People can pay for the full social costs of their actions. Ideally, a consistent carbon tax would be adopted worldwide to prevent people from gaming the system. Otherwise duties could be imposed on imports from countries without such a tax. Most economists agree that a carbon fee would be the least costly way to phase out fossil fuels. Applying the brakes to energy consumption will buy us much needed time.
To reiterate, we need to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies or shift them to clean energy, impose an escalating tax on carbon, and otherwise promote the transition to 100% clean energy. In its history, America has already changed from wood to coal, and from coal to oil and gas. We can make yet another transition. Abolishing fossil fuel use has become a moral issue, and many cities, states, and organizations are already stepping up to the plate. Some universities and religious organizations are divesting from their fossil fuel investments. Since the true costs of burning fossil fuels are not reflected in the marketplace, governments can set regulations and create a demand for clean energy. Companies will then innovate in the ways we need them to, and the net results may even be cost savings for those companies and American consumers.
The risks of action are much lower than the risks of inaction. Benefits will exceed costs. Our obstacles are largely psychological and political rather than technical or even economic.
Yes, the risks of inaction are beyond measure! To be sure there will be some pain as we adjust, but that cannot be compared to what we will face if we don’t act.
One thing we sorely lack is political leadership. We need to get back in the Paris Agreement!
Both coral reefs and rainforests are species-rich, and unfortunately both are very sensitive to warming temperatures. This is why some extinction projections are so high.
Above 4C, major extinctions will occur around the globe. Even with 1.5C of warming, the lowest possible increase at this point, 10 to 15% of species will be committed to extinction.
“When it comes to the Arctic heat wave, the wildfires, am I surprised? No — this was long predicted. Am I worried? Yes,” Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann told InsideClimate News.
Several articles have come out supporting planting trees to sequester carbon. Not a new idea, but a good one. It is remarkable what Israel has done in agriculture with limited water and poor soil.
What is permafrost? Why is it melting/degrading? Why should we be concerned?
This video, What is Permafrost, by Polar and Marine Research, explains why it is of grave concern.
What isn’t mentioned in the video is that melting permafrost might be awakening long-dormant deadly microbes. For instance, in Siberia during a recent heat wave, there was a mysterious anthrax epidemic, killing one child and sending dozens of people to the hospital. Two thousand reindeer died. It is hypothesized that a reindeer infected with anthrax died and was frozen in the permafrost decades ago, and thawed in the heat wave.
Lil dicky is a prominent figure and could easily cause many others to embrace his hysterical agenda. Also considering how AOC was mocked for her original remarks, it’s simply embarrassing that Lil Dicky had taken them seriously
Sorry, it’s hard to keep up with the debate sometimes.
Germany was thought to be well positioned to model how things should be done. Their economy is strong and they climate change policies are widely supported. They will have invested >$500 billion in renewables by 2020, which are offset by increased emissions at consumption. No, I don’t think their emissions target shortfall is an abject failure but doesn’t bode well for the aspirations of the Paris accord. In France, the people have violently rejected increase in taxes for climate change in the face of the reality of a bad economy.
I believe the Lomborg article was from 2010. It’s easy to strawman a person by picking the most extreme idea. I do think he’s had more to say than just geoengineering.
The general argument I would support is that yes, the problem of climate change is well studied by climatologists, but the solution must be considered in a broader context beyond just the climate.
Re electric cars, throughout their expected lifecycle they end up saving 10% of emissions as that of gasoline cars while costing more. Emissions is front-loaded at manufacture of batteries.
Upgrading current electrical infrastructure, greatly expanding the use of nuclear, R&D investment in clean energy are all rational ways that “alarmists” hinder in their propaganda. Here’s the latest from Greta.
One type has been spotted ‘sprinting’ at 14 kilometres a year, thanks to a lift from ocean currents. That means ocean ecosystems could shift rapidly in the face of climate-change impacts such as warming seas, the authors say.
I couldn’t get the video to play. But I was responding to the idea that we judge a movement by the activity of its worse actors. Anyone who dismisses Christianity on account of what the Westboro Baptist church does obviously already has an ax to grind against Christianity. The same is true when you look at poorly formed conclusions communicated by politicians looking to take a stand on climate change. They tell you nothing of the actual strength of the case to be made for climate change.
I would be interested in where you got this information, and think you really need to get into specifics. So for instance, if EVs are charged by power grids that burn fossil fuels, they have the same greenhouse gas emissions as a car getting 80 miles per gallon. But obviously if you charge the EV off a renewable electric supplier, the picture changes dramatically. Similarly, manufacturing processes can be powered by renewables someday too. Further, EVs are much more energy efficient than gas driven cars.
Here’s a bit more information from my summary:
Transportation is responsible for 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In the U.S., more than 25% of our CO₂ emissions come from moving ourselves or our goods. According to the EPA, the average American uses 557 gallons of gasoline a year. Each gallon emits 25 pounds of CO₂, when you include the energy spent on pumping, refining, and transporting it. Frequent fliers have some of the highest carbon footprints. Because those emissions enter the upper atmosphere, the impact is twice as much as the CO₂ by itself. And Americans are responsible for nearly half of the total worldwide CO₂ emissions from aircraft.
The internal combustion engine is only 17 to 20% energy-efficient, which means most of the fuel burned is wasted producing heat. In contrast, electric vehicles are much more energy-efficient, using 75 to 86% of energy for motion. So much of America’s CO₂ emissions come from transportation that a transition to electric vehicles will be a major component in our fight against climate change. And no fossil fuels need be burned if the electricity supplying them is clean. This will in turn require a network of fast chargers for long-distance travel. Improvements in charging stations for electrical vehicles could reduce charging times to less than 45 minutes. Battery costs should drop considerably in the 2020s, making electric cars cost competitive.
Hi, James. It does indeed take a time investment to even try to “keep up”.
Statements that we have “x number of years to …” are just inviting trouble any more I think. If they were used (as I would guess they are often intended) as nothing more than goads towards active change, then fine. But instead, too many in our culture are translating them as “scientifically backed” pronouncements (whether they actually were or not) to be held against any policy for effective change if they are perceived as having failed as the deadline passes. When pundits use hyperbole and the world doesn’t end in the time-frame given, that doesn’t mean momentously bad things are failing to unfold; and even if our efforts to mitigate (even just partially) are expensive, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do them.
They do cost more - but are coming down as new technologies get more mainstreamed. People who never before could have dreamed of owning hybrids can now find them used for reasonable prices (with some effort still … but that they can at all shows progress.)
If we were paying the true cost of the gasoline for the operation of our normal vehicles (and actually we are - through taxes which turn into subsidies: the socialization of costs to fund privatized profits for the wealthy few - it is the welfare that certain political quarters never quite seem to get around to complaining about) then electric and hybrid vehicles would be doing even better yet than they are. The fact that they are a growing market despite our fossil fuel entrenchment is an encouraging sign. The extra production carbon footprint they have front-loaded still doesn’t come close (listen about 3 minutes in) to offsetting the larger carbon footprint of a gasoline car over its cradle-to-grave lifetime.
The cherry-picking of information pointed out in your linked video just shows how little people should trust certain sources of information about climate change. There are many bad-faith actors who are paid by fossil fuel interests to deceive the public in these ways, if for no other reason than to delay useful action against climate change for as long as possible.
I thought the video was to support your position. Does this mean I should just ignore it?
Do “fossil fuel interests” not have children, grandchildren, etc.? Are do you imagine business people are so heartless that they willingly throw away the chance for their offspring to live in exchange for a quick buck?