Third Party & Independents: Archives

Tax carbon. I know I just keep repeating this, but it is the solution. Raising MPG is a temporary fix.

The bottom line is that we need to use less carbon based fuels. There is no painless way to do this. We use carbon based fuel because they are cheap (if you leave out external costs). If we want to use something else, it will cost more. We need to face the truth and all the singing and demostrating changes this truth not at all.

Posted by: Jack at November 5, 2007 02:18 PM

Acting preemptively on fossil fuel energy dependence and global climate change will be expensive, and cause hardship and losses and shared sacrifice by Americans. But, the consequences of not acting so, will be even more expensive, and cause far greater hardship and suffering.

Yes, the likelihood of “greater hardship and suffering” is high.

It’s like standing paralyzed on the train tracks while the train approaches.
It’s makes no sense, but there it is.
That’s exactly what we are doing.

The painful consequences are probably unavoidable, but if we acted now, we might mitigate the approaching problems.

It’s quite likely that the human race, despite its ability to understand what is happening, lacks the will to change it.
With humans, awareness does not always lead to modified behavior.
Thus, we may be little different than an oblivious bacteria, multiplying over and over, spreading, consuming, and finally killing its own host ?
It’s a shocking analogy, but it may be more accurate than we want to believe.

The chances that 6.7 billion humans (world population increasing by 211,000 per day) jointly take action to save themselves is unlikely.
We prbably won’t get a second chance this time.
Overpopulation and diminishing resources will lead to conflicts. Still, the world population grows by 211,000 per day.
The U.S. population is growing by 14,272 per day (5.2 million per year), and the rate is increasing by 1.8% per year.
The United States has only 4% of the world population, but emits 25% of the world’s CO2 emissions.
The United States is the worst emitter of CO2 gases (of any nation with a population of over 3 million people).
And the CO2 of two nations (China population=1.3 billion; Inida population=1.1 billion) with 8 times more people are likely to increase drastically in the approaching decades.
In 2006, there were 5.46 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
But not all land is arable.
In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people).
At the current rate of loss of 38,610 square miles per year of arable land, and even if the population didn’t grow any larger, ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!

Despite all that, some one will come and characterize those with concern as alarmists, chicken-littles, the sky-is-falling, end-of-the-world dooms-dayers.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 5, 2007 02:59 PM

Jack, the bill BOTH taxes carbon and raises CAFE standards, and other measures. I fail to comprehend your one action solutions to enormous and multivariate problems which clearly require multiple solutions working in tandem and order with each other to create an effective, comprehensive and lasting solution.

Taxing carbon alone does NOT address global climate change NOR import energy dependency in any kind of comprehensive way that would yield benefits beyond the input costs. As HR 6, begins to, we need to enact comprehensive staged and tiered efforts and solutions to beat these problems back and offset the enormous human tragedy they portend.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2007 03:27 PM

I’m confused… if global warming is already causing the drought in Georgia, as we are led to believe, then what will limiting by a small amount the amount of CO we release into the atmosphere by 2020 do? With the increase in population, that will mean we keep fossil fuel emissions to about the same level they are now, right?

Or, am I misunderstanding the arguement somehow?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2007 07:46 PM

Jack,

There was another solution on the table, one Republicans rejected, and I’d like your take on why. This solution created a market that allowed companies to purchase units of carbon creation - in effect, they had incentives to look at alternative forms of energy, but could choose to pay more and keep spewing carbon too. This was a totally market based solution, so I don’t understand why Republicans were oppossed. It seemed like it would work even better than taxing, which you know I’m for too….

Posted by: Max at November 5, 2007 08:19 PM

A carbon tax on people who have no alternatives is the wrong thing to do. I would apply the carbon tax on auto manufactures profits. I would give them a 25% discount on gas/electric hybrids and a 100% discount on every electric car that they mass produce. I would tax corporations with fleets of vehicles but, let them avoid the tax if they pre-order electric vehicles to replace their fleets. The government should do the same with their fleets.

Individual taxpayers should be allowed to deduct the cost of solar and wind products over a period of a few years. we also need laws in every state that forces the electric companies to buy the electricity from their customers. The country needs an entirely new electric grid and it should be decentralized as much as possible.

It seems to me that a lot of HR6 was written by ADM and I cannot support a bill that encourages biofuels. Wall Street isn’t interested because the market knows that biofuels are not a viable alternative. The investments are getting out of biofuels and into solar and other alternatives.

Posted by: jlw at November 6, 2007 03:43 AM

You’d think the annual $24 Billion budget for the Department Of Energy could have come up with something, eh?
But then, you’d also think an annual $400+ Billion Defense budget could keep jet planes from flying into the Pentagon and other building too?
The bloated federal government is where good ideas and reforms go to die.
So looking to the corrupt, Do-Nothing Congress for solutions is probably a supreme waste of time.
So, if we tax carbon, will government use this tax revenue to research solutions, or line their own pockets and the pockets of their big-money donors?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2007 09:01 AM

Rhinehold, any probability and statistics course will teach that in climatology one cannot predict a single specific event, only trends with certainty. There is no way of knowing whether the drought in Ga. is a result of global climate change or an anomoly that would have occurred even if global climate change and warming were not occurring.

What the science can predict is oceanic rise, which is now measurably occurring, average global temperature rise, and that areas with predictable trend weather patterns will be altered.

In the article I state the the ultimate goal is greenhouse gas emissions cut by 80% by 2050. To get there, we must take a number of steps, and like any accomplishment it begins with a first step. That first step is HR 6. HR 6 passing will begin the process of meeting a number of objectives culminating hopefully in meeting the 2050 objective.

A baby that never takes its first step, will never run in its lifetime. Hope this resolves your confusion, though I thought the article laid this out pretty clearly.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2007 09:19 AM

jlw, you are right about the bio-fuels inclusion being the misfiring spark plug in the plan. But, this is politics, man, with many players at the table. To get where we need to go in saving the world and our economic future, we must take a first substantial step, however unbalanced and tentative that first step will be. HR 6 is a bill you should support, because to not support it means doing nothing, and that is no longer a viable option.

We cannot turn this issue into another 3rd rail of politics. Inaction is doom for the planet and all of our children’s futures, wealthy and poor alike.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2007 09:24 AM

d.a.n, the taxes will help fund swithgrass, wood chip and other bio-fuel research development, fusion research, battery improvements, hydrogen safety measures, and other energy alternative and climate management research already underway and funded in part by our taxes.

Congress is wasteful, irresponsible, and fraudulent in managing our tax dollars. You get no argument from me there. But, voters can’t afford to throw the baby out with the bath water, and must multi-task here: we must vote for our future on this energy and climate management issue as well as voting out irresponsible and corrupt politicians who just don’t get it. We are capable of that - so, let’s do it.

Waiting for the perfect Congress and the perfect legislation to begin is not an option because it will never be a reality. The 20th century saw vast improvements in the condition of humans, despite the flaws in humankind and their systems for managing their affairs. The imperfections of our species cannot be used as an excuse for failure to act, and act responsibly at this point in time. Time is running out where energy and climate change are concerned. We must act, even if imperfectly, as long as that action moves us forward on the issue.

We must take this first step, or we won’t take any at all for the same reasons we didn’t take this one.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2007 09:30 AM

I have to go with jlw on this one. I looked through David’s link to the bill summary, and it seems the government still believes that biofuel is the Holy Grail, when in fact is seems to be nothing more than another bone thrown to agribusiness. Biofuels are better than gas for CO2, but electric and hydrogen/electric hybrids would be far better. And honestly folks, there is a provision in the bill for funding for “carbon capture and storage research”. Umm, first, sounds ridiculous and inefficient. Second, didn’t Ma Nature already create something like that…. oh yeah, trees!

L

Posted by: leatherankh at November 6, 2007 09:51 AM

David is right, though. This is a first step. Not a very big one, but a step nonetheless.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at November 6, 2007 09:54 AM

Time is running out where energy and climate change are concerned. We must act, even if imperfectly, as long as that action moves us forward on the issue.

Agreed 100%.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 6, 2007 10:42 AM

David R.: This bill is another government boondoggle that will waste hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, do very little to address the issue, and give incumbent politicians something to crow about. I realize the urgency, but, IMO, a bill that wastes tax dollars on products that will never be viable alternatives is nearly as bad as no bill at all.

An electric society is the only true alternative. We have the technology to begin this transfer now and the people are ripe for the change. We must counter the oil companies false claim that this change will damage or destroy our economy. We The People can use our tax dollars to help our industries and ourselves make the change. A bill that wastes all that money on biofuels is a bill that the oil companies can live with. We will waste billions building vehicles that can run on biofuels before we get to the real solution.

If we want to spend a few more trillions on wars for oil, HR6 will help us do that.

Posted by: jlw at November 6, 2007 11:51 AM

leatherankh, biofuels will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and thus help to keep oil prices down by the reduced demand, and it fixes the political mindset to fund alternatives.

To fight this bill is to fight any change at all. No bill is going to suit everyone, and if every bill which doesn’t suit everyone is defeated, we make no progress at all. And time is very short to act and change the political mindset on these issues. HR 6 is for all intents and purposes, the politicians testing the public waters on change. Frustrate HR 6, and the liklihood of passing ANY other measures goes way down.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2007 12:12 PM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, the taxes will help fund swithgrass, wood chip and other bio-fuel research development, fusion research, battery improvements, hydrogen safety measures, and other energy alternative and climate management research already underway and funded in part by our taxes.

Biofuels are not a good long-term solution, but have one very important advantage:

Biofuels are better than NOTHING (i.e. when there’s not enough, or affordable oil)

David R. Remer wrote: Congress is wasteful, irresponsible, and fraudulent in managing our tax dollars. You get no argument from me there. But, voters can’t afford to throw the baby out with the bath water, and must multi-task here: we must vote for our future on this energy and climate management issue as well as voting out irresponsible and corrupt politicians who just don’t get it.

Then, we’d have to vote most (if not all) out? That is not likely to happen until pain thresholds are reached to provide the badly-needed motivation.

David R. Remer wrote: We are capable of that - so, let’s do it.

We are capable.

But are we willing? Not likely, until our pain thresholds are reached. By then, it may be too late (if it isn’t already).
Of course, giving up is not an option. Still, the probabilities are worth noting.

David R. Remer wrote: Waiting for the perfect Congress and the perfect legislation to begin is not an option because it will never be a reality.

Of course perfection is probably impossible, but unfortunately, perfection (or as near to it as possible) may be exactly what is needed (and soon).

It seems highly unlikely that the world’s 6.7 billion human population (growing by 211,000 per day) can change its behavior voluntarily without pain or profit as major motivators.
Again, giving up is not an option, but it may not change the probability of the painful future to come. Possibly in our own lifetime.

David R. Remer wrote: The 20th century saw vast improvements in the condition of humans, despite the flaws in humankind and their systems for managing their affairs.

Yes and no.

There have been some advances in human rights and technology, but not everywhere.
However, we are now running up against a wall.
The planet has limited resources and capacity for abuse.

• The world population in 1959 was 3.0 billion people (increased by 1.0 billion in only 37 years; increasing on average by about 74,000 per day).


• The world population in 2006 was 6.68 billion people (more than doubled in 47 years; increasing now by 211,000 persons per day!).


• In 2006, there were 5.46 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).


• However, consider that there is only 12 million square miles (7.68 billion acres) of arable land on the planet.


• In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).

We’d better hope technology saves us (soon), to provide energy and food for 6.68 billion people (which will grow by about another billion every 11 to 12 years).

David R. Remer wrote: The imperfections of our species cannot be used as an excuse for failure to act, and act responsibly at this point in time.

No. Of course, it should never be used as an excuse. But we should also not ignore or fail to account for our biggest problem: human nature itself.

Giving up is not an option.
However, we should be realistic.
And that realism, if anything, should be why there should be more concern than there is.

David R. Remer wrote: Time is running out where energy and climate change are concerned.

Yes, and it’s going to get a lot worse. Some of it is already in the pipeline.

David R. Remer wrote: We must act, even if imperfectly, as long as that action moves us forward on the issue.

I agree. I just don’t think it will happen, until the painful consequences are already upon us. And possibly, not even then. This is why those that understand this should be VERY alarmed and more dedicated than ever to raising awareness A.S.A.P.

David R. Remer wrote: We must take this first step, or we won’t take any at all for the same reasons we didn’t take this one.

It requires leadership, which we do not have.

And most voters are not yet very concerned about adequate leadership, as evidenced by Congress’ 95% to 99% re-election rates.
Thus, as much I wish it wasn’t true, I don’t think reforms will come until it is too late to avoid the painful consequences of doing nothing.
Especially when we have a Congress that specializes in Doing Nothing.

Overpopulation is constantly ignored, despite the fact that we are now down to 1.15 acres of arable land per person, and arable land is decreasing by 38,610 square miles per year. ALL arable land could be lost in only 310 years (12 million square miles / 38,610 square miles per year)!
But we can not even control overpopulation in our own country (growing by 5.2 million per year, and the rate is increasing too by 1.8% per year).
Our politicians act as if we are in some sort of population race (motivated by the lure of votes and profits from cheap labor).
Overpopulation by itself is ample reason for concern, because it will lead to conflicts, societal chaos, wars, and more stresses on the planet’s diminishing finite resources and capacity for abuse.
Yes, giving up is NOT an option.
The problem is VERY serious.
But you would not know it to watch almost EVERYONE go about their daily lives oblivious to all of it … at least, until that becomes too painful.
Pain and misery has long been a self-correction system for humans.
But we are finally now being faced with a problem where we may not get a second chance to learn the hard way.
For those (as many do) that think that there are no problems with the planet we inhabit, they clearly demonstrate the human problem we face in ever addressing the planet’s peril in time.
And to make matters worse, even when humans can see and understand, it does not mean they will change their behavior.
This is why leadership is important.
But the people choose their leadership by voting.
But 40% to 50% don’t bother to vote, and the most of the rest that do vote merely pull the party lever which helps perpetuate 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Thus, if we change, it may have to be a result of pain to provide the motivation.
But if that pain is because our planet is already in peril, then we may have already waited too long.
So, you have to wonder if humans are really as smart as they like to think they are?
After all, you can only crap in your own nest for so long, before the branch it rests upon finally collapses.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2007 01:12 PM

d.a.n, beware of the self-fulfilling prophecy. If we expect nothing better, very likely our that expectation will produce nothing better. Expect the best, and at least there is a chance of avoiding the worst, since expectations do shape the future in part.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2007 01:20 PM

True, but reality can’t be ignored either.
It’s not just self-fulfulling prophecy, but reality.
It’s human psychology and history we must also recognize and address.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2007 01:25 PM

That is, the health of any organization, government, society, and the planet depend on our realistic understanding of ourselves.
That is at the root of the problem and solution of many things.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2007 01:28 PM

David R. Remer wrote: leatherankh, biofuels will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and thus help to keep oil prices down by the reduced demand, and it fixes the political mindset to fund alternatives.

Yes, biofuels is better than nothing. When oil is unavailable or too expensive, biofuels will start looking like a great alternative, even if not a good long-term alternative.

Congress should also start raising minimum mileage requirements for automobiles.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2007 02:08 PM

Rhinehold, any probability and statistics course will teach that in climatology one cannot predict a single specific event, only trends with certainty. There is no way of knowing whether the drought in Ga. is a result of global climate change or an anomoly that would have occurred even if global climate change and warming were not occurring.

Then why did you include it into your article? Other than to inject fear into the discussion by using something that can be easily attacked by opponents of what you are attempting to discuss, much like Al Gore does with his hysteronics as well?

It turns people off and takes away from the real, rational, not-so-terrible-but-important-enough-to-change topic at hand, how we are treating our environment. It fires up the base, incenses those who are in opposition and turns away those who are on the fence. Perhaps it isn’t the best way to get your point across?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2007 02:29 PM

Rhinehold, a little thought renders and answer to your question. Georgia is an excruciating example of things to come if global climate change continues to be exacerbated by human activity. There was nothing objectionable to bringing Georgia’s situation into the discussion as an example of the kinds of problems that are growing in this country and around the world as a result of global climate change.

I clearly DID NOT say that the drought in Ga. was caused by global warming. So, any implication of that is pure fantasy.

I am confident you could have answered your own question as I have, with a modicum of thoughtful reflection, and a careful read of the article as to what it does say and what it doesn’t.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2007 03:09 PM

I clearly DID NOT say that the drought in Ga. was caused by global warming. So, any implication of that is pure fantasy.

Isn’t this the same reasoning as saying that the administration is trying to tie 9/11 with Iraq by mentioning them together?

Georgia is an excruciating example of things to come if global climate change continues to be exacerbated by human activity.

Maybe. Perhaps. It’s hard to say because we really don’t know what the results will be, do we?

an example of the kinds of problems that are growing in this country and around the world as a result of global climate change.

SO, you say that the drought was not caused by global warming, BUT it is an example of what global warming has in store for us, even though it is occuring on its own as part of normal weather cycles, not as a result of global warming, and we don’t know for sure what the results of global warming will be exactly…

I am confident you could have answered your own question as I have, with a modicum of thoughtful reflection, and a careful read of the article as to what it does say and what it doesn’t.

Sure, without asking the question I would have just assumed that you were trying to create an atmosphere of fear into the discussion. By asking the question I made sure of it, BUT did give you the chance to explain yourself better as I may have misunderstood how the drought in Georgia is in any way linked in your article to global warming.

Instead I get told that I’m incapable of or chose not to use thoughtful reflection or read the article clearly.

You’re winning me to your side, David! Great post!

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2007 07:45 PM

The funny thing about weather nowadays is how many rare and less frequent events, like droughts, superpowerful hurricanes, and El Nino, seem to be speeding up.

We’re getting more black and white and fewer shades of grey. As it happens, such extremity happens to be a predicted outcome of Global Warming.

Is Global Warming involved in Atlanta’s dilemma? The answer, given the warming trend in the atmosphere, is “almost certainly”. Is it the primary cause? That’s the tricky question to answer, in no small part because climate change can alternatively strengthen, weaken, or rewrite the climate situation.

It could be intensifying the heat over land that would prevent rains from falling. It could be shifting distribution of heat to cool air and dry it out. It could be monkeying around with some current or some element of the jet stream.

Republicans and folks on the Right sometimes like to pull out the argument that Global Warming could be beneficial for some areas. When they can tell me what areas exactly, perhaps they may have a point. That is, if there aren’t major moral and/or economic losses to balance out or swallow up the gains.

They also like to pull out the uncertainties of human and climatic behavior. “To what end?”, I’d ask. Uncertainty is a door that swings both ways. It’s a fallacy of ambiguity to rest the foundations of your argument on uncertain outcomes, as if they are certain or greatly more likely to go a certain way. If the uncertainty is real bad, the message isn’t that all is fine, the message is, we don’t know what the hell we’re screwing with.

The uncertainties, though, in this case, are often the result of the inherently uncertain nature of atmospheric physics. With all the Butterfly effects fluttering around the equations of climate change, nailing things down to specific predictions may be impossible.

Certain things, though, would remain true: the more energy we trap in the system, the more energy will remain to drive changes in climate. The time to apply the brakes is now, because if we wait too late, the brakes won’t mean a damn thing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2007 10:40 PM

Stephen,

almost certainly? I’m sorry, but only is there no way you can back that up, your assertion that extreme events are happening more and more often isn’t backed up by our historic knowledge or current statistical data.

You may ‘feel like’ it is happening, but you cannot PROVE it. Which is why it is hard to debate the topic rationally with many people, on either side, because it has become more than a ‘hot button’ issue, but actually a religion. A leap of faith as fact. You believe it, so it if a fact that all should believe, why bother trying to use science to back up that thought process, hmmm?

Was the Irish Potato Famine, a major drought that lasted across europe for years, a result of Global Warming? While living through it, one might try to assign reason to it, blame it on something they had a disposition to believing anyway, perhaps blame it on ‘god’, or more likely angering god… It’s really not much different here with some people.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2007 11:00 PM

Rhinehold-
What I’m talking about here is not necessarily the frequency of storms or hurricane, but the increased intensity of these events.

Don’t get holier than thou on the science. I’ve already acknowledged that the connection may not be straightforward. I’m just saying that it’s hard to believe that with a verified rise in global temperatures, with a well-modelled, well attributed connection to human activity, that what we call Global warming could not play a role, in some way.

The, role, as I said, though, Could be fairly complicated. Your problem is, you see a bright line between natural events and events that humans have influenced that simply does not exist. Are people wrong to suspect that these out of the blue heat-waves, record breaking hurricane seasons, greater torrential rains, and dry, longer droughts could be a consequence in part of Anthropogenic global warming? No. When record breaking weather (though not necessarily the events themselves) become more common, it is cause for concern.

One thing you’re missing here is that AGW can supplement a natural warming trend, aggravate and lengthen a natural dry spell, and cause torrential rains to become more torrential than otherwise expected. You’re trying to say that it could be these things by themselves, but you’re not acknowledging that such trends could coincided and amplify one another.

As for proof? The best you can do is statistical, for those very reasons. We can’t get the entirety of Earth’s climate in a lab to perfectly determine it’s responses to stimuli. That’s why we rely on models and measurements in the field, for all their uncertainties. Basically, it’s all we got to work with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2007 11:56 PM

Rhinehold, you said

It (global warming) turns people off and takes away from the real, rational, not-so-terrible-but-important-enough-to-change topic at hand, how we are treating our environment.

So does that mean you’re an environmentalist that doesn’t believe in global warming or a political pragmatist? Just curious.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at November 7, 2007 12:07 AM

Rhinehold,
You are right, in that no single weather event can be conclusively proven to be the result of AGW.

Climate models do not predict more hurricanes. They predict hurricane intenisifcation. Was Katrina & the 2005 hurricane season an indisputable result of AGW? No. No one can say that with certainty. Does it fit the predictions of models? Yes. This past hurricane season provided another good example of hurricane intensification. 2007 was one of only four seasons on record with more than one category 5 hurricane. This fits the models and expectations of what we will see.

Wildfires, droughts, and so on- same thing. Is there definitive proof? Definitely not. Is it possible? Does it fit with expectations that come with AGW? Yup.

Posted by: phx8 at November 7, 2007 12:17 AM

Stephen,

Your problem is, you see a bright line between natural events and events that humans have influenced that simply does not exist.

Actually, that’s not true at all. I only think that we should not be pumping up the fear, creating hysteronics, to make the valid point that we should work to lower all pollution, find alternative energies and reduce our dependancy on foreign oil. By using this method we end up causing more harm than good, IMO.

Everyone agrees, when we get to it, that we can’t say that this event or that event is an example of global warming. People WANT to say it, but there’s just now way to do it and avoid that reality. Kilimanjaro is a great example, instead of just making the points that he should have made, Gore tried to point to current events as examples of the dire predictions he made. When they don’t hold up to the reality, however, it hurts his whole argument as a result. What is the benefit in using that tactic?

So does that mean you’re an environmentalist that doesn’t believe in global warming or a political pragmatist? Just curious.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2007 06:04 AM

Sorry, L, My long typed out response got eaten by a bad tag it looks like. :(

But, my answer is, basically, that I don’t think we need to play in the arena of fear, like the neocons do with terrorism, in order to make the case that we should be looking to convert to a less polluting form of energy, one that makes sense and can provide the energy we need as well as provide us energy independance, because it is just the right thing to do. By injecting fear, or treating the topic as a religion as many do, we just give people a reason to reject good stewardship of our dwindling resources.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2007 06:11 AM

Rhinehold, I can’t give you a semester of probability and statistics in this comments section. The Ga. drought is, by definition, an example of global climate change. Ga. is not historically a drought region. Ergo, its climate has changed causing this severe drought.

Whether the drought in Ga. was caused by naturally occurring global climate change (change that would have occurred if humans still lived as they did 5000 years ago) or if it is caused by a tipping point effect of human contributions to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is not something probability and statistics can answer. Probability and statistics cannot predict, nor explain the causality of a discrete isolated event.

But, it can establish correlations between events with a moderate to high degrees of reliability, validity, and confidence, or establish that there is no correlation at all. Georgia may well be caused by human contributions to global warming, or not. The science can predict climate change: and climates are changing. Georgia is a evidence of that. It is not of itself proof of causality between automobile CO2 emissions and drought in Ga.

There comes a point in debate of such matters when one has to accept their own educational limitations and make their best guess. But, it is foolish and ignorant in the extreme for someone uneducated in a discipline, to dismiss the import and validity of the discipline. You rely on probability and statistical modeling every day of your life in this country. It is proven scientific methodology whether you are educated in it or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 7, 2007 11:07 AM

Rhinehold,

But, my answer is, basically, that I don’t think we need to play in the arena of fear, like the neocons do with terrorism, in order to make the case that we should be looking to convert to a less polluting form of energy, one that makes sense and can provide the energy we need as well as provide us energy independance, because it is just the right thing to do.

Agreed.
Except that, unfortunately, just being the right thing to do is no more enough argument to convince anyone to change. As proven so often.

By injecting fear, or treating the topic as a religion as many do, we just give people a reason to reject good stewardship of our dwindling resources.

Dwindling resources are dwindling resources. Saying they’re dwindling is not injecting fear, it’s telling an obvious truth openly. Maybe too much openly for many, maybe too much true for others, but truth is not fear. Being forced to face truth could be scary, though, but what other solution do we have when our cheap resources are soon empty except saying “this is the end of cheap resource”?

And I failed to see how saying we’re locked on this little planet and our survival depends on her limited resources is being religious.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 7, 2007 11:12 AM

Rhinehold-
I’m not fearmongering here. That’s the problem with this approach of yours to the rhetoric. People like myself see good reason to be afraid here. We’re not trying to scare people to score political victories, but to keep what we ourselves fear from happening.

Far from being hysterical about it, though, people like myself have a wide array of technological and economic ideas for turning the tide on this issue. We’re not calling for the absolute demolition of our economy to acheive this. Instead, we’re talking about an organized campaign on all fronts to deal with this problem.

Unfortunately, there are those who have decided that they will take a foot-dragging, in-denial attitude about this. I’m not saying you’re like this, but I think folks like that have had an undue influence on your thinking.

They want to present the situation as inevitable. Parts of it are, we can’t, as of yet, take back the CO2 and the climate change that’s already in the queue, so to speak. The oceans will continue to release heat and CO2 for some time to come, with those kinds of changes. We may already have passed a point where the change reinforces itself. We don’t know that, though.

Nothing in nature, though, prevents additional tipping points from being reached, or further warming and its consequences from occuring.

Conservatives also maintain that the change would be gradual. Trouble is, it’s not the way things work. The grasslands of the Sahara became the desert we know to day in the space of 200 years. One transition of 9 degrees worldwide took place within the space of a decade. Evidence on climate change shows that the terms “sudden” and “violent” apply more often than not.

They speak of reaping the benefits, but the trouble with that sensibility is

a) You can’t necessarily predict which places would benefit, and

b) Even if you could, much of our infrastructure is built on the climate as it’s been for thousands of years. It will be terribly expensive and difficult to take advantage of one’s windfalls.

The Right’s rhetoric is encouraging foot-dragging which evidence shows we don’t have time for. It’s encouraging resignation when what we need is the motivation to change and adapt. It’s encouraging complancency when we have genuine, solid reasons for being afraid of the consequences of our actions.

Katrina, whether or not Global Warming was it’s primary cause, was a wake up call regarding our vulnerability. Just because we’re at the top of the food chain doesn’t make us invulnerable to nature.

If you and other climate-conscious Republicans and independents would quit wasting energy fighting Democrats and Liberals on this issue, and lent your strength to dealing with this problem, you could do much more to moderate the excesses of those who would take radical and impractical approaches.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2007 01:04 PM

Stephen D. said: “b) Even if you could, much of our infrastructure is built on the climate as it’s been for thousands of years. It will be terribly expensive and difficult to take advantage of one’s windfalls.”

That is an extremely important and valid point to make. It should be made far, far more often. The infrastructure demolished or useless where populations have to leave is one economic loss of monumental proportion, but, building new infrastructure in the places of population relocation nearly doubles that economic cost.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 7, 2007 06:12 PM

Stephen D. and David R.: I agree with what both of you are saying but, IMO, HR6 couldn’t have been written better if it had been written by the oil companies instead of Agribusiness. It is not that the bill includes biofuels that can be mixed with diesel fuel and gasoline and sold at the pump, nearly the entire bill is devoted to and the money is going to biofuels.

An insurance policy for the nuclear industry? Do you think that an insurance program can reclaim all that poisoned land in the former Soviet Union? Lip service to other alternatives? Puting most of your eggs in a basket that is headed down a dead end street is a non-starter.

We have the technology to start transitioning to an electric economy now. We need to skip the biofuels and begin the transition to electric now, even if it means continued dependence on coal fired electrical generation. Fifty miles down river from my home is a coal fired power plant that contains four units that operate independently. One or two units can be shut down when demand is low and fired back up, almost immedaitely when demand rises. When the sun is shinning on millions of homes and businesses, and the wind is turning millions of back yard wind turbins, units can be shut down. When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shinning, units can be brought back on line.

We also have geothermal and it is ripe for expansion. What we need is the will to go against the powerful corporate interests and prevent our tax dollars from being wasted down a dead end street. We need the will to demand wise decisions.

Posted by: jlw at November 8, 2007 11:46 AM

jlw, the biofuel replacement for imported oil has no alternative at this time that can reduce oil imports. That is simply the reality at the moment. It would take a decade and longer to induce Americans to trade in their gasoline only engines for electrics IF electric vehicles had the range and comparable pricing. Ford, GM, Toyota and others are moving on the hybrids but, they cost more to purchase and transitioning to them will take more than a decade.

Biofuels are a short term interim solution to reducing imported oil consumption.

I am opposed to new nuclear plants UNTIL we have a cost effective and safe waste disposal plan and facilities in place. That doesn’t exist.

But, the crucial thing to remember here is that this is politics which means compromise. All stake holders to moving forward on energy reform must feel they are getting something out of the bargain. That reality precludes an efficient direct path from A to B in solving the problem. But, a compromised solution that moves us forward is better than no action or solutions, long or short term, being implemented at all.

Welcome to democratic republican governance. It ain’t pretty, it ain’t efficient, and it ain’t cheap. But, most of the alternatives are far worse.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2007 01:22 PM

David R.: It is a trap. Biofuels to mix with hydro-carbon fuels means higher prices and no electric cars. It also means a stop gap measure until hydrogen fuel cells are available and that means continued dependence on the corporations. Although people will still be able to use solar and wind technology to reduce their dependence on the electric grid, they will not be able to use that technology to charge their cars because the electric cars won’t be built. This is what the energy corporations do not want. It is also the reason we do not have the electric car option now. They will do everything they can to convince us that we don’t need or want electric vehicles. Centralization and control can be maintained.

Posted by: jlw at November 8, 2007 10:19 PM

jlw, sorry, but you are just plain wrong when you say: “Biofuels to mix with hydro-carbon fuels means higher prices and no electric cars.”

Electric cars carry higher prices too. It is a matter of economics. When electricity at home and work is cheaper than bio-fuels/gasoline, and electric car battery costs come down, electric cars will become highly marketable.

I am all for electric cars. Wish I had one for local round trips which don’t exceed battery charging capacity. Fact is, my wife commutes 47 miles one way to work. Electric cars don’t yet have the capacity to accommodate her. They don’t recharge in 9 hours yet, and don’t provide a minimum of 100 miles drive time between charges.

The hybrids therefore make far more sense in the interim as electric car technology advances. And E-85 hybrids, as an interim measure, will reduce our demand for foreign oil imports, which will help reduce the rate at which oil pricing is going to accelerate.

China is going to have to adopt Hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles for environmental reasons, and that will mean China will become a mass producer of both. Ford is already moving its research departments to China.

But, hybrids and E-85 will not prevent electric car technology from advancing nor prevent it from becoming the cost competitive vehicle of choice, as China begins to make and sell them cheaper than the American manufacturers can. China btw, has an auto manufacturing plant under construction just across our border in Mexico. When finished, China will become a major car exporter into the U.S. It’s all been worked out under our idiotic “free” trade agreements.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2007 03:13 PM

I am opposed to new nuclear plants UNTIL we have a cost effective and safe waste disposal plan and facilities in place. That doesn’t exist.

Not only that, they are NOT 100% safe.

There was 3-Mile Island, that was almost the first Chernobyl.

Then there was Chernobyl.

Reported 7/13/2007, a nuclear power plant in England was closed due to safety issues.

Siberia is polluted with nuclear waste.

On 9/30/1999, Japan’s Tokaimura reactor had a nuclear accident that affect 83 people (some seriously).

And security guards at only one out of four nuclear power plants are confident their plant could defeat a terrorist attack, according to interviews conducted for this report by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO).

On 7/19/2007, the world’s largest nuclear power plant (in Japan) was closed due to damage by an Earthquake.

A natural disaster such as an earthquake could turn the disaster into a worse disaster.
That’s just a few.
See a list of nuclear accidents here.

The bottom line is:

mistakes happen

There are more alternatives, and other potential energy sources:
(1) fusion
(2) geothermal
(3) solar
(4) hydrogen, OTEC
(5) tidal forces
(6) biofuels
(7) wind
(8) hydro-electric
There are more alternatives.

Nuclear fission is a relatively bad idea, and it’s not necessary, since we have better alternatives. Nuclear fission power proponents frequently tout nuclear fission power as a limitless supply of energy powered by a fuel that never runs out. However:
(1) Nuclear fission plants are extremely expensive to build.
(2) Nuclear fission plants have the potential for catastrophic environmental and human disaster (e.g. Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.).
(3) Nuclear fission plants create large amounts of hazardous, environmentally toxic radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for millennia.
(4) Nuclear fission plants are attractive military targets and attractive targets for terrorists.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 9, 2007 05:32 PM

d.a.n, quite right. The proponents constantly argue how cheap nuclear is. But, not one will respond directly when asked if the current costs of nuclear waste storage and Yucca Mtn., have been factored into the cost. These are huge costs. And no. These costs are not factored in by proponents. It is another grand deception by the power interests.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2007 07:52 PM

The nuclear energy industry has been praying for a miracle. They could not have asked for anything better than global warming and wars for oil. They are going to do everything they can to convince the American people that they have the solution.

Electric cars, when mass produced, will be no more expensive than internal conbustion cars and less expensive than hybrids. The oil companies have and will continue to do everything in their power to prevent electric cars from happening. Their objective is to use supplimental biofuels for as long as possible and then convert to hydrogen fuel cells. As far as the oil companies are concerned, the American people must never be allowed to have cars that they can recharge at home and at work. If that were to happen, the oil companies would be reduced to making jet fuel and plastic.

Both industries are using their influence over our politicians and they are going to get what they want.

I have heard that the Chinese are making big plans to go green in a massive way. If this is true, perhaps the American people will be able to buy electric cars from them. It is the only way those of us who want them will be able to get them.

Posted by: jlw at November 10, 2007 09:46 PM

jlw, correct on both counts. Obama is for Nuclear Electricity in a big way. Lost him my vote, because he has dodged every question about how we will deal with the mounting waste problem.

China is breaking ground this year for an auto manufacturing plant just across our border in Mexico. They will, under recent treaties by the Bush Admin. be exporting Chinese cars into the U.S. in less than 6 years as I recall.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 20, 2007 12:21 AM

Almost all wars and terrorism in the world can be stopped. Almost all dictators and tyrants can be rendered powerless. All we have to do is to stop paying them. An alarming amount of the money Western nations pay for oil is going into the coffers of people who terrorists and dictators. All we have to do defund the world’s most violent criminals is to become energy independent.

In the first phase of energy independence we get as much energy as possible from resources which we own or which are in the hands of friendly, stable nations. First we build new nuclear power plants in every state. If the French can make nuclear work what excuse do we have? In addition, we drill for oil off all our coastal waters and we build new refineries and pipelines in every state. Existing energy companies are making plenty of money in the current climate of false scarcity. We will have to find away around them. Usually way around greedy energy companies would require political will. However, almost all existing politicians are in the pocket of the energy companies. This includes democrats and republicans. So every politician currently in office needs to be thrown out. Anyone who works for or who owns an existing conventional energy company is in my view disqualified for public office. We already know from the Bush/Cheney experience that such politicians will work in a way contrary to the national security of the United States and will start pointless wars for oil.

Merely having new politicians willing to clear the legal minefields laid down by oil bought senators and congressmen might not be enough. We might have to get a little bolder. Therefore I suggest that we build terawatts of new nuclear power plans and miles of new oil refineries in Mexico and that we send the power back to the states via pipelines, power lines, hydrogen, or whatever works. This will provide work for Mexicans and energy for us. The Mexican government will have a large incentive to make the plants secure and this increased security might even spill over to the borders and make our borders more secure.

While phase one is going on we need to start on phase 2. In this phase we bring online as many green and renewable technologies as are currently viable and put as much money as is needed into producing more. I would suggest that the model cities be built in the west and south—anywhere that it does not get cold enough to snow. The idea is to build small towns or cities that will go cold turkey. There will be no fossil fuels of any kind allowed in these cities. All vehicles and houses will be powered by wind, solar and bio-mass. The best locations would be those that have year around wind, sun and enough farming in the area to produce the bio mass. These experimental towns would be off the power grid. The only way to get power to them would be to make the green and renewable technologies work. Volunteers who truly believe that the future is green would be invited to apply for residency. We would probably take engineers and farmers over other types because we would need people who were skilled in keeping the power conversion machinery going and others who don’t mind the get your hand dirty hard work of farming.

Posted by: poetryman69 at November 25, 2007 05:41 PM