Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change? 462
Hugh Pickens writes "David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate. But behind the scenes, a different story is emerging that offers reason for optimism: the world's largest economies may be in the process of creating a climate-change response that does not depend on the politically painful process of raising the price of dirty energy. Despite some high-profile flops, like ethanol and Solyndra, clean-energy investments seem to be succeeding more than they are failing. 'The price of solar and wind power have both fallen sharply in the last few years. This country's largest wind farm, sprawling across eastern Oregon, is scheduled to open next month. Already, the world uses vastly more alternative energy than experts predicted only a decade ago,' writes Leonhardt. Natural gas, the use of which has jumped 25 percent since 2008 while prices have fallen more than 80 percent, now generates as much electricity as coal in the United States, which would have been unthinkable not long ago. Thanks in part to earlier government investments, energy companies have been able to extract much more natural gas than once seemed possible which, while far from perfectly clean, is less carbon-intensive than coal use. The clean-energy push has been successful enough to leave many climate advocates believing it is the single best hope for preventing even hotter summers, concludes Leonhardt, adding that while a cap-and-trade program faces an uphill political battle, an investment program that aims to make alternative energy less expensive is more politically feasible. 'Our best hope,' says Benjamin H. Strauss, 'is some kind of disruptive technology that takes off on its own, the way the Internet and the fax took off.'"
It's always been TOO LATE (Score:5, Interesting)
Our best hope? Please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Our best hope is a radical alteration using chemical means?
Are you kidding me?
We still use HALF the energy in the US and Canada heating and cooling mostly empty buildings. We could easily just change zoning and tax laws to encourage buildings to have green roofs, provide their own power, use half the energy to heat and cool, and build them for barely more than we pay for buildings nowadays. Practically the entire campus here is built using such buildings now.
We still have massive untapped energy sources of hydro, mini-hydro, micro-hydro, geothermal, wind, urban wind, tidal and other energy sources that would dramatically impact GHG impacts. In America.
We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars. Or people could bike or walk more.
There are a lot of very simple things we could do today.
But ... we're lazy whiners. Period.
When you decide to do something. (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop being greedy self-centered asshole that main purpose in life is consumation. And it is main purpose in life for many of people. All those that, like George Carlin say, buy things they "DON'T NEED" with money they don't have.
I don't own a freaking iPod or iPad or 50 pairs of shoes and pants and big screen TV, and don't have a need to "get one" as soon as it starts hitting the media... if there's a practical need for me to get one, I'll get one. I'm not gonna go blindly buy everything. You may think this isn't related, but it is. 90 % of stuff you can buy/posses is BS. More worse, stupid BS. But as long as it's fancy and flashy ... it's alright eh ?
When you stop simply consuming without thinking, all those factories will gonna close down. Lost jobs ? Oh well, you can't sit with one ass on two chairs.
Stop bloody complaining, and do something about it.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it really the warmest on record? On what record?
Good question. In parts of Canada, that record is only 30 years. In other parts, it's 10 years. Yet it's being included in "climate data" as a pure baseline sample. Heck, where I live they don't even have a weather station for reporting the data. The temperature is now recorded and reported from 48KM away. My sister's place out in Alberta? 16KM away, in a gully, next to a stream, full of cold mountain water. Oh and it's shady until about 2pm.
Please read "2052" (Score:4, Interesting)
I recommend reading "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years" (http://www.amazon.com/2052-Global-Forecast-Forty-Years/dp/1603584218).
It is written by the same guy who co-wrote the 1972 report "The Limits Of Growth" and deals with what humanity will likely do (globally) in the next 40 years (not what we SHOULD do, but what we will most likely do).
It is very interesting (and actually quite easy) to read and deals among other things with the expected results of climate change.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:1, Interesting)
Technically it would have to be read as only the hottest in the hundred or so years we have records for. But it was written such that most people will read it with the meaning of 'hottest evar', especially since hottest in a century wouldn't scare many people and the whole thing was written as one big frightfest.
Reality says it has been both much warmer and much cooler than present. And probably will be again.
As for the rest.. Meh. Show me a 'green' energy source that can exist without government subsidies and I'll show you an energy source that the greens have either already turned on or soon will, Because the last thing they want is clean energy, what they want is for industrial civilization to go, depriving it of energy is just one of the ways to bring that about.
And in the end they are even sorta right, there ain't no such thing as energy without side effects. TANSTAAFL. Any energy source widely deployed will reveal that it ain't free, limitless and clean.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:1, Interesting)
> Most people do not have goldfish brains and can keep track of this context for six whole words.
Ahem. Two words: Jersey Shore. How about two more: Daily Show. As in how many people think it is a news program instead of half unfunny satire/comedy half DNC propaganda.
Yes, most people now have the brains of a goldfish, thank TV and the government schools. That was what so diabolicaly clever about the way it was written. Those people (otherwise known as the base of the Democratic Party) get the intended "weesa gonna die! Everybody panic now!" message while the author can disclaim all responsibility because he clearly did not say anything that wasn't totally correct by any literate reading of the text.
What are we doing about it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Never mind the trolls. And forget about our nominal leaders. They follow us, not the other way around. So, what are we going to do about climate change?
My house is a 70's era of about 2200 sq. ft., with a gas furnace, gas water heater (tank), and a 12 SEER A/C. The location is suburbia, and there's nothing I can do about that. It's be nice to be within walking distance of necessities, but that's just not happening. I've got us down to about $1500/year on energy costs. I understand that's very good. But I'd like to do more. I've already done most of the easy stuff. Most of the lights are CFLs. I set the thermostat at 82 in the summer and 70 in the winter. (I'd push that further, but the rest of the family whines too much when I do.) The house is well shaded by mature trees on the south side. But according to my calculations, half of our energy still goes towards heating and cooling. I have fuel efficient cars, and a plug in electric mower that I use as little as possible. I was very happy to bid farewell to the CRT.
I'm looking for paybacks of no more than 5 years, but that depends on price. I'll accept longer paybacks for cheap stuff. Ideas like putting in double pane windows filled with argon gas, roof vents, solar cells, solar water heaters, water recapture, and other expensive home remodeling notions simply aren't worth the cost. I heard that leaky ductwork can be a big waste of energy, but in this house, the ductwork is inside. The hallways have lower ceilings than the rooms. Anyway, it's a poor quality cookie cutter home. Hate to spend money on a piece of crap house. But if a bit of remodeling isn't worth doing, then knocking it down and starting over sure isn't worth doing. There are other things. I have a few 80%+ efficient computer power supplies [80plus.org], and some of those green power strips that automatically cut the power to peripherals when the main computer is off. For convenience I leave a computer running all the time, however it takes only 20 watts. It'd be better if I could get power management working in Linux. Even at only 20 watts, automatic suspend to disk could be a big saver if only it worked. Replaced a 40 watt fluorescent light fixture with the new 32 watt kind when the ballast went bad.
In any case, I have the feeling that's all "small ball". As a whole, our houses are poor and our cities are oblivious to all forms of transportation other than the almighty car. It's exasperating how much low hanging fruit we are ignoring. Automobile aerodynamics is a big one. Why isn't the underside of every car nice and smooth? Because no one looks at that part of the car. Why don't we have skirts on the wheels? Because they look "ugly"! A huge saver would be the electric car. I'm impatiently waiting for decent batteries. Would like to see at least 500 km capacity on a 15 minute charge, and able to last several thousand cycles.
Re:Please read "2052" (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently, not so bad: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16058-prophesy-of-economic-collapse-coming-true.html [newscientist.com]
I have not read the 1972 book, but I think the main point was that economic growth has to stop at some point (because the planet won't support it) and we have to go for a steady-state economy. The problem with that is, while it is perfectly possible to do, it apparently still just doesn't fit into the heads of the people responsible.