Reducing our coal, natural gas, and gasoline emissions by 80% by 2020 is not technically feasible, much less politically so. Conservation can't get close to that level of reduction and it takes time to change over half our electricity generation and our vehicle fleet. Natural gas usage for home heating and electricity is going to remain very important for the forseeable future. Both Clinton and Obama have serious and implementable plans to fight climate change. It won't get us all the way there, but we don't even have the technology yet to get where we need to go.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 08:53 AMMust comment on the use of these commercials. Do "they" really expect them to "connect" with Ma and Pa Smith in the heartland? take the Sharpton/Robertson commercial -- while it is great they got "both sides" in the same commercial ... the entire feel of the commercial is strained and formal... even the "joke" at the end by Pat fails because the tension between the two -- causes the commercial to come across as Faked... In fact the first time I saw it, I thought it was two actors wearing masks. The producers of this commercial should really consider producing something else .... for I feel these commercials are falling flat with their target market -- Ma and Pa in the heartland.
Posted by KJS at April 25, 2008 09:17 AMI think Gore is cautious given his last endorsement (Dean). Either he doesn't want to waste his environmental political capital OR he still holds out some hope that he will be the DEM compromise candidate without having to run in the primaries (VERY DOUBTFUL).
There are some things that we can do:
(1) Elect a democrat so that the issue is 'front and center'
(2) Expedite new car mileage requirements beyond what Bush just proposed
(3) Explore and invest in safe, reneable energy sources such as hydrogen, soybean, wind, solar, and even reconsider nuclear as the Eurpeans have done.
(4) Expose corporate propoganda, e.g. Archer-Midland-Daniels hawking of ethanol. Use corn for feeding people!
(5) Practice personal conservation and use of green technologies when feasible.
(6) Support organizations that educate and lobby for environmental preservation, e.g. Union of Concerned Scientists, etc. etc.
(7) 'Pass' Kyoto 2.
Personal responsibility is not the same as reliance on political will or expediency.
Let's not give up on our planet.
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 09:32 AMReducing our coal, natural gas, and gasoline emissions by 80% by 2020 is not technically feasible, much less politically so.
Sure it's technically feasible. We're just not ever going to do it because we'd rather use the resources on military stuff. But the technology does exist.
Posted by Tim H. at April 25, 2008 09:34 AM"Liberals must win in 2008"....? Hate to disappoint.you...ah, no I don't, but it ain;t gonna happen in 2008. Political pundits say no way for Hillary to make up ground and Obama will continue to prove that he is un-electable, and that will only get more obvious.
You are welcome to try again in 2012.
Posted by jj at April 25, 2008 09:37 AMjj,
This post is about the environment. You are off-topic and trolling
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 09:41 AMSure it's technically feasible. We're just not ever going to do it because we'd rather use the resources on military stuff. But the technology does exist. - Tim H.
I agree that our resources are badly misallocated, but how is it feasible under even ideal conditions? Please explain.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 09:45 AMIf saving the planet's 11,000 year old stable climate were understood to be as important as, say, WWII was, then of course massive reductions could be accomplished very quickly through huge federal investments, incentives and controls. And of course the waste of our current militarism would have to be massively slashed.
So of course it could be done, we just don't see it as an urgent priority.
This will be the last election where there is a chance to halt the process. After this election, politics won't really matter anymore as our planet will irreversibly warm until its unrecognizable.
So the new president is either presented with and signs a bill that the climate scientists have judged does the job, or the planet and most species are doomed, and (hopefully) most of selfish humanity.
Posted by euzoius at April 25, 2008 09:45 AMIt takes time to convert our vehicle fleet and our electricity generation infrastructure. Under existing technology, we would have to replace coal burning power plants with nuclear to sustain our base electricity generation, especially with the additional load of our vehicle fleet. One of the biggest technical hurdles we have is that electricity storage technology isn't quite there yet. That means solar and wind can't provide base power generation and there are limitations to conversion of the vehicle fleet.
I'm all for making it a national priority, but 80% reduction by 2020 would not happen even if Al Gore were king.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 09:54 AMFor example, I could design you a zero-emission coal power plant with no cooling water requirements. It would cost around 3 times what existing plants cost.
You could do a crash program for wind, solar thermal, mass transit, what have you. There is no technology missing that would limit you. You'd just have to decide that spending some of that $500 billion a year military budget on cutting emissions (and getting cheaper energy out eventually) is a better use of money than buying weapons.
If you mean, it's not technically feasible in the sense that we don't have a way to do it that costs no money, requires no Americans to do anything slightly different, and upsets nobody's apple cart then I agree with you.
So we could manufacture the largest vehicular army and airforce and a 60 aircraft carrier fleet in less than four years for WWII but we couldn't manufacture enough cars to get every gas guzzler under 30 mpg off the road in a decade?
"Not quite there yet"---with almost no gub'mint research funds on scores of green technologies. What would a massive apollo energy program accomplish?
You're thinking about how the MARKET would accomplish the transition---I'm thinking about what we would do if we actually properly regarded global warming as an existential emergency, which it is.
Posted by euzoius at April 25, 2008 10:06 AMClinton and Obama have robustly demonstrated they could give a damn,...
could NOT give a damn.
Posted by Anonny at April 25, 2008 10:09 AMvery good points Tim B. and euzoius.
It would have to be a national priority, like ... putting a man on the moon. It could be started now. Let's not get hung up on dates.
I drive a diesel fueled by vegetable oil, I realize that that is not going to save the world by 2020 either, but its something I have control over.
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 10:13 AMTizzynic
Please re-read post.
Posted by jj at April 25, 2008 10:16 AMIts 'tfitznc',
The POST said this:
"Liberals must win 2008 or there won’t be an America anymore, it’s that simple, with everything on the line is 2008 a wise time to initiate the climate change fight?"
You said this:
"... Hate to disappoint.you...ah, no I don't, but it ain;t gonna happen in 2008. Political pundits say no way for Hillary to make up ground and Obama will continue to prove that he is un-electable, and that will only get more obvious.
You are welcome to try again in 2012."
I repeat- you are an off-topic troller
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 10:28 AMShit, tfitznc, it could've gotten started in 1995 when the world's climate scientists reported definitive proof fossil fuel burning was the cause (but don't get me started).
And it could've been started anytime over the past eight years as we increased the gas guzzler fleet and CO2 emissions, knowing full well that this was exactly the wrong policy.
Had we gotten started in 1998 it's estimated that the problem would have been HALF as difficult to solve---i.e. procrastination is a disaster here. Which is all we HAVE done. Simply criminal.
Posted by euzoius at April 25, 2008 10:30 AMHad we gotten started in 1998 it's estimated that the problem would have been HALF as difficult to solve---i.e. procrastination is a disaster here. Which is all we HAVE done. Simply criminal.
Jimmy Carter proposed, in 1978, a plan for energy independence by 1985. However, the intense hatred the House (Tip O'Neill) and the Senate (Ted Kennedy) had for Kennedy caused them to derail the whole plan -- or anything else Carter tried to do.
If only ....
Posted by Anonny at April 25, 2008 10:40 AMI agree that our resources are badly misallocated, but how is it feasible under even ideal conditions? Please explain.
The first step should be to reverse the Clinton era SUV tax loophole. Accountants and businesses don't need to drive a fire-breathing 12mpg machine. Allow the business deduction only for cars rated at over 30mpg and only allow truck based deductions for businesses that need a truck, or if that truck based machine gets over 30mpg.
Posted by phidipides at April 25, 2008 10:42 AMtizzynic
You proved my point.
Thanks for re-reading-it was easy to miss
Posted by at April 25, 2008 10:45 AMFor example, I could design you a zero-emission coal power plant with no cooling water requirements. It would cost around 3 times what existing plants cost. - Tim H.
We don't know if carbon sequestration technology works. Dry cooling will put alot of restrictions on practical use of thermal electricity generation.
So we could manufacture the largest vehicular army and airforce and a 60 aircraft carrier fleet in less than four years for WWII but we couldn't manufacture enough cars to get every gas guzzler under 30 mpg off the road in a decade? - euzoius
30 mpg is nothing compared to what we would need to get 80% reduction. We need electric vehicle technology to mature, then we need to replace millions of vehicles, and we need to convert our electrical generation. There are lead times involved which make an 80% reduction by 2020 impossible even under the extremely unlikely event both parties and the American people were fully on board.
"Not quite there yet"---with almost no gub'mint research funds on scores of green technologies. What would a massive apollo energy program accomplish? - euzoius
It would accomplish alot, but it would not get the technology mature and implemented by 2020.
You're thinking about how the MARKET would accomplish the transition---I'm thinking about what we would do if we actually properly regarded global warming as an existential emergency, which it is. - euzoius
The cost of climate change is tremendous, but not existential - our species will survive. Aside from the technical challenges I have described, do not ignore the political. It is vital that we keep people behind any effort to combat climate change or we will only set back the process. That means using new energy technology to create jobs and improve the standard of living. At the same time, we can not (and should not) turn off the free market - it will be an essential player in the process.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 11:03 AMThe first step should be to reverse the Clinton era SUV tax loophole. Accountants and businesses don't need to drive a fire-breathing 12mpg machine. Allow the business deduction only for cars rated at over 30mpg and only allow truck based deductions for businesses that need a truck, or if that truck based machine gets over 30mpg.
This and other ideas are good steps, of course, but 80% reduction means going from 25 mpg to 125 mpg. That's not going to happen by 2020. I think both our candidates have reasonable plans to achieve meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in a way that will maintain political support for the process.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 11:11 AMCAPJ I appreciate your points. I don't disagree that a "market" solution is probably the only politically possible one---just that it's not the theoretical ONLY one, or the fastest one, and it still underestimates the danger of global warming to the planet and takes additional risks.
If people hadn't been lied to for two decades about the immediacy and reality of the problem, perhaps there would be a greater sense of urgency, and horror at having done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for 8 crucial years of Bushco, but then that would mean we would have gotten started by now and the sacrifices needed would be less.
It's easy to say that GW is not an existential crisis for us---the human, cockroach, and rat can "survive" anything (although in greatly diminished numbers), but it most certainly IS an existential crisis for millions of other less adaptable species---whose ecosystem WE selfishly, knowingly and without concern crapped up.
But since we don't care about the deaths of a million Iraqis, coral reefs and arctic animals are necessarily pretty far down the list......
Posted by euzoius at April 25, 2008 11:23 AMAnd just getting Boxer's bill for 80% reductions by 2050 enacted will probably be a political miracle.
Let's hope it's enough.
Posted by euzoius at April 25, 2008 11:25 AM30 mpg is nothing compared to what we would need to get 80% reduction.
No argument here, but where do you want to start and what do you have that is more immediately feasible with a larger initial impact?
My next step would be Federally insured loans with an interest deduction for homeowners to adopt new technology, and rebates for those using greener technologies. For the cost of one new nuclear power plant -or one month of the Iraq occupation- you can take 300,000 homes completely off of the grid and have them pumping power back to the grid at peak production times. Projecting this forward, for the to-date current real expenditures for the Iraq war 30 million U.S. homes come off the grid.
The only thing lacking in this projection is Congress and Lobbyists for energy corporations. Pelosi and Reid will never let you have it so that they can keep a couple hundred thousand dollars coming into their corporate whore pockets.
I also find it fascinating that were are on the edge of commercially viable cellulosic ethanol where you don't need a two-step bacterial process to make ethanol from wood chips and grass clippings. One genetically altered bacteria that goes from cellulose to sugar to ethanol. Too freaking cool! I wonder how Congress will kill it?
Posted by phidipides at April 25, 2008 11:46 AM
That's a problem since there aren't any liberals running.
Posted by eRobin at April 25, 2008 11:47 AMAnd just getting Boxer's bill for 80% reductions by 2050 enacted will probably be a political miracle.
Let's hope it's enough.
I think that is a good goal. Between electrifying much of our vehicle fleet, cellulosic ethanol, rooftop solar, wind, and conservation we can get alot of the way there. What I haven't seen is what we're going to use to replace the coal we're currently using as base load for our electrical grid. 40 years gives us time to develop the technologies we'll need and get them implemented while significantly reducing the impact of climate change.
One thing that is important to remember is that we need to make reducing CO2 economical. We're the world's biggest emitter right now, but for China, India, etc. to follow our lead, we will need to have developed technologies which are affordable for the developing world.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 12:21 PMAt 22:10, following his presentation of the "new" slide show, Al Gore responds to a question about this. Take a look if you're interested.
Here's my take. A lot of Dems fault Gore for not having centered his own campaign message in 2000 around environmental issues. The idea that a candidate should damn the electoral consequences and say the right things during a campaign is very attractive to a lot of creative class Democrats.
Gore, himself, concluded during his 2000 bid for the presidency that he had to speak to the issues that voters are most concerned about - not the issue he was most concerned about. He dropped environmentalism as a central rallying point of his campaign early on - he could not generate voter interest in the matter. In the past Gore has discussed how his campaign strategy evolved. He said that, even after he spoke about green issues, people at his events did not express an interest in the subject when they engaged him during follow-up Q&A sessions. What's a candidate to do?
It is unrealistic to expect a serious presidential candidate to take up a cause that is not resonating with the public. Voters believe that man-made global warming is occurring but, even now in 2008, they do not see it as one of America's more pressing problems (look in at 9:22).
There's only one bit a legislation that is going to make a dent in this Global Warming problem. That would be to transition to a carbon tax and, at a revenue neutral rate, away from Social Security taxes. That would be too tough a plan for a candidate to sell to the public during a presidential campaign given the present level of public awareness of these issues.
And by the way...as long as Gore does not endorse, he remains the obvious compromise candidate for delegates to turn to if they decide neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama can unite the Democratic Party and win in November.
Posted by CMike at April 25, 2008 02:32 PM
"As a steward of the Earth growing dismay is the inevitable response to yet another American election cycle where the environment is felled to utter obscurity on the public agenda...."
Would someone please diagram this for me. I think that I should (at least) understand what the author of the article is saying in the first sentence before I continue with the rest f the article.
Posted by Bagley at April 25, 2008 03:28 PMI have become mildly hopeful as study the recent news on ice sheets more and more.
The problem is that the right wing denialists and the media won't react until they are hit on the head with incontrovertable evidence. In the case of global warming this could take decades.
Or not. The recent acceleration of the deterioration of the antartic ice shelf was unexpected. As with most current climate study topics, we are in uncharted territory and almost every new piece of data shows the globe warming at a faster rate than predicted. We've likely hit a tipping point somewhere (maybe the methane release in the formerly frozen Siberian Tundra?) and the environmental rout is on. There is a very real possibility that a huge chunk of antartic ice, with its mass currently mostly suspended over the ocean, could fall into the ocean in the near term, raising ocean levels from 1-3 feet.
I'm sure Exxon will provide some spin points for their paid denialists, but at some point even the most loyal followers stop believing proven liars. Do notice that many fundamentalist Christian churches (the small ones, not the RNC-supported big box churches) have already taken on the RNC on environmental grounds.
Posted by Anonny at April 25, 2008 04:06 PMThe long term cost of Dear Leader's war of aggression against Iraq is in the $TRILLIONS. That could have paid for a lot of energy R&D.
Americans (and most people in general) simply are not now willing to make the sacrifices necessary to reduce the consequences of global climate change.
Posted by gay veteran at April 26, 2008 10:38 AM