force means an immovable object?"
It also plays games with what does "constrain" mean? The whole point of an efficient market is to equilibrate supply and demand through rational discovery of price. As long as CO2 carries its real price, all externalities captured back into the price via a Pigouvian tax if necessary (and here it is), then let the market deal with it!
"Waaaah, I can't afford my Hummer anymore" is not an argument any of us should listen to.
A CO2 tax is likely to shift the balance of freight traffic back toward rail. Railroads can use automation to become more flexible, railroads can also electrify.
It's feasible (and even being demonstrated experimentally) to electrify road-ways. This would be needed only on the long-haul interstates -- with it cars and trucks could make cross-country trips with no stops ... indeed recharging in the process along the way so that they are charged for the "last miles" of the route off the interstate.
It also plays games with what does "constrain" mean? The whole point of an efficient market is to equilibrate supply and demand through rational discovery of price. As long as CO2 carries its real price, all externalities captured back into the price via a Pigouvian tax if necessary (and here it is), then let the market deal with it!
"Waaaah, I can't afford my Hummer anymore" is not an argument any of us should listen to.
A CO2 tax is likely to shift the balance of freight traffic back toward rail. Railroads can use automation to become more flexible, railroads can also electrify.
It's feasible (and even being demonstrated experimentally) to electrify road-ways. This would be needed only on the long-haul interstates -- with it cars and trucks could make cross-country trips with no stops ... indeed recharging in the process along the way so that they are charged for the "last miles" of the route off the interstate.
2
Folks like Bill Gates are not simply mistaken. They do "know" better. They "know" that they have made their fortunes on semi-monopolistic practices, and they "know" that centralized systems allow the "best and brightest" -- defined of course by those very same people -- to run things, and they "know" that technology trumps people. And this fantasy of a high tech perfect future allows them to divert people's attention away from what needs to be done. "Growing the economy" and subordinating ourselves to technology will lead only to a miserable future for humanity and for our planet. Sure, some technology is useful and some is fun, and having more material goods can be enjoyable (and material gains are needed by the poor of the world) -- but to what end and how much is enough? At some point more material gain will be counterproductive to well-being. Those like Gates are caught up in defining themselves in terms of their wealth and their technological toys. We need not pay them any heed, except to resist their incursions on our lives.
Hillary will probably win, and she will be better than any Republican alternative by a long shot. We need to support her when the time comes. But we need to move away from the economists' dream of perpetual growth and the technologists' dream of gadgets substituting for humans, and take stock of our world, Yes, Paul Krugman, you need to reflect on where you are complicit with some of what is wrong. Once we have solar and wind power, what then?
Hillary will probably win, and she will be better than any Republican alternative by a long shot. We need to support her when the time comes. But we need to move away from the economists' dream of perpetual growth and the technologists' dream of gadgets substituting for humans, and take stock of our world, Yes, Paul Krugman, you need to reflect on where you are complicit with some of what is wrong. Once we have solar and wind power, what then?
14
At some point the Government will have to take deliberate programmatic action to drastically reduce carbon emissions and cope with warming affects already being experienced. Market forces can't do it all and can go off track. We may never reach a satisfactory balance of income and wealth equality, but survival equality has to be an irrevocable principle. Fresh water for all is is one of those irrevocables, and not a natural for a free market solution.
That brings up the avowed monster in our midst, taxation. At some point public funds will be required. The prevalent notion, so powerful on the right, that taxation by definition is harmful to society, unless it's for defense, can't prevail. We need some miracle of political persuasion to convince us that the threats from global warming are at least as dire as those of the Cold War, and worse, not subject to negotiation.
That brings up the avowed monster in our midst, taxation. At some point public funds will be required. The prevalent notion, so powerful on the right, that taxation by definition is harmful to society, unless it's for defense, can't prevail. We need some miracle of political persuasion to convince us that the threats from global warming are at least as dire as those of the Cold War, and worse, not subject to negotiation.
23
We speak of the GOP hubris in climate denial, and I agree, but you have a good dash of your own in declaring Clinton the nominee at this stage of the game, as if we voters in the remaining 46 should just stay home and our party should cancel our convention.
I took a look at the "prediction market" you cite and link to, and in January it was predicting the nominations of both Cruz and Rubio over Trump so it's not much more prescient than the pundits - who have been proven so wrong so many times. Feel the Bern.
In any event, either Democrat would take the steps you advocate if occupying the White House, so I agree this election is critical for many reasons.
Climate change deniers continue to baffle me and you don't need to "be a scientist" to know something's afoot.
If you put your car on its end and drove it straight up at 60 miles an hour you would leave the earth's atmosphere in - wait for it - 60 minutes.
Yep. The atmosphere we argue about is only 60 miles deep.
If the earth were the size of a basketball the atmosphere would be a film as thin as a piece of plastic wrap adhering to the outside.
Just a few hundred years ago, not even a blink of a geological eye, every drop of oil on Planet Earth was in the ground.
Even if we are not "causing" this warming cycle, can they not admit our actions are accelerating it by a factor never known before in the eons of the history of Mother Earth? So fast nothing, no one, can adapt?
I took a look at the "prediction market" you cite and link to, and in January it was predicting the nominations of both Cruz and Rubio over Trump so it's not much more prescient than the pundits - who have been proven so wrong so many times. Feel the Bern.
In any event, either Democrat would take the steps you advocate if occupying the White House, so I agree this election is critical for many reasons.
Climate change deniers continue to baffle me and you don't need to "be a scientist" to know something's afoot.
If you put your car on its end and drove it straight up at 60 miles an hour you would leave the earth's atmosphere in - wait for it - 60 minutes.
Yep. The atmosphere we argue about is only 60 miles deep.
If the earth were the size of a basketball the atmosphere would be a film as thin as a piece of plastic wrap adhering to the outside.
Just a few hundred years ago, not even a blink of a geological eye, every drop of oil on Planet Earth was in the ground.
Even if we are not "causing" this warming cycle, can they not admit our actions are accelerating it by a factor never known before in the eons of the history of Mother Earth? So fast nothing, no one, can adapt?
10
You are spot on with your climate comments and your point that with the climate deniers "baffle you" actually does have an explanation: the fossil fuel people have estimated that there is some $12 trillion of extractable fossil fuels, which gives them their understandable if obnoxious reasons for wishing to continue to extract them. The fact that there will only be an impoverished civilization unable to buy them long before that amount can be burned is what makes their desire obnoxious.
On your opening point, the "prediction market" is the collective opinions of a large number of people, most with a stake in the results, on their judgement of the polls that are available, which get better as the actual voting occurs and people begin concentrating on who they want to vote for. As for the current Democratic Primaries, Professor Krugman has pointed to Nate Silver of Five-Thirty-Eight, with a fantastically accurate track record, points out that, while still close, Secretary Clinton has a slim but likely sufficient lead right now. And Professor Krugman did acknowledge that some future event could change that.
On your opening point, the "prediction market" is the collective opinions of a large number of people, most with a stake in the results, on their judgement of the polls that are available, which get better as the actual voting occurs and people begin concentrating on who they want to vote for. As for the current Democratic Primaries, Professor Krugman has pointed to Nate Silver of Five-Thirty-Eight, with a fantastically accurate track record, points out that, while still close, Secretary Clinton has a slim but likely sufficient lead right now. And Professor Krugman did acknowledge that some future event could change that.
3
I'm going to vote for a Democrat for President in '16. I'd be willing to bet a very large amount of money that Dr. Krugman will too, even if that Democrat is Bernie.
3
When you consider that the human metabolism cannot survive for long above 20 thousand feet elevation, that plastic wrap around the basketball becomes even thinner. What fools we mortals be.
1
Count on the American people to make the stupidest, most self-destructive choice, as they always have, Paul.
None of it matters anyways; in a few short years, we'll be saying good bye to New York City, Washington, DC, Florida, most of San Francisco, Los Angeles, much of Seattle, and Boston.
Outside of those places, it's the land of Idiocracy, so who cares, really?
None of it matters anyways; in a few short years, we'll be saying good bye to New York City, Washington, DC, Florida, most of San Francisco, Los Angeles, much of Seattle, and Boston.
Outside of those places, it's the land of Idiocracy, so who cares, really?
5
"Winston Churchill once famously observed that Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else." A quote usually attributed to Winston Churchill, with no evidence proving he said it, but it was made by Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban.
See:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/10/28/241295755/a-church...
But this time there is not enough time for the American people to wander around with conspiracy theories (mostly Republicans), etc., trying a lot of false paths.
See:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/10/28/241295755/a-church...
But this time there is not enough time for the American people to wander around with conspiracy theories (mostly Republicans), etc., trying a lot of false paths.
1
I can't vote for Hillary. I don't see that she is any better than Donald.
8
"I can't vote for Hillary. I don't see that she is any better than Donald."
-- If there is no difference, then we are doomed.
-- If there is no difference, then we are doomed.
3
This really, really scares me.
3
That's what those who voted for Nader said when Nader ran for President in 2000 - no difference between Gore and Bush. The Nader "spoiler effect" in Florida handed the election to Bush, with tragic results.
4
"Storage costs are plunging as we speak"? How about look past your cell phone battery and talk about the real world problems of storage for the grid. This article is a pep talk for dreamers.
1
Storage costs for the grid are going down very fast. Lot's of grid-storage is starting to get built. Look here and read it once-a-week or so to get a sense of what is going on:
http://cleantechnica.com/category/energy-storage/
http://cleantechnica.com/category/energy-storage/
2
Just how big a dreamer do you consider Elon Musk?
Sure, Mr. Musk does dream big, but he has a strong track record of delivering on his dreams, and his progress on the Tesla Battery shows that this one is close at hand.
Try reading up on this.
Sure, Mr. Musk does dream big, but he has a strong track record of delivering on his dreams, and his progress on the Tesla Battery shows that this one is close at hand.
Try reading up on this.
1
I'm an independent voter, never having registered with either mainstream party since 1978.
I voted for the first Clinton in 1992, but didn't vote for that same one the second time in 1996. I won't, under any circumstances, vote for a Clinton this third time around.
I'll vote "Green" if Clinton and Trump/Rubio/Cruz are the mainstream choices...no matter what...come what may.
I voted for the first Clinton in 1992, but didn't vote for that same one the second time in 1996. I won't, under any circumstances, vote for a Clinton this third time around.
I'll vote "Green" if Clinton and Trump/Rubio/Cruz are the mainstream choices...no matter what...come what may.
4
If you do that
It is a vote for the republicans.
It is a vote for the republicans.
6
I gotta assume you voted Ralph Nader in 2000. How did that come out again ?
6
Again...come what may.
Planet on the ballot?
After me the deluge.
After me the deluge.
4
If the fate of the planet is on the ballot... if the fate of people who support Trump is on the ballot... if the fate of the super rich and political elites who loot and pillage our lives is on the ballot... If the fate of brutal religious fanatics and war mongers is on the ballot...
I vote no. Good luck.
I vote no. Good luck.
2
This a summary of CAA 115 authority that a president has to mandate a carbon trading program without legislation, www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10809684/epa-carbon-trading-section-115
4
CO2 is just the start.
Our resource exploitive capital market system needs to be transformed into a constrained yet incentive directed market system emphasizing the equitable and humanistic provision of both the material and psychological needs of all humanity.
The long lasting regenerative functionality of all the earth’s resources to meet these needs must take on the highest priority. Every element of today’s energy intensive market driven consumerism must be made to meet this planetary survival/functionality test.
Negative external costs and positive incentives must be built into every investment decision. And these costs and incentives must be applied to every human economic activity from the mine to the chemistry lab to the assembly line to the opera house to the athletic field to the hospital. Economic outcomes with negative social and/or ecological value must be recognized. Negative externalities need to be measured and priced in up front so as to discourage, temper, or at the extreme eliminate investment.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
8
Oh Paul, there you go again wasting concern on the triviality of survival of most living creatures. The opportunity to make billions during our period self distraction is a gold mine. The opportunity of capitalism to demonstrate it’s true character as well as enriching the greediest all the way to the end. Planet Earth will survive, it will keep on rumbling around the sun and leave clues of just another chapter in the stupidity of mankind. Think of Easter Island folks.
3
Ms. Clinton will be elected and exactly nothing will get done. The Republicans will hold the House and obstruct to an even greater degree than ever. Civil war is as likely as it was 150 years ago.
13
So the conservatives don't conserve anything and the progressives aren't making any progress.
9
Blue State: On the contrary, a Democratic POTUS can and will hold the line against the worst of GOP legislation, and will nominate justices to the SCOTUS who are not paid hacks of the Right.
2
I wish I believed that Hillary Clinton had the courage to take the action needed to solve this problem... but I see nothing in her record or her stump speeches that gives me an indication that climate change is important to her or the party that is working 24/7 to make sure she gets the nomination.
What I REALLY wish is that the sole candidate who identified global climate change as the #1 problem facing our nation was taken seriously when remade that declaration in the first Democrat debate. If voters don't feel the Bern our planet will surely feel the burn...
What I REALLY wish is that the sole candidate who identified global climate change as the #1 problem facing our nation was taken seriously when remade that declaration in the first Democrat debate. If voters don't feel the Bern our planet will surely feel the burn...
5
Just maybe Hillary Clinton has a really good reason to look farther into the future - her granddaughter Charlotte. Hey, one should always have hope.
5
Dr. Krugman,
This is the middle of the primary season, and mentioning who you think is a likely nominee makes passionate supporters ignore the whole point of your column. You would think this was a column about Clinton by the comments section.
This is the middle of the primary season, and mentioning who you think is a likely nominee makes passionate supporters ignore the whole point of your column. You would think this was a column about Clinton by the comments section.
7
It is another column about Hillary Clinton. She's in the very first sentence.
He's only using climate change as a vehicle for another a shakedown to guilt people in to supporting the candidate of his choice.
He's only using climate change as a vehicle for another a shakedown to guilt people in to supporting the candidate of his choice.
9
Paul is too concerned with telling voters in every column that Sanders supporters have drank the Kool Aid and are out of touch with reality and that, by the way, Paul plans on voting for Hillary. We know, Paul, that you are voting for Hillary and think that anyone who doesn't do the same is an idiot. RS is right in that you should try not throwing the point of your column under the bus in order to praise your preferred leader. It DOES distract from the point you were trying to make, unless that point was 'vote Hillary or the planet dies'.
2
The Donald can be very rational when he kicks back and seriously considers a challenge. My issue with him is that my skin crawls when I regard his MANNER, the persona he’s developed to project to the world; but I’m also rational enough to recognize that this is my hang-up and not his problem. I’ve been watching him for many years in NY, and he doesn’t do dumb stuff – he just ticks off just about everyone while he’s NOT doing dumb stuff.
Most politicians carefully build their own public personas, so we know that Hillary would give a lot of emphasis to the environment – perhaps not the headbanger emphasis Barack Obama does, utterly impervious to the fact that we can go live subsistence lives on dandelion soup somewhere in CA while we erect altars to smelt … and not affect global warming a smidge if we can’t also get the rest of the world and particularly the poorest part of it to do the same thing – but a lot of emphasis anyway.
The assumption is that Trump would blow off environmental matters while Hillary wouldn’t. I have a different take. If he’s elected, I believe he’d invest immensely in extractive technologies – taking the carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than going broke trying to keep more from being spewed into it. In any event, I don’t believe he’d ignore the problem but actually try to solve it. Heaven knows, after all the insufferable, divisive YAMMER with so little to show for it, whatever his approach turned out to be could be like a breath of fresh air.
Most politicians carefully build their own public personas, so we know that Hillary would give a lot of emphasis to the environment – perhaps not the headbanger emphasis Barack Obama does, utterly impervious to the fact that we can go live subsistence lives on dandelion soup somewhere in CA while we erect altars to smelt … and not affect global warming a smidge if we can’t also get the rest of the world and particularly the poorest part of it to do the same thing – but a lot of emphasis anyway.
The assumption is that Trump would blow off environmental matters while Hillary wouldn’t. I have a different take. If he’s elected, I believe he’d invest immensely in extractive technologies – taking the carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than going broke trying to keep more from being spewed into it. In any event, I don’t believe he’d ignore the problem but actually try to solve it. Heaven knows, after all the insufferable, divisive YAMMER with so little to show for it, whatever his approach turned out to be could be like a breath of fresh air.
2
Ah, I see the trick. Never admit you're wrong. After lambasting everyone who dared suggest Bush might not be the nominee, and writing scores of comments tearing apart everything about Trump, just silently pivot and assume nobody notices.
9
Trump doesn't do dumb stuff, Richard? Walling off Mexico, closing our borders to all Muslims, blinding himself to Obama's citizenship. That's the kind of guy you want with his hands on the nuclear football? Thanks but no thanks.
8
Don:
There is no comparison between the type of president Jeb Bush might have been and the type of president Donald Trump likely would be. But it appears that we're not going to get the former, and the latter is looking like a better electoral bet by the day. What's more, Trump's near-inevitability as a nominee is a recent thing, and I've been supporting Bush since Mitt Romney was beaten in 2012.
Robert:
There's nothing odd about wanting to erect a wall on our southern border to finally control that border as if we were an adult country -- it's just odd to YOU. And Trump wanted Muslims better vetted for their allegiances, not banned. As to his early focus on Obama's citizenship, this tactic to garner attention was merely part of the manner I can't embrace about the man.
There is no comparison between the type of president Jeb Bush might have been and the type of president Donald Trump likely would be. But it appears that we're not going to get the former, and the latter is looking like a better electoral bet by the day. What's more, Trump's near-inevitability as a nominee is a recent thing, and I've been supporting Bush since Mitt Romney was beaten in 2012.
Robert:
There's nothing odd about wanting to erect a wall on our southern border to finally control that border as if we were an adult country -- it's just odd to YOU. And Trump wanted Muslims better vetted for their allegiances, not banned. As to his early focus on Obama's citizenship, this tactic to garner attention was merely part of the manner I can't embrace about the man.
1
Sadly, it is not just the bent emission assertions that are absurd. As it is, negative attacks on education, women's rights, ACA, and science in general are bringing our country to an abyss. Having a forward thinking President and a backward thinking Congress will stop our country in its tracks. In fact, it's doing it already.
This election is about a lot more than just a President. A lot more.
This election is about a lot more than just a President. A lot more.
49
The primaries show several chasms have increased; the god divide is wider than ever. Individuals are directly at odds to the main tenets of the faith they profess to celebrate, whose commands and virtues they claim to live by. But the god of live is also the god of free will. So they speak of praise, but covet power.
Their ideas of stewardship directly contradict the dominion their faith says they inherit.
Modern technology and economic demand abode disasters, but the warning signs are ignored; the dangers rise. The small, humble bee points to danger for our food sources. Its widespread absence from fruit and vegetable groves point to a potential crisis bigger than historic famines. Yet we shrug.
Then came Flint. The governor is so wrapped up in his own confessions and studies from a far, the fix he immediately ordered for GM months ago when the water corroded engines made in Flint still has not begun for the city. (Why are they not using rain barrels for storage?) Those in the GOP seeking the Presidency are silent about a public health crisis under a GOP governor; it does not come up in debates and town halls. “That’s not an issue that right now we’ve been focused on,” Rubio has said.
Water is being destroyed and destroying human and wildlife in other ways met with silence. Duke Power dumped 82 million tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated water into the Dan River/Catawba-Wateree basin, still leaking after a year. Faith without good works abounds!
Their ideas of stewardship directly contradict the dominion their faith says they inherit.
Modern technology and economic demand abode disasters, but the warning signs are ignored; the dangers rise. The small, humble bee points to danger for our food sources. Its widespread absence from fruit and vegetable groves point to a potential crisis bigger than historic famines. Yet we shrug.
Then came Flint. The governor is so wrapped up in his own confessions and studies from a far, the fix he immediately ordered for GM months ago when the water corroded engines made in Flint still has not begun for the city. (Why are they not using rain barrels for storage?) Those in the GOP seeking the Presidency are silent about a public health crisis under a GOP governor; it does not come up in debates and town halls. “That’s not an issue that right now we’ve been focused on,” Rubio has said.
Water is being destroyed and destroying human and wildlife in other ways met with silence. Duke Power dumped 82 million tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated water into the Dan River/Catawba-Wateree basin, still leaking after a year. Faith without good works abounds!
66
Fair and fine comment, as usual. However, as one born inches from the border between Northern Ireland and the Rest of Ireland, I have to suggest that "faith" is a much abused word. Tribalism is more apt, and its history points to organized religion as a political tool.
8
"dEs": thanks for reading and your reply! You bring important new experience to have tribalism, in many forms, is tied to "faith"--in many forms.
A goal of my comments is to shape a coherent narrative--not conclusive!--to invite others to add insights in real discussion. You can imagine framing the GOP's environmental policies to plumb their outward faith (a pillar of GOP politics!) on a Paul Krugman column was a neat stretch--one that worked well, based on your sharing insights that widens the scope and view.
A goal of my comments is to shape a coherent narrative--not conclusive!--to invite others to add insights in real discussion. You can imagine framing the GOP's environmental policies to plumb their outward faith (a pillar of GOP politics!) on a Paul Krugman column was a neat stretch--one that worked well, based on your sharing insights that widens the scope and view.
Only one point of disagreement but it is an important one going beyond semantics. We are not working to save the planet. It is "us", our society, our advances in science, technology, medicine and even economics which are at stake. Even humanity in some form can survive many of the changes we are forcing on our environment. But our current society and civilization are the real stakes and perhaps, just perhaps, when people realize that we can move things along. It's not the planet, it's us!
18
The business component in the shift to renewables will help uphold the CPP and compel cooperation by utilities. Almost 3/4 of new energy investments in the US last year were wind and solar and 2/3 were in the private sector. With that comes responsibility. It is no excuse to prioritize profit for the few, shirk regulation, fail to elect a pro climate president. Most people in the US fear climate change.
6
Even if Dems win Senate and Presidency, many ill effects of Climate Change will occur. Republicans will point to it as a sign of failure of big government. They will claim that if the market had just been left alone it would have realized the danger and adjusted much quicker without clumbsy big brother. See! They can always twist the truth
15
Kyle, correct! And a GOP minority in the Senate knows how to filibuster. Cruz even filibustered his own party leader.
6
Even if there is some breakthrough in fifteen years (as Bill Gates predicts, though Wall Street should have taught us that even "experts" can't predict the future) it will still take twenty five years for any new technology to supplant old tech... and we can't afford to wait. And even if there is new tech, we will need government incentives to push it forward in the market, and you know there will be ample resistance from entrenched interests.
Rather than hoping for a savior technology to come along, seems "conservative" to me to take out some insurance on our future.
Rather than hoping for a savior technology to come along, seems "conservative" to me to take out some insurance on our future.
4
Existing technology since 35 years ago, significantly scaled up is being installed in the last 15 years at break neck speeds, and is accelerating. Just during last year Europe installed 29.5 MG and China installed 31 GW in 2015!. At this rate we will be at zero dirty fossil fuels by 2025.
Maybe this is the reason that oil is pumped as if there is no tomorrow. Maybe the Saudi's, the Russians, and the Exxons know that there is no tomorrow. Maybe they realize that unless they get a penny for oil today it may become valueless dirty goo soon enough to be left undisturbed deep underground in perpetuity.
Despite the lies the semi-science (on global climate change) Koch brothers and their agents will tell you.
Maybe this is the reason that oil is pumped as if there is no tomorrow. Maybe the Saudi's, the Russians, and the Exxons know that there is no tomorrow. Maybe they realize that unless they get a penny for oil today it may become valueless dirty goo soon enough to be left undisturbed deep underground in perpetuity.
Despite the lies the semi-science (on global climate change) Koch brothers and their agents will tell you.
3
Corrections"
1) Obviously I meant 29.5 GW installed in EUrope in 2015.
2) I did not meant to type semi-science. I started writing semi-senile Koch brothers but I thought this is not so polite and also anti-science is more accurate.
so the last sentence should read corrected:
"Despite the lies the anti-science (on global climate change) Koch brothers and their agents will tell you."
I need to improve my speed typing.
1) Obviously I meant 29.5 GW installed in EUrope in 2015.
2) I did not meant to type semi-science. I started writing semi-senile Koch brothers but I thought this is not so polite and also anti-science is more accurate.
so the last sentence should read corrected:
"Despite the lies the anti-science (on global climate change) Koch brothers and their agents will tell you."
I need to improve my speed typing.
I am concerned by the low turnout in all the races so far for the Dems. Even Sanders' revolution isn't getting out high levels of voters and Clinton's win in SC was with a modest total count.
While sanity in government is a good thing, it might not be enough to carry November. It certainly won't be enough to turn the Senate, House or various state races.
Liberals and progressives need to step up their games.
While sanity in government is a good thing, it might not be enough to carry November. It certainly won't be enough to turn the Senate, House or various state races.
Liberals and progressives need to step up their games.
277
Make your consolidated effort at Bernie's event tonight, he will be at Milton.
There's only one candidate who talks about the impact of climate change on our children and that is Bernie.
If you watched oscars last night pay heed to the screen writer of The Big Short who warned do not vote for the candidate who takes Big Money. No matter what the polls say, it's still a long way to CA!
There's only one candidate who talks about the impact of climate change on our children and that is Bernie.
If you watched oscars last night pay heed to the screen writer of The Big Short who warned do not vote for the candidate who takes Big Money. No matter what the polls say, it's still a long way to CA!
6
Well, work to bring voters to the polls instead of being "concerned" here.
3
You are incorrect on the facts about Bernie being "...the only one..." talking about climate.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
2
There's a lot of money to be made in 'fixing' planetary destruction, including from the wars that will occur along the way....
So, of course, lots of Republicans will want to 'let the market' sort it out....
How to we fight and punish that kind of callous, vile stupidity ??? Is our species hardwired to fail ??
We need to assume we CAN do something and then WORK to change the sickness.
So, of course, lots of Republicans will want to 'let the market' sort it out....
How to we fight and punish that kind of callous, vile stupidity ??? Is our species hardwired to fail ??
We need to assume we CAN do something and then WORK to change the sickness.
15
One of the most often quoted canards pretains to the mortgage crisis/bubble. Over and over we hear "nobody understood it nor saw it coming." Which is not true, not even close. Plenty did, they were just ignored, mocked, and attacked. And so it goes with climate change. Denial is an easy way to attempt to avoid pain to help the common good. But as Dr. Krugman makes clear, the cost curve has shifted and carbon neutral technology is here. How many times have we heard from the neoliberal side "free trade" benefits all. This is similar, if one discounts the discontinuities of pollution society benefits with a carbon tax/cap and trade. If you are a denier(still) go back and track down a Playboy magazine interview from 1973 with the demigod of the conservative movement one Milton Friedman. He speaks at length about cap and trade. Who woulda thunk, Milton Friedman in Playboy and cap and trade sexy.
13
Dear Mr. Krugman,
Your fingernails are going to become quite weary for, as I've read, the exponential effects of mankind's neglect of the planet have yet to be felt in their fullest. In short, no matter what the United States does, especially if the developing economies of the world don't go along with the plan, the "environment" is going to find it's own way to clean up the situation usually involving flooding, super storms and drought until that which is causing the unbalance goes away (That means us).
The next president can do whatever he/she likes. Take a look outside your window and notice how many SUV's and gigantic pick up trucks are trundling around, all purchased because "gas is cheap" and the owners can't see beyond the tips of their noses. Sure, these things are getting "better gas mileage" than the same vehicles 10 years ago but only by a smidgen. The V-8 engines powering these "tanks" still suck up gas and deliver more pollutants than the atmosphere can readily absorb.
And most of the people who own and drive these monsters have children (The excuse for owning one to begin with. I didn't know soccer balls needed that much space).
As usual, a good chunk of Americans "talk the talk" about saving the environment but, when push comes to shove, it's the "other guy's responsibility" to do something about it.
I suggest taking classes on learning how to hold your breath longer underwater as NYC becomes America's "Venice".
How does one "hail" a gondola?
Your fingernails are going to become quite weary for, as I've read, the exponential effects of mankind's neglect of the planet have yet to be felt in their fullest. In short, no matter what the United States does, especially if the developing economies of the world don't go along with the plan, the "environment" is going to find it's own way to clean up the situation usually involving flooding, super storms and drought until that which is causing the unbalance goes away (That means us).
The next president can do whatever he/she likes. Take a look outside your window and notice how many SUV's and gigantic pick up trucks are trundling around, all purchased because "gas is cheap" and the owners can't see beyond the tips of their noses. Sure, these things are getting "better gas mileage" than the same vehicles 10 years ago but only by a smidgen. The V-8 engines powering these "tanks" still suck up gas and deliver more pollutants than the atmosphere can readily absorb.
And most of the people who own and drive these monsters have children (The excuse for owning one to begin with. I didn't know soccer balls needed that much space).
As usual, a good chunk of Americans "talk the talk" about saving the environment but, when push comes to shove, it's the "other guy's responsibility" to do something about it.
I suggest taking classes on learning how to hold your breath longer underwater as NYC becomes America's "Venice".
How does one "hail" a gondola?
19
There is a possibility that a sudden (5 year) surge in sea level rise might get the attention of climate deniers. The Greenland ice cap or the West Antarctica ice sheet becoming unstable could cause a rapid 5 or 10 foot rise in the ocean levels. It's going to be a wild dramatic ride for us in the states and fatal for big chunks of coastal humanity. Myself, I just wish this humid windless el nino weather would go away.
1
Not to worry. The Republican refusal to consider any of President Obama's nominees for the Supreme Court means that President Clinton will have a Democratic Senate that will ratify all her nominees.
Which means she should have no problem with the Supreme Court overruling any of her executive orders.
What more could anyone ask? (Not to have to wait 11 months, I guess.)
Which means she should have no problem with the Supreme Court overruling any of her executive orders.
What more could anyone ask? (Not to have to wait 11 months, I guess.)
9
As long as you attempt to employ an environmental appeal to Conservatives it will fall on deaf ears. They will smugly dispute the settled science and claim it will cost too many jobs. It's time to turn the tables and start crowing about all the created by going Green. The installation of solar panels, wind turbines and the storage devices emerging, and retrofitting homes and business for the new energy storage devices will create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. These jobs can't be exported. Wind turbines are solar panels are also produced in the USA.
Similarly recycling creates more jobs than tossing garbage in a landfill. It's time to abandon the warm fuzzy, feel good environmental campaign and start playing up the positive economic impact of a Green Economy, because the only thing the GOP and conservatives understand is cold hard cash. Additionally, it blunts their rhetoric that dealing with Climate Change will destroy the economy. Make the case that it may be disruptive to certain businesses, but that's the Free Market at work, and then give them the spiel about "creative destruction." Forget the "Save the Planet" approach and hit them with "It's the Economy Stupid!"
Similarly recycling creates more jobs than tossing garbage in a landfill. It's time to abandon the warm fuzzy, feel good environmental campaign and start playing up the positive economic impact of a Green Economy, because the only thing the GOP and conservatives understand is cold hard cash. Additionally, it blunts their rhetoric that dealing with Climate Change will destroy the economy. Make the case that it may be disruptive to certain businesses, but that's the Free Market at work, and then give them the spiel about "creative destruction." Forget the "Save the Planet" approach and hit them with "It's the Economy Stupid!"
74
Here's an example from abroad cited in Alternet, Feb 24.
From article "Here are 10 examples of problems being solved everywhere but in America:"
"1. Peru: free solar-powered electricity for the poor.
In 2013, in Peru, only about two-thirds of the 25 million people had access to electricity.
The Peruvian government decided to do something about it, and instituted a program to provide free solar energy to the underprivileged.
With the goal of providing at least 95% of Peruvians with electricity, Peru began the National Photovoltaic Household Electrification Program, installing free solar panels in impoverished communities.
The program, which is expected to be completed by next year, has so far installed almost 15,000 photovoltaic systems."
From article "Here are 10 examples of problems being solved everywhere but in America:"
"1. Peru: free solar-powered electricity for the poor.
In 2013, in Peru, only about two-thirds of the 25 million people had access to electricity.
The Peruvian government decided to do something about it, and instituted a program to provide free solar energy to the underprivileged.
With the goal of providing at least 95% of Peruvians with electricity, Peru began the National Photovoltaic Household Electrification Program, installing free solar panels in impoverished communities.
The program, which is expected to be completed by next year, has so far installed almost 15,000 photovoltaic systems."
34
Paul,
To fix the problem we must first change the way we think.
Firstly we must start teaching science. We must teach that survival of the fittest is about adapting to an environment not growing bigger, stronger or smarter.
South Carolina has left me very pessimistic not because Hillary won but because it was all about religion.
Church and State don't mix. America is one nation "under God" and it needs to be a nation under men. It needs to go back to the enlightenment when the nation was founded and the Creator created and then moved on and left us in charge.
Pandering to the religious views of an electorate will not say this planet. Prayer will not save this planet. Educating all our children in science might save this planet and that is why so many see our salvation in Bernie Sanders.
Vermont is the least God fearing place in the USA and the USA again needs a President who takes his oath on something other than allegory.
The world needs a President who will take the oath of office on Darwin's Theory of the Origin of the Species by Natural Selection.
My God gave me the knowledge of right and wrong and gave me free will. That is the story of Genesis. The USA was about the end of Divine right of Kings and the responsibility of We the People.
Was it God or Reagan who ripped the solar panels off the White House? The world needs a President who believes in science. I am waiting to hear Hillary say those words when she knows it will cost her votes.
To fix the problem we must first change the way we think.
Firstly we must start teaching science. We must teach that survival of the fittest is about adapting to an environment not growing bigger, stronger or smarter.
South Carolina has left me very pessimistic not because Hillary won but because it was all about religion.
Church and State don't mix. America is one nation "under God" and it needs to be a nation under men. It needs to go back to the enlightenment when the nation was founded and the Creator created and then moved on and left us in charge.
Pandering to the religious views of an electorate will not say this planet. Prayer will not save this planet. Educating all our children in science might save this planet and that is why so many see our salvation in Bernie Sanders.
Vermont is the least God fearing place in the USA and the USA again needs a President who takes his oath on something other than allegory.
The world needs a President who will take the oath of office on Darwin's Theory of the Origin of the Species by Natural Selection.
My God gave me the knowledge of right and wrong and gave me free will. That is the story of Genesis. The USA was about the end of Divine right of Kings and the responsibility of We the People.
Was it God or Reagan who ripped the solar panels off the White House? The world needs a President who believes in science. I am waiting to hear Hillary say those words when she knows it will cost her votes.
70
Relax, no one's running for President of Canada.
3
"To fix the problem we must first change the way we think."
I'd suggest a pivot to "Hey, everyone loves clean air & water!" & away from "The planet's heating up & we're all gonna die!" would be a good start.
I'd suggest a pivot to "Hey, everyone loves clean air & water!" & away from "The planet's heating up & we're all gonna die!" would be a good start.
1
Newsflash: the environment has already been fatally compromised by human activities and the complex interaction of our pollutants and unsustainable population growth. It's already too late to save the planet. Humans will realize this incrementally, given our amazing ability to deceive ourselves, when their sea-level towns start flooding with every high tide and there's no money in the budget to contain the waters. Whoever does not believe this need only fly over Greenland on an aircraft that features those downward-oriented cameras as I just did and see the Swiss cheese once known as its icecap. This epiphenomenon we call global warming is bigger than any country or its politics, and we are certainly going to pay for our childish irresponsibility. Could it be that with our contentions and disregard for our home planet that we may not deserve to survive this concatenation of climatic change?
21
Of course, Tournachonadar, let's do nothing to save ourselves so you can get to be "right". Saying it's too late to save the planet only contributes to the problem.
5
Regardless of whether you or I expire today, the fact that 320 million internal combustion engines every given day, the hundreds of millions of furnaces going to provide heat, manufacturing etc. that are operating in the USA alone has already spelled the planet's doom. Just an opinion but I believe most climate scientists concur.
1
This looks like it will be a highly consequential election. Too bad that Elizabeth Warren is not running.
The chief argument for Hillary Clinton seems to be that she is less bad than her Republican rivals. Her arrogance in setting up a private email server for herself and a few of her cronies she brought along to the State Department, and having all of her cronies use that server for official business seems unpardonable to me. She may get away with it because of her standing. If you or I were guilty of such a violation, we would be facing severe charges from prosecutors relentlessly egged on by a hawkish Clinton.
Clinton's role in egging on the Obama administration into interventions in Libya and Syria makes her judgement appear very suspect. The Obama policy in Syria is the chief reason for the terrible refugee crisis in Europe right now.
Finally, there can be little doubt that if Clinton were to be elected, she will instantly view the presidency as an opportunity to amass huge quantities of wealth in the future. She has already indulged in such profiteering.
Bernie is a fundamentally decent guy. Unlike the Clintons and Obama, we can be quite sure that he will not use political office as a means to amass huge quantities of wealth for himself. He is still our best option, and a very good option regardless of the competition and in spite of policy over-reach.
The chief argument for Hillary Clinton seems to be that she is less bad than her Republican rivals. Her arrogance in setting up a private email server for herself and a few of her cronies she brought along to the State Department, and having all of her cronies use that server for official business seems unpardonable to me. She may get away with it because of her standing. If you or I were guilty of such a violation, we would be facing severe charges from prosecutors relentlessly egged on by a hawkish Clinton.
Clinton's role in egging on the Obama administration into interventions in Libya and Syria makes her judgement appear very suspect. The Obama policy in Syria is the chief reason for the terrible refugee crisis in Europe right now.
Finally, there can be little doubt that if Clinton were to be elected, she will instantly view the presidency as an opportunity to amass huge quantities of wealth in the future. She has already indulged in such profiteering.
Bernie is a fundamentally decent guy. Unlike the Clintons and Obama, we can be quite sure that he will not use political office as a means to amass huge quantities of wealth for himself. He is still our best option, and a very good option regardless of the competition and in spite of policy over-reach.
132
The President has not "amassed huge quantities of wealth". The Clintons have but not the President.
3
Re "Her arrogance in setting up a private email server for herself and a few of her cronies she brought along to the State Department, and having all of her cronies use that server for official business seems unpardonable to me. "
One could just as well disparage Powel and Rice for the same behavior, and worse. For years the GOP has been waging a veritable war of attrition on the Clintons ... their legacy and their character. They have used every propaganda trick and legislative gimmick aimed to literally destroy them ... code-words, dog whistles. endless congressional investigations and widely publicized kangaroo-court-style hearings, and even pointless impeachment proceedings ... all based on contrived lies and obfuscations ... ultimately going no where. Yet these exaggerated notion's of Hillary Clinton's being "untrustable" and baseless one sided attacks on her record persist as evidenced in comments like this.
One could just as well disparage Powel and Rice for the same behavior, and worse. For years the GOP has been waging a veritable war of attrition on the Clintons ... their legacy and their character. They have used every propaganda trick and legislative gimmick aimed to literally destroy them ... code-words, dog whistles. endless congressional investigations and widely publicized kangaroo-court-style hearings, and even pointless impeachment proceedings ... all based on contrived lies and obfuscations ... ultimately going no where. Yet these exaggerated notion's of Hillary Clinton's being "untrustable" and baseless one sided attacks on her record persist as evidenced in comments like this.
6
Thanks. I meant to say "Unlike with the Clintons and possibly Obama."
1
Krugman is 48 years too late with his crusade to "save the planet."
In 1968 Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" argued that exponential population growth would ultimately have noxious consequences, but he was laughed off the stage by the vast majority because his theory conflicted with conventional wisdom. A few years later, "the Limits to Growth" appeared which presented an argument based upon dynamical systems that population growth had the seeds of "overshoot and collapse" that might send humanity into a great "die-off" if population increased too rapidly.
The reason for the latter is that the effects of population growth have a 20-year time lag. The decision to have a child today constrains the planet's resources 20 years from today when conception has resulted in an adult, needing full resources to survive.
Global warming is only one of the EFFECTS of too much population growth.
Another is the inability to educate enough doctors to keep up with population growth which, in the US, has caused health costs to soar, and makes the Sanders dream of universal health care "a magic unicorn" in the terminology of Krugman.
Americans are now dying because they cannot afford cancer screenings.
Clinton and Trump are both unbelievably bad, but Clinton is much worse.
She would continue Obama's executive amnesty policies which ignore resource limits and invite more illegal immigrants to break the law.
Trump is almost as bad by denying access to abortion.
In 1968 Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" argued that exponential population growth would ultimately have noxious consequences, but he was laughed off the stage by the vast majority because his theory conflicted with conventional wisdom. A few years later, "the Limits to Growth" appeared which presented an argument based upon dynamical systems that population growth had the seeds of "overshoot and collapse" that might send humanity into a great "die-off" if population increased too rapidly.
The reason for the latter is that the effects of population growth have a 20-year time lag. The decision to have a child today constrains the planet's resources 20 years from today when conception has resulted in an adult, needing full resources to survive.
Global warming is only one of the EFFECTS of too much population growth.
Another is the inability to educate enough doctors to keep up with population growth which, in the US, has caused health costs to soar, and makes the Sanders dream of universal health care "a magic unicorn" in the terminology of Krugman.
Americans are now dying because they cannot afford cancer screenings.
Clinton and Trump are both unbelievably bad, but Clinton is much worse.
She would continue Obama's executive amnesty policies which ignore resource limits and invite more illegal immigrants to break the law.
Trump is almost as bad by denying access to abortion.
11
So the destruction of human habitat throughout the world is unsolvable and we're all going to die soon, but if someone would only stop that illegal immigration!
Pardon me if I point out that you might not be humanity's clearest observer.
Pardon me if I point out that you might not be humanity's clearest observer.
22
Our failure to educate enough doctors is unwillingness, not inability. Educating doctors costs money and might lower the value of a medical education. In addition, doctors are now pushed around by external bureaucracies and forced to play games with these bureaucracies in order to get their patients cared for.
15
Ehrlich was laughed off the stage because he plainly made wild predictions that turned out to be false and doubled-down on those claims
The absolute population number doesn't explain why healthcare costs are high. With a large population, there would be a lot of patients, but also a lot of doctors. The only demographic reason healthcare costs are high is because of a declining population growth rate in the US: people live longer and future generations are smaller, so the proportion of the population that's elderly and therefore has the biggest demand for medical care is higher relative to society's overall productive potential.
Even if global warming is the result of a large population, that doesn't have anything to do with transfers of populations between countries. And the US isn't running out of resources. Why even think that?
The absolute population number doesn't explain why healthcare costs are high. With a large population, there would be a lot of patients, but also a lot of doctors. The only demographic reason healthcare costs are high is because of a declining population growth rate in the US: people live longer and future generations are smaller, so the proportion of the population that's elderly and therefore has the biggest demand for medical care is higher relative to society's overall productive potential.
Even if global warming is the result of a large population, that doesn't have anything to do with transfers of populations between countries. And the US isn't running out of resources. Why even think that?
8
I would like to see a serious effort put into getting zero emission vehicles on the road. But with wages slow to increase and the price for new technology so high it seems a long way off before most Americans will be driving clean energy vehicles. If zero emission vehicles are to make a difference then the majority need affordable access.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/subprime-auto-loan-delinquencies-...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/subprime-auto-loan-delinquencies-...
6
Hillary Is generating little excitement among the electorate and is not at all in tune with the Zeitgeist. She carries with her the prospect of a low turnout election with few coattails. She might even permit the Republicans to carry the Senate. Why you think a corporate lawyer would do anything to change the status quo is totally beyond my understanding. Let us not forget that she supported the pipeline, and her husband was not an environmentalist either.
141
Just days before the Iowa caucus Hillary was fund raising at a hedge fund. Guess what do they fund: Fracking. And the state of Oklahoma has never witnessed before so Many man induced earthquakes, because of greed of fracking. They are literally tearing Mother Earth. Hillary has no idea what and where her muddied money comes from as long as it's money.
7
So to find Hillary's Climate plan I have to read Bernie's , until the General then it turns into Obama's . Then when elected nothing passes Congress anyways. We are screwed.
26
Paul, several of my Verified friends have observed that you are the de-facto NYT columnist keeping renewable/sustainable energy in the forefront. Thanks for that.
I make this as simple as possible and will add if there is any interest.
Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, is better informed than anyone else in the US Congress or on the NYT staff about renewable/sustainable energy technologies now available. His state and my home away from home, Vermont, is a leader.
Unlike Bill Gates over at Dot.Earth Sanders knows about the "now" not a dream future. So suppose Hillary Clinton becomes President. Will she know enough to give him a voice on energy? I hope so.
For a sample of what Bernie knows go to: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/2010/04/17/geothe...
Six long years ago he held a Round Table in Burlington, VT where experts could inform others about the very best sustainable technology, Ground Source Heat Pump Geothermal (GSG). Champlain and Saint Michaels Colleges in Bernie land, are display cases for GSG.
So Paul, let's not wait for Hillary to give him a voice, you do it!
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA SE
I make this as simple as possible and will add if there is any interest.
Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, is better informed than anyone else in the US Congress or on the NYT staff about renewable/sustainable energy technologies now available. His state and my home away from home, Vermont, is a leader.
Unlike Bill Gates over at Dot.Earth Sanders knows about the "now" not a dream future. So suppose Hillary Clinton becomes President. Will she know enough to give him a voice on energy? I hope so.
For a sample of what Bernie knows go to: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/2010/04/17/geothe...
Six long years ago he held a Round Table in Burlington, VT where experts could inform others about the very best sustainable technology, Ground Source Heat Pump Geothermal (GSG). Champlain and Saint Michaels Colleges in Bernie land, are display cases for GSG.
So Paul, let's not wait for Hillary to give him a voice, you do it!
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA SE
353
Amen.
4
Bernie Sanders wants to dismantle the nuclear power industry in this country by not re-licensing existing plants and not licensing any new ones. This is science denialism at its worst. Nuclear currently provides 20% of the electricity generated in the U.S. Despite the claims of anti-nuclear ideologues, nuclear power plants have operated safely and efficiently for decades, providing carbon-free energy. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and has the lowest per person carbon emissions of any advanced industrial society. Wind and solar can play a significant role in carbon-free power generation, but they cannot replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.
3
@ myself - LL - I have a second comment and one reply to this awaiting review.
The simplest way to view this comment is to see it as a message that there are excellent renewable technologies that are 24/7, are all more climate change more friendly than any fossil fuel, and can be put in place at scales ranging from one or more rooms in a home to a full sized home or more. Within that range installation ranges from 1 to 2 days.
And anyone who points to natural gas, please remember the damage done on site (fracking), at disposal site for fracking fluids, and at places like the Porter Ranch leak in CA to say nothing of laying pipelines, for example all over New England.
All heat pump technologies are as benign as technology gets.
The simplest way to view this comment is to see it as a message that there are excellent renewable technologies that are 24/7, are all more climate change more friendly than any fossil fuel, and can be put in place at scales ranging from one or more rooms in a home to a full sized home or more. Within that range installation ranges from 1 to 2 days.
And anyone who points to natural gas, please remember the damage done on site (fracking), at disposal site for fracking fluids, and at places like the Porter Ranch leak in CA to say nothing of laying pipelines, for example all over New England.
All heat pump technologies are as benign as technology gets.
Other advanced countries have Green Parties, along with their main parties, with input into their lawmaking, so they’ve made strides in changing to green energy. A green party would be impossible here.
They also have publicly funded elections with limits on private donations. The USA’s elections are almost totally dependent now on super rich corporate donors. Like the Koch Brothers.
Author, Jane Mayer whose book, Dark Money, has exposed the Koch’s influence, will be an in depth guest soon on Cspan.
With our big money election system, our chances of making great progress in climate change is limited. And fundamentalist religion Repubs work hand in glove with the big money to deny science and block its solutions. Why no mention in this column?
In the many democracies who don’t let Koch type billionaires hand over hundreds of millions to candidates to pass laws in their favor, they also don’t have religious science deniers dominating their main political parties.
All works together.
These are the points liberals could emphasize to expose the true chain of causation in our blocks to progress and modernity itself.
Contrast to other advanced countries as positive role models will have more influence than just more condemning of the Gop Climate Zombies.
They also have publicly funded elections with limits on private donations. The USA’s elections are almost totally dependent now on super rich corporate donors. Like the Koch Brothers.
Author, Jane Mayer whose book, Dark Money, has exposed the Koch’s influence, will be an in depth guest soon on Cspan.
With our big money election system, our chances of making great progress in climate change is limited. And fundamentalist religion Repubs work hand in glove with the big money to deny science and block its solutions. Why no mention in this column?
In the many democracies who don’t let Koch type billionaires hand over hundreds of millions to candidates to pass laws in their favor, they also don’t have religious science deniers dominating their main political parties.
All works together.
These are the points liberals could emphasize to expose the true chain of causation in our blocks to progress and modernity itself.
Contrast to other advanced countries as positive role models will have more influence than just more condemning of the Gop Climate Zombies.
35
I'm sure glad Mr. Krugman endorsed Hilary if he's worried about the environment. Because promoting fracking around the world helps the water quality of the aquifers so marvelously. I think Mr. Krugman has become one of the "serious" people he's been talking about.
31
Well, folks, we're finally there. Forty years on, we've finally reached the point where wretched conservative ideology has the power to literally destroy the planet. Robert Oppenheimer's quote about the "destroyer of worlds" comes to mind.
Who would have guessed that the Creed of St. Ronnie, that heroic winner of the Cold War, builder of that Imaginary "City on the Hill," the liberator of Granada and co-star of "Bedtime for Bonzo", would have brought us to this? Think about it before you vote. The life you save may be your own.
Who would have guessed that the Creed of St. Ronnie, that heroic winner of the Cold War, builder of that Imaginary "City on the Hill," the liberator of Granada and co-star of "Bedtime for Bonzo", would have brought us to this? Think about it before you vote. The life you save may be your own.
386
Few considerations:
1) as often pointed out global warming ( so pollution due to the use of fossil fuels ) are global issues, so it could pointed out that there are country economies around the world whose GDP is strongly dependent on the fossil fuels export and for which the transition to renewables will be very difficult. 2) Independently of the role of human generated carbon dioxide on our Planet, the change of climate is a complex issue in which many other factors intervene, for instance the Noble Prize Arrhenius work on the subject , often quotes as the pioneering work of the role of CO2 concentration on earth surface temperature, aimed to explained the end of the glaciation era due to the natural CO2 ( not human generated ) mainly due to volcanic eruption.
1) as often pointed out global warming ( so pollution due to the use of fossil fuels ) are global issues, so it could pointed out that there are country economies around the world whose GDP is strongly dependent on the fossil fuels export and for which the transition to renewables will be very difficult. 2) Independently of the role of human generated carbon dioxide on our Planet, the change of climate is a complex issue in which many other factors intervene, for instance the Noble Prize Arrhenius work on the subject , often quotes as the pioneering work of the role of CO2 concentration on earth surface temperature, aimed to explained the end of the glaciation era due to the natural CO2 ( not human generated ) mainly due to volcanic eruption.
This is about human survival, not about "saving the planet." Mother Earth will do just fine. If humans turn out to be a passing infestation, other life and mineral forms will continue to evolve. In a few billion years will restore much of what we destroyed. Let's weep for ourselves - better yet, do something about it.
234
Actually, it seems runaway carbon emissions will result in a waterless hellworld 60 degrees hotter than this one. So if that's your idea of the planet surviving, fine.
4
Unfortunately, none of the politicians, "big" names, or columnists have even
tickled the catastrophic risk, it's dynamics, or, once started, it's acceleration.
tickled the catastrophic risk, it's dynamics, or, once started, it's acceleration.
2
Who or what do you consider "Mother Earth?" If a person is cold-blooded enough to watch species extinctions accelerate without conscience, then maybe this is not about saving anything except our own hides. But those with gratitude and appreciation for the species that exist now......the birds whose songs brighten our mornings, the pollinators who help feed us, the forests that support extraordinary diversity of life......with any sense of responsibility towards the beauty and richness of life that we have been gifted with, then no, we can't just coldly shrug off such massive losses.
55
Ever since Bill Gates was saved from himself by David Boies in that famous deposition, Gates-the-Better-Person has unfortunately posed other problems for our society.
Gates was feared and respected for his mastery of the computing business world, but not well-regarded for his insight into engineering and technology. Unlike Wozniak & Jobs he did not take up the torch of Xerox PARC and see into the future of design. Even after Tim Berners-Lee had propagated the HTML seed, Gates was thinking about the future as a sort of advanced cable TV channel.
In a similar unfortunate manner the Gates Foundation is capable of big-footing good ideas with limited ideas backed by immense power. An example is the struggle over education in the U.S.. Add to this, recent remarks by Bill Gates himself regarding Apple v. FBI.
Bill Gates has admirably evolved, but it is important to be aware of some of the dangers of his influence.
Gates was feared and respected for his mastery of the computing business world, but not well-regarded for his insight into engineering and technology. Unlike Wozniak & Jobs he did not take up the torch of Xerox PARC and see into the future of design. Even after Tim Berners-Lee had propagated the HTML seed, Gates was thinking about the future as a sort of advanced cable TV channel.
In a similar unfortunate manner the Gates Foundation is capable of big-footing good ideas with limited ideas backed by immense power. An example is the struggle over education in the U.S.. Add to this, recent remarks by Bill Gates himself regarding Apple v. FBI.
Bill Gates has admirably evolved, but it is important to be aware of some of the dangers of his influence.
11
I fully expect Paul will endure a storm of criticism from Bernie supporters in these comments. Bernie the candidate is fine, but his supporters are not. I wonder why they don't realize being nasty will not bring voters to their side.
120
klm... nastiness? in the eye of the beholder. Why not counter the critics with some facts---if Bernie the candidate is 'fine'?
6
Trust me nobody has clean hands in what has been a spirited and passionate debate over the best candidate to represent the Progessive/Liberal viewpoint.
When confronted with a far superior platform that's unassailable in terms of truly reflecting Progressive values and combating our greatest challenges, Hillary Clinton supporters lash out at "Berniebots" for their insolence and having the temerity to interfere with the coronation.
The lady doth protest too much methinks.
When confronted with a far superior platform that's unassailable in terms of truly reflecting Progressive values and combating our greatest challenges, Hillary Clinton supporters lash out at "Berniebots" for their insolence and having the temerity to interfere with the coronation.
The lady doth protest too much methinks.
14
Of the top 10 comments, I've not seen a single person be nasty to Krugman over Sanders. Disagreement is not nastyness.
14
Thank you, Dr. Krugman, for this column. Transforming our energy systems to carbon-neutral is the most urgent and most exhilarating challenge civilization has faced. We have begun to learn sustainability; climate change demands we accelerate this learning and translate it into practice. Will our species meet this challenge by harnessing our great gifts of reason, intuition and emotional intelligence to not only save but improve the planet and our lives? Readers, look at your grandchildren--living or waiting to be born--when you answer this question.
13
Don't you think it's a bit premature for a Hillary end zone dance?
She's not even half way to a nomination. If I were a supporter of hers I'd have my fingers crossed and not be gloating quite yet. She could win yes. She may also trip, be tripped, become indicted or simply lose. You seem to take for granted not only that she wins out over Sanders but also over Trump. I wouldn't be so confident.
She's not even half way to a nomination. If I were a supporter of hers I'd have my fingers crossed and not be gloating quite yet. She could win yes. She may also trip, be tripped, become indicted or simply lose. You seem to take for granted not only that she wins out over Sanders but also over Trump. I wouldn't be so confident.
190
Who's gloating?? Certainly no one among the commenters here. We HRC supporters recognize two things: she's an imperfect (putting it mildly) candidate and Bernie Sanders is not going to win the nomination. So we hope Hillary can weather the tremendous firestorm coming her way cause she's all we've got. No offense to all the ardent Bernie supporters - I personally think he's great, just unelectable.
5
The environment is precisely the reason that the eco terrorists of Koch Propaganda, Subversion & Pollution are spending $889M this election cycle.
Largely to preserve their ability to use our air and water as their free toxic waste dump.
Yearly Koch produces 950M pounds of toxic waste of which 59M pounds is dumped in our air, water and soil.
They are the 5th largest polluter, overall, and among the largest emitters of CO2 at 24M tons annually, the equivalent of 5M cars.
Their disinformational catchphrases, to distract from their continuing environmental crimes, parroted by their rent boys, like a rubiobot on crack, are smaller government and free enterprise.
Largely to preserve their ability to use our air and water as their free toxic waste dump.
Yearly Koch produces 950M pounds of toxic waste of which 59M pounds is dumped in our air, water and soil.
They are the 5th largest polluter, overall, and among the largest emitters of CO2 at 24M tons annually, the equivalent of 5M cars.
Their disinformational catchphrases, to distract from their continuing environmental crimes, parroted by their rent boys, like a rubiobot on crack, are smaller government and free enterprise.
680
Yes, and why does the media not jump on these numbers and emphasize the dire consequences such pollution causes especially for our grandchildren and future generation. How can they live and survive in such a toxic environment? Voters should care about these issues if they want a better and safer tomorrow for their grandchildren and future generations. Where is the outrage?? Certainly the educational system can play a part in educating students now about pollution and its dire consequences. Why do we not get with it before it is too late?
6
A sensible Krugman appraisal of the stakes laid out by this election. On the one hand, a realistic Democrat most likely to win her party's nomination running against an obviously unqualified Republican with more money than brains and totally blind to reality just like his fellow party members. How long will we be forced to endure this snarling catfight with both Rubio and Cruz spitting and carping at each other and Trump?
16
Who needs clean air and water anyway? Who needs a safe planet?
One party cares about the earth, the other does not.
You want a Nation of Flints? Vote for the GOP.
If you love your children, vote Democratic.
One party cares about the earth, the other does not.
You want a Nation of Flints? Vote for the GOP.
If you love your children, vote Democratic.
543
but but...its still the primary season, so vote for the right Democratic candidate, who is the only one talking about climate change and our future, Bernie. Its beyond Flint, its the whole planet.
4
Other than Bernie there is little difference between the parties, what we see on TV is not that different than professional wrestling. Both parties meet at the same bank for after hours drinks.
2
Republicans will go apoplectic when talking about leaving our children with some man made debt, an issue we can politically erase if we care to. They make no such fuss about the idea of leaving our children with an uninhabitable planet. Which we can only politically erase if we start NOW.
159
Everyone needs to understand that a Democratic President and (Hopefully) Senate would enable a holding action against a bought and paid for ideological minority in control of the House and far too many of the state legislatures.
Until we have a populist demand to overturn the rule for Plutocrats who derive their wealth from destroying the planet, in large and small ways, our nation and economy will continue to flounder.
Locally here in Arkansas I see far too many yard signs for Trump and competing campaign mailers for the state legislature touting their more conservative credentials, featuring Tax Cuts and promising to work to overturn Obamacare. People willing to put others out in the streets to die for lack of health care are a hard sell on the (negative) effects of climate change, especially when the Propaganda Organs keep telling them there is no such thing.
Somehow we all need to work on countering the negative effects of the relentless propaganda voters are deluged with.
Until we have a populist demand to overturn the rule for Plutocrats who derive their wealth from destroying the planet, in large and small ways, our nation and economy will continue to flounder.
Locally here in Arkansas I see far too many yard signs for Trump and competing campaign mailers for the state legislature touting their more conservative credentials, featuring Tax Cuts and promising to work to overturn Obamacare. People willing to put others out in the streets to die for lack of health care are a hard sell on the (negative) effects of climate change, especially when the Propaganda Organs keep telling them there is no such thing.
Somehow we all need to work on countering the negative effects of the relentless propaganda voters are deluged with.
218
All we need is one more honest Justice of the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act to give us the democracy you want. 50 years of "conservative" judges has taken its toll. But unlike climate damage that can be reversed.
4
The next president can indeed do a lot on her own, but her life would be much easier, on all the issues, with a Congress, at least the Senate, in her corner.
Sanders supporters could still promote Bernie's platform by shifting their energies to congressional races, especially the Senate, whose first order of business in 2017 could well be voting on the next Supreme Court justice.
Sanders supporters could still promote Bernie's platform by shifting their energies to congressional races, especially the Senate, whose first order of business in 2017 could well be voting on the next Supreme Court justice.
154
Mr Averill has a sensible rational political strategy. I wish he had a donate button on his post. I would send money this morning to anything he was organizing. Time is running out though. The beast is slouching toward Bethlehem this election. All the angry people. You have the Trunp-Cruz-Rubio axis plus the young men and women who just cannot believe that History provides only the restoration of the Clinton axis. I hope Mr Averill is around in 2020. Maybe then. Of course, he probably will not have the Supreme Court he needs. Want to feel hopeless? read Paul Krugman and Charles Blow together today. And keep in mind the poll of random American adults that finds a fifth of its sample identify a judge Judy as a Supreme Court justice. This year things fall apart. Hopefully, in four years there are some pieces let for the young to pick up.
6
I'd hold my nose and I'd vote Hill'
But how about us waiting 'til
The voting tomorrow
With joy not with sorrow
ForBernie is my big choice still!
But how about us waiting 'til
The voting tomorrow
With joy not with sorrow
ForBernie is my big choice still!
414
I like the way you think... Remember Charles Blow's wonderful phrase from the 2012 election? The fat lady is waiting in the wings, gargling with tea and honey... I don't think I'll ever forget it.
7
I'd rather get it over with and vote for Cruz. Clinton is a tool, nothing less.
1
In the primary vote whom you please
in the election get down on your knees
pray Republicans lose
a Democrat choose
lest earth become hell and hell freeze
in the election get down on your knees
pray Republicans lose
a Democrat choose
lest earth become hell and hell freeze
10
There are quite a few states to go before the blowout turns out to be indicative of the final result. Regardless, of the two Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders is, by far, the stronger candidate on the environment. He's also the strongest candidate on getting voters excited, involved, and insistent that government by the people, of the people, and for the people make a return. His brand of populism and the high bar he is setting for aspirations and achievements is what this nation needs after too many years of low achievements, disappointment, corruption, and a new kind of lingering poverty that has engulfed millions of Americans who had never been so economically insecure. Hillary Clinton speaks to the existing middle class. Bernie Sanders speaks to the precariat and their children. He speaks of the planet and places it as a priority that is equal to the highest national security threat. Sanders doesn't take corporate money and will not triangulate. People say he will be hobbled. If he is elected it will be because his political revolution is what the people come out to vote for, complete with at least one house of Congress reverting to the Democrats. We need a new generation of civilly-minded voters who will keep after the leadership to fix the environment. Who is best placed to transform our politics? The GOP must be removed from power. Clinton's candidacy of establishment politics and incrementalism just won't cut it.
---
New Precariat essay: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1Qv
---
New Precariat essay: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1Qv
300
Rima... paragraphs please, so your posts are easier to read. Thanks.
Hillary speaks to the existing middle class, who think they're going to stay there. But to avoid another big crash, we have to depend on Prez Hillary's personal judgment of when the big banks controlling the nations wealth are going too far in risk.
She opposes Glass Steagall and I'm not sure if she's proposed any others. So instead of having proper laws in place to keep the economy in balance, we'll depend on her telling the financial elites to 'cut it out', in her own words.
But why should they listen? They'll just tell her nicely to shut up.
Hillary speaks to the existing middle class, who think they're going to stay there. But to avoid another big crash, we have to depend on Prez Hillary's personal judgment of when the big banks controlling the nations wealth are going too far in risk.
She opposes Glass Steagall and I'm not sure if she's proposed any others. So instead of having proper laws in place to keep the economy in balance, we'll depend on her telling the financial elites to 'cut it out', in her own words.
But why should they listen? They'll just tell her nicely to shut up.
78
Sorry about the big chunk today, Meredith. Comments from the phone not easy to format...
3
In addition, electability is becoming Clinton's problem: polls indicate that she is basically tied with Trump.
And many people, who resent the way Sanders' candidacy has been stifled by the media and the Democratic establishment, will not vote for her in November.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_electi...
And many people, who resent the way Sanders' candidacy has been stifled by the media and the Democratic establishment, will not vote for her in November.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_electi...
4
As a card-cayying economist, you should know that economics, not legislation, will have the most profound effect in shaping people's behavior. As long as gas is cheap, carbon consumption will continue unabated, and the globe will continue to warm. The only effective solution is to make make carbon expensive, through taxation, and make non-carbon energy sources economically attractive, through subsidies. Even then, we would be acting unilaterally, and the enormous populations of India and China will continue to burn and pollute the globe.
21
Egitz....Why doesn't economist Krugman write a practical article on taxes and subsidies affecting climate policy? That's how other govts do it.
But here, govt action is insulted as intrusive, dictatorial and anti business. Taxes are poison and the big corporations can easily block them with campaign subsidies to their dependent lawmakers.
Where are the columnists relating campaign finance reform to this and many other problems awaiting solution? When even our liberal pundits avoid this, it lets outsized corporate power continue and worsen.
Then the pundits lament the results, and look like humanitarian progressives. Very nice.
But here, govt action is insulted as intrusive, dictatorial and anti business. Taxes are poison and the big corporations can easily block them with campaign subsidies to their dependent lawmakers.
Where are the columnists relating campaign finance reform to this and many other problems awaiting solution? When even our liberal pundits avoid this, it lets outsized corporate power continue and worsen.
Then the pundits lament the results, and look like humanitarian progressives. Very nice.
9
Your progressive economic suggestions will only come about through legislation.
And I recommend patience in our attitude toward other countries. After all, it is only in the last year or so that CO2 emissions from China exceed those from the U.S.
Southern Asia and China will be the regions that suffer the most as sea level rises, causing many millions of people to lose their homes. And the people who suffer will be at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Those people deserve support and empathy.
And I recommend patience in our attitude toward other countries. After all, it is only in the last year or so that CO2 emissions from China exceed those from the U.S.
Southern Asia and China will be the regions that suffer the most as sea level rises, causing many millions of people to lose their homes. And the people who suffer will be at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Those people deserve support and empathy.
4