Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWanted: A Climate Bailout
What a difference an emergency makes. Scare people enough and $700 billion can materialize almost overnight. The White House can repudiate its core economic philosophy--government should leave markets alone--within hours. Congress, where spending bills sometimes wait years to reach the floor, can pass one of the costliest laws in its history within days. Even the endlessly fickle media can provide 24/7 news coverage, making the emergency the topic on everyone's mind.
When will we see this same sense of urgency devoted to the greatest emergency of our time? You wouldn't know it from our politicians or TV shows, but the climate crisis is even more serious than the financial crisis. The financial crisis, while painful and severe, can be resolved, given time and wise policies. The climate crisis, not so. The earth's climate system has tipping points beyond which no return is possible. Yet there is a very real danger right now that sliding oil prices will lull the public into an even deeper complacency.
The system passed the first major tipping point twenty years ago, when, according to 1988 Congressional testimony from James Hansen, the chief climate scientist at NASA, man-made global warming began. A second tipping point was passed a few years ago, when global warming began triggering climate change: abnormal droughts, storms and other extreme weather. The problem is, once climate change begins, it cannot simply be turned off. The inertia of the climate system ensures that even if every country in the world went green as quickly as possible, the earth would still be locked into fifty more years of rising temperatures and the impacts they unleash. Thus, by 2050 European summer temperatures will routinely reach the record highs experienced in 2003, when an estimated 70,000 people died. The snowpacks atop many of the world's mountains--a source of drinking and irrigation water for more than a billion people--will have melted and shrunk. Sea levels will be rising significantly.
We are now in danger of passing a third tipping point--the descent into cataclysmic, irreversible climate change. Hansen returned to Capitol Hill in June, on the twentieth anniversary of his 1988 testimony, to warn that the earth is on the verge of "disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control," causing "mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises." To avert this catastrophe, Hansen continued, "is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year"--that is, by the end of 2009, when the world's governments will meet in Copenhagen to negotiate new reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
Every candidate running for election, and every journalist covering them, should be required to spend the twenty minutes it takes to read Hansen's latest testimony, because they obviously still don't get it. We face a code-red emergency. At stake is the survival of human civilization. Yet the candidates and media treat global warming as just another issue. Even Barack Obama, who takes the problem seriously, seems not to grasp the urgency of the moment. (The same is true in Europe, where governments have invoked the economic downturn as grounds for delaying emissions cuts.)
The United States and the world need to launch a climate rescue plan that is at least as ambitious as the financial rescue plan. We need a massive shift of government incentives and funds away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency, solar and wind power, and other low-carbon alternatives. We must also end rampant deforestation, which causes 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions while imposing enormous economic costs. (A new study by the European Union found that deforestation costs far more every year than the financial crisis, because when forests disappear humans must pay for ecosystem services--storage of water, neutralization of carbon dioxide--that previously were free.)
The good news is that a massive green jobs and investment program is economically appealing and politically plausible. The program would pay for itself over time by generating additional income, profits, innovation and market opportunities, which doubtless accounts for the support it has gained from such mainstream sources as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, not to mention the Democratic presidential nominee. A green jobs and investment program is the core of Obama's proposed energy policy as president, but he is still thinking too small: he proposes spending $15 billion a year for the next ten years, when the crisis calls for spending much more, much faster.
Friends of the Earth was the first environmental group to oppose the $700 billion bailout, warning that it would put the next president "in a fiscal straitjacket." But a straitjacketed Obama should still spend big to go green, says Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder. "There is enormous public support for it, and it's what the climate requires." It's also what the economy requires: with a recession/depression threatening the global economy, deficit spending is the least of our worries. Only massive pump-priming through well-targeted government spending can protect jobs and living standards and stimulate an eventual recovery. Take a lesson from the Wall Street bailout, adds Blackwelder; a climate rescue plan must not reward the same bad actors that got us into this mess. Just as the financial crisis stems from investment firms exploiting insufficient government regulation, so the climate crisis stems from energy corporations blocking regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, in part by misrepresenting the science of global warming. In his recent testimony, Hansen declared that the CEOs of fossil energy corporations "should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," adding that he welcomed the chance to testify. In the meantime, let's at least strip those CEOs of their de facto veto power over government policy. Otherwise, the green revolution--our best hope against impending climate chaos--will come late or not at all.
18 Comments so far
Show AllFREE TRADE AGREEMENTS "MAY" BLOCK GREEN JOBS? DOESN'T SEEM TO BE HAPPENING...
welshTerrier2 October 31st, 2008 7:58 pm
"'Green jobs' may be easier said than done. Check out this article[:]
'The Nasty Truth: Free Trade Agreements May Scuttle Green Jobs Plans'
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 30, 2008."
SEE 11/1 NYT ARTICLE, on green energy jobs in post-big-industry regions:
"From the faded steel enclaves of Pennsylvania to the reeling auto towns of Michigan and Ohio, state and local governments are aggressively courting manufacturing companies that supply wind energy farms, solar electricity plants and factories that turn crops into diesel fuel.
"This courtship has less to do with the loftiest aims of renewable energy proponents — curbing greenhouse gas emissions and lessening American dependence on foreign oil — and more to do with paychecks."
MORE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02wind.html?scp=2&sq=green%20jobs&st=cse
The Pension Regime “sys error”
As the sun walks the sky during a day, so is man’s life.
Compared to this parable, the present pension regime has forced, or tempted, woman and man to maintain the same level of consumption and living standard during the p.m. part of their entire lifespan. Thus our way of living has become, more or less, out of alignment with natural life. Just like the sun declines so should our outer life convulse or diminish.
Now we have arranged our pension system to fulfill a very linear economic way of living. Most people spend approximately one fifth of the total amount of time at work to ensure that they won’t have to work at all during the last third (ore fourth) of their lifetime. And thereby accumulate a tremendous amount of “money” – kept in all kinds of obscure funds - obviously this creates and stimulates a similar tremendous need for loan markets etc. The ongoing crisis and turmoil in the financial market and the economic recession are, in part caused by this unnatural state of retirement - and pension systems.
That’s the situation now.
“Goodness, Beauty and Truth” are ancient core values, and I think values like these still exist among folks today. In general, or at least in the developed countries, what we have now is a large accumulated amount of wealth and richness – and also here there seems to be some kind of misalignment between wealth and the “Goodness, Beauty and Truth”.
To obtain these core values takes time - it’s not simple - it will require time for personal growth, time for refine, relativize and cultivating the ego bound human – it’s a lifelong effort – and due to, for the most, a striving hectic working life, these goals will sadly disappear beneath the horizon.
Even when retired it seems difficult to settle – we all know these huge cruise ships filled with seniors, and the sky fells dark with charter planes filled with grayed retirees. And I will postulate that these activities are lacking true spirituality or so to say the “Goodness, Beauty and Truth”.
Imagine the whole Planet living in the pension manner of the western man – yes? That would be a disaster.
I think the ongoing financial and economic crisis offers a great opportunity to change our present pension regime, to ensure a shift toward a more natural life and way of retirement.
Previous post FYI:
You know, sometimes it's instructive to make a few observations and see where they take us. The following may seem too simple, or over the top, but consider:
The IPCC ice core data charts, and the same as seen in Gore's Book printed, so it can be studied, show us that there have been about 6 ice age cycles in the last 650ky. We are on the up-swing of a temp/CO2 spike now, with GHGs now well out of historical norms. This begs the questions-What weather phenomenon has defeated and reversed the previous spikes, yet not immediately lowered the mean planetary temp? -Is the trigger temp or CO2? Obviously, temp, then dot-to-dot, mechanical and tectonic. -It is also obvious that the reversals occurred before the ice caps melted appreciably, otherwise there would be no data to harvest...Is, then, the reversal of our spike immanent, or even, overdue? -When does the ice of an ice age build up? All at once or gradually, as the temp/CO2 decreases? How is the atmosphere supplied with the moisture and energy necessary to transfer so much water to the poles as snow and ice? -What role does methane play as it is released from tundra and the oceans? -Was there massive methane release during the previous cycles? Or did the reversals act to put the methane back to sleep, so to speak, before it could compound the greenhouse effect? There were humans present during the previous cycles, -How and where did they survive the reversals?
-What can the paleo-geologic record found in the magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic ridge tell us about tectonic plate movement and possible, or sudden, volcanic warming of the oceans? -Is it possible that the mass of melt water transferred to the equatorial bulge would be sufficient to change the angular momentum of the earth enough to tweak the plates into movement? -Does USGS data show increased activity along plate boundaries that might be a "forcing of the forcings" related to shifting watermass or rising landmass?
The answers to these questions are not hard to compute. The answers dictate the type and intensity of response that is called for. The answers have probably been known for some time, by some people who have the connections and means to respond. The answers demand a change to the status quo, a change from "growth and consumption" to sustainability and survival. Look at the tops of the spikes and decide if we have any more time to dick around with any energy sources that add heat or GHGs to the ecosphere. Coal and oil are out. Nukes and geo-thermal are out. NG, too, even though it's cleaner. The grid has to change. Wealth has to be used in different ways. It's a different game, and we're all in the same boat.
We can have just as much fun surviving with wind and sun, as with burning and consuming---let's do it!
New:
Probably, one of the main characteristics of a spike is that everything is relatively normal, until it isn't. We are getting lots of clues now.
The emerging scenario seems to me to be: rising temp melts land-borne ice along with seaice. Fresh water disrupts the thermo-haliene circulation of the gulf stream and if we're lucky, that's as far as it goes--an ice age cycle of normal proportions is initiated and civilization is disturbed, but maybe not destroyed.
If ice melts at such a rate as to enhance the above, another scenario might unfold: Land-borne ice melt flows to the equatorial bulge (the planet is not a perfect sphere-it bulges at the equator because of centrifugal force) thus changing the mass distribution and angular momentum of the earth and putting enough pressure on the tectonic plates to start a geotectonic event that would activate the ring of fire and the mid-atlantic ridge. The resulting undersea volcanism, (not to mention the earthquakes, and worst case the popping of the Yellowstone magma dome,) would flash heat the oceans. That seems to me to be the hidden key to how and when an ice age starts, and how it gets the moisture and enough energy to move that much water back to the polar latitudes, forming the glaciers, part of which slide on down around Cincinnati, melt and recede over the next 110,000 years.
Apparently the methane has been sequestered for a very long time--dinosaur time. It would be very bad for us to loose enough heat into the mix to stir up the methane. The previous most recent six ice age cycles evidently have occurred soon enough in the cycle to keep the methane down under frozen tundra and cooled ocean water.
Well, so much for cool-headed chart analysis and amateur, rogue-generalist deductions and dot-connecting. Now I feel I must strip naked and run around the streets yelling this in the face of anyone who will listen...you guys with degrees can keep your clothes on, right, James?
ta-ta. (???Doesn't anyone from the Noble committee ever visit this site???)
Later:
An additional factor related to tectonics gleaned from USGS info is that land masses such as G-land, releived of the weight of the ice, tend to rise, actually float higher on the magma. And National Geog had an article, I believe, on the mechanics of the melting that is shaping up on G-land---flows of melt water form surface streams which drop through the thousands of feet of ice to the land surface, creating a layer of slush under incredible pressure. The next dot in that progression is: earth tremor, separation and departure of a largish section of ice cap which, worse case, might produce a tsunami out into the Atlantic. Or worst case, a chain reaction of tsunamis as some of the crumbling islands in the east Atlantic loose a mountain or two (PBS).
A serious multi-disciplinary approach, including even rogue generalists like ourselves, seems called for. Think Al would go for that?
I'm off to look up J.H.'s latest and see how much of this has already been divulged.
Cheers.
We need to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible, in the U.S., and globally. The national network I direct, GlobalWarmingSolution.org, released its emissions reduction proposal, “Rosie Revisited: A U.S.-Led Solution to Global Warming”, www.globalwarmingsolution.org , in July, 2007. (DVD also available) The report demonstrates the technological and economic feasibility of reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2025. In addition, the straightforward methodology we employed for the U.S. energy system could be applied in countries around the world so that these urgently needed emissions reductions are global…as they must be. It is the most aggressive emissions reduction proposal of any U.S. national environmental group. Help us make it happen!
If we want political progress we hjave to look to the GOP who are dragging
their feet the whole way.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/
The question is "Can enough republicans come to the table to make a change?"
Global Warming is subtle in which it takes science to tease it apart. The ordinary Joe can't see it very easy.
Right wing echo chambers supported by the fossil fuel industry are putting out confusing information, making it near impossible to move ahead politically. Even with a strong democratic congress what's to keep the republicans from rolling it back when their turn comes to power.
A James Inhoffe and and a Joe Barton will be in congress for a long time.
I am in the process of reading the book "One with Nineveh" by Paul and Anne Ehrlich. It was published in 2004. According to the book, less than 15% of the world's population have 80% of the wealth. In the United States has 4.6% of the world's population but 29% of the wealth.
Furthermore, 10% of the people in the United States have over 70% of the wealth of this country.
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm
A little arithmetic shows that the richest 10% of the people in this country have over 20% of the world's wealth. Do you think they care what climate change will do to the rest of us? I dislike saying this, but, with their wealth and the power that goes with it, they can survive a lot of climate change. They can freely move around the world to safer places and still continue to have their luxurious life.
Since they feel themselves to be safe, they can not only continue their own way of life, but discredit any efforts of the rest of us to improve the situation.
It's a bit late to post here, but don't think that wealth alone, or what it can buy will enable the richest to be any better off than others. The onset of climate change, if we fail to keep it w/in historical norms, will be very different from the movies or the hopes of optimists. Sure, I conjecture, but there is actuarial credence to most of what I, and others have said. Consider that humans have existed thru the last 6 ice age cycles. Some have made it thru as nomads, tribes, in caves and jungles---not many with corporations or banks or profit. The upheaval of a cycle w/in norms is horrendous. We face one with 6 billion refugees, tidal waves, ice storms, nowhere to refuel the family jet, no one to crew the yacht or fix the hummer, patchy infrastructure, rogue waves, pirates, mobs, mass extinctions, etc. ref: "Under a Green Sky", the book. Day aft Tomorrow, of course, and others. We're all in this together. The extravagant life style can only exist in the cream of an orderly civilisation. If climate change gets away from us, what we face will be homogenized...
The best chance for the rich to survive is to do whatever it takes to create a team of 7 billion safe, functioning, healthy, engaged, cooperating humans, not build a fortress out of Franklins.
They're generally good organizers---maybe they can pull it off.
I read that the cost to provide clean well water to everyone on this planet is one month in Iraq.
For what 'nobel' cause have we bankrupt our nation and this world?
"A green jobs and investment program is the core of Obama's proposed energy policy as president, but he is still thinking too small: he proposes spending $15 billion a year for the next ten years, when the crisis calls for spending much more, much faster."
We need to begin building ecological cities and mobilize a mass exodus from the current fossil fuel based civilization to 21st Century arcologies.
Lovolution Village
http://www.lovolution.net
http://www.youtube.com/user/doctressNeu#
Check out geothermal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
Obama plans large public works projects to build a green infrastructure:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/105605
Of course he's not perfect on the issues. "Clean coal" is an example. But the push for public works projects based on wind and solar is a huge step forward.
"Green jobs" may be easier said than done.
Check out this article.
"But a straitjacketed Obama should still spend big to go green, says Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder."
You spin. You do this in support of the candidate who played a very large and significant role in robbing our Treasury... and now you want to portray him as someone who has been bound by outside forces beyond his influence...
OBAMA DID IT TO US ALL!!!
You are transparent.
There's no such thing as "clean coal". END MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL !
SEAN HANNITY, SHUT THE FUCK UP ! http://www.wisecountyissues.com
Obama promises too little too late but I think given the growing crisis, there is more chance that he will respond in a rational manner and do what is needed than there is that McCain (or Palin) would.
The Jaded Prole
Mr. Obama's Global Warming Bailout Program
Well, with the election just a few days away, let's see what the nation is about to cast their votes for.
Chalmers Johnson, noted military expert, stated in this article that:
"This brings U.S. spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year (2008), conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion."
Mr. Obama has not called for cuts in the overall military budget. In fact, he has called for an increase in the number of military personnel.
At current levels, 2008 levels, the real military budget is $1.1 trillion and it's definitely going to rise when Mr. Obama takes office.
His global warming plan, which he indicated might have to be scaled back due to the current fiscal crisis, is to spend $150 billion OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS for alternative energy research. That amount averages a piddly $15 billion per year.
So, what are Obama's priorities? He plans to spend at least $1.1 trillion a year, probably much higher, on "defense" and only $15 billion on alternative energy research. Put another way, that's $1100 on military for every $15 he spends protecting the country from global warming.
Which risk seems greater to you - an attack on the US from a large, well armed military power or the ravages of global warming? Obama's 1100:15 ratio proves all too clearly he has his priorities totally screwed up. Nevertheless, that is Mr. Obama's global warming bailout program. I'm not sure we can live with that.
Let's make sure the solutions don't make matters worse: "clean coal", nuclear power, endless wars - yes, endless wars: they too harm our environment. Our best hope here in the U.S. is to reject both major parties.
How does solar thermal plants in western deserts, windfarms in dakotas and in offshore windy aread, geothermal plants in midwest, and solar or geothermal water heating systems for every building sound? Any of the solar, wind, or geothermal stuff is enough by itself to provide all of our electricity...all of them combined, plus reducing electricity demand with non-electric water heating and real conservation efforts, would also enable our country to convert to entirely electric vehicles (so no more war for oil), plus provide enough cheap and clean energy to re-ignite industry in this country. How does that sound?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.