Home | About | Donate

Better-Than-Before Climate Plans Still Aren’t Good Enough

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for setting the record straight. Scientific literacy was always a rare commodity, especially among politicians, and today literacy in general is on the wane. Yes, there is still a path to climate sanity. But it becomes narrower every day, and most registered Democrats are unable to distinguish it from their grandmothers.

1 Like

I just had this vision of our politicians coming up with climate plans that are ever-closer to something that might have worked if they had come up with it 20 years ago, then 10 years ago, then 5… always behind (though not as behind as the Republicans, who continue to come up with plans that couldn’t possibly have worked even 50 years ago…) in an echo of infinite regression. All the plans are just doing more of the only thing our 2 political parties know how to do now—procrastinate, and blame others for it not working. Neither party is ever going to actually do anything, and we will all watch endlessly as they cling desperately to their illusion of power while the world goes to hell. No plan will ever be enacted. No action will ever be taken. Civilization will collapse, millions of species will be wiped out, and both parties will slowly disappear while the echoes of announcements of new plans continues in the distance.

Unless there’s a revolution, and we dump these aßholes and do what we actually need by moving into emergency mode and actually work together. By revolution I do not mean a change in social media tech that creates another geek billionaire. I mean a revolution, with peaceful protests, blockades, people killed by police, the new Democratic president and immense popular uprising, hundreds of members of congress and all the judges appointed in the last 8 years resigning…so we can doo what the Earth needs.

1 Like

“consistent with the science of climate change, i.e. transitioning to a clean sustainable energy economy by 2030.“

Would you care to provide a single scientific study that advocates/ confirms the feasibility of a 10 year timeframe to the transition the entire energy industry to clean sustainable energy (which to the Green Party means solar and wind)?

To be fair the Green Party does reference Jacobson’s WWS plan, even though the Party largely and ironically doesn’t agree with it, as it supports a significant increase in large scale hydropower, hydrogen storage and CAES storage. It also is for completion on a 30 year timeframe.

Lastly if you think any political plan is detailed or comprehensive then you really haven’t been looking at scientific or engineering studies on this topic, because the gap in sheer comprehensive understanding of the energy industry between educated and credible reports and political plans is mind boggling.

The point of the 10 year plan is not feasibility. It’s necessity. If it hasn’t been studied, it’s 1) because the oligarchy has no interest in making the sacrifices necessary, so it hasn’t been in the discussion,
2) because people like Paul (only much more important) keep trying to concern troll it to death, waiting out the clock til it’s too late even for emergency mode to be successful,
and 3) like building unprecedented amounts of materiel and defeating the seemingly invincible Axis powers in 3 years from a standing start hadn’t been studied when the US, Britain, and USSR JUST FRGOKING DID IT!

If we fail to do it in 10 years, the world will degrade noticeably more—exponentially more—while we work on Plan B: doing it in 10 years and 2 months. Politics is not science and it’s not engineering; the plans are not the same because it operates in the real world, where things change a lot and have to be responded to–usually, including even before the plan is approved.

“It is not enough that we do our best; sometimes we must do what is required.” Winston Churchill

1 Like

Done right, a carbon tax would work wonders. Unfortunately, such is the political power of the fossil fuel industry (or more precisely, the military industrial complex of which it is an integral part) that it has yet to be done right anywhere on earth.

Given that fact, I believe the first step of any serious climate plan should be to nationalize the energy industry. See “It’s time to nationalize the fossil fuel industry” by C.J. Polychroniou at Truthout.

Unfortunately, because the world has been diddling on the issue for over 25 years now, there’s no longer any hope of saving the planet just by means of market interventions like a carbon tax. A top-down, command-and-control approach on par with the WWII mobilization is now needed. The Climate Mobilization is focused on achieving this.

3 Likes

I thought his answer to this question was…unusual:
~https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/3872266211/policies/science/nuclear-energy

Thanks so much for the Nate Hagens recommendation! Excellent comprehensive assessment.

Here’s a cut-and-paste link for others:

~https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-03-25/an-overview-of-the-systemic-implications-of-the-coronavirus/

That’s why the Green New Deal references the New Deal, which was primarily about economics, politics, social democracy. The GND explicitly wants a “new deal” for common people, a fairer share of wealth, a better opportunity to get a job, and to earn a living from a job. It’s not just about energy. It’s a “green” New Deal because it is also explicitly about ecology and energy and the impact of the economy on the ecology, so the jobs are meant to be positive for the carbon economy and for the ecology overall. i think Green New Deal is very smart shorthand.

1 Like

Most if not all of those things that are not core to the energy problem I also want. But I feel it is a hard slog to get enough consensus on just the core and I worry that the GND is not the best strategic course. If I’m wrong and we get it I certainly won’t be complaining.

I admit I’m wrong on many things. I never guessed the defund police movement would get as much traction as it has so far. Hopefully I’m wrong here too.

1 Like

Has it not occurred to you that without across-the-board change of direction, especially in the way much if not most of humankind have come to think and “believe” about themselves and the planet upon which we all live (for the time being), none of the individual components–IF they could even be achieved piecemeal–would be worth much? Virtually everything that politicians, industrialists, and “developers” have supported since the beginning of the nuclear age is absolutely unsustainable, so will soon come to a halt, screeching or otherwise.

1 Like

“Australia’s top climate scientist says “we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse” of civilisation, which may now be inevitable because 9 of the 15 known global climate tipping points that regulate the state of the planet have been activated.”

“The evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute.”

“…the intervention time we have left has, in many cases, shrunk to levels that are shorter than the time it would take to transition to a more sustainable system.”

“leading Stanford University biologists, who were first to reveal that we are already experiencing the sixth mass extinction on Earth, released new research this week showing species extinctions are accelerating in an unprecedented manner, which may be a tipping point for the collapse of human civilisation.

“[Professor Hans Joachim] Schellnhuber, director emeritus and founder of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said in a recent interview that the IPCC report stating we could stay below 1.5°C of warming was “slightly dishonest” because it relies on immense negative emissions (pulling CO2 out of the air) which was not viable at global scale. He said 1.5°C was no longer achievable but it was still possible to stay under 2°C with massive changes to society."
~https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/

The truth is, the IPCC is being a lot more than slightly dishonest, and even with immediate massive changes to society we will not stay under 2°C over preindustrial temperature. And contrary to most people’s impressions, gotten from years of conservative propaganda, the line between dangerous climate change and civilization-threatening climate change is not 2°, not even 1.5°, but something less than 1° over PIT. We’re now at almost 1.5°.

People who still have a religion-like faith in incrementalist solutions mostly simply don’t understand the direness of the situation. At this point it can only be willing disunderstanding, on some point on the continuum between conscious and un—but definitely leaning toward the con. Until a sufficient part of the population is willing to understand enough to take radical action, we’ll continue to guarantee ever worse collapse during the lifetimes of people already born.

To save what we can, immediate, radical, emergency action is called for.

1 Like

Most activists have a fanatical faith in zero emission BEV tech as if battery and charging systems that EVs require would reduce emissions enough to address global warming, catastrophic climate change with little regard for traffic havoc, car-dependency and related costs of living, corporate control, etc.

I contend PHEV tech distributes battery and charging resources to many hundreds more households than is possible with fleets of Tesla ‘S’ sport sedans and BEV freight trucks with giant battery packs that may continue transporting goods around the world the longest distances.

I contend PHEV tech offers more potential than BEVs to build local economies whereby more trips become possible without having to drive whereby households gain the choice to drive excessively or keep the lights on, fridge, stovetop and communication devices working, indefinitely when matched to consequently smaller rooftop PV solar arrays which complement regional utility grids.

Whether you understand this or not, your view favors vast solar farms located in rural settings next to greasy truck stops for the global economy with its wage-slave products. The global economy cannot continue undermining all the lesser - though no less fundamental scales of economy - local, regional, state, national. The ruling class need only disrupt their supply of fuel/energy to transport these goods (and business air travel business vacation) to near completely shut off food, water, and energy. Their plan to deal with CO2 emissions is to suddenly resolve overpopulation their favorite way.

"Most activists have a fanatical faith in… "

I’ve never known a single activist who thought anything remotely like that, but in any case I’m not most activists. I’ve made that very clear through my comments here and elsewhere. Don’t try to paint me with that brush to dismiss me and try to support your own absurd overfocused fanaticism.

My often-repeated insistence on reduction of private EVs in favor of public mass transit, including high speed rail to replace long distance flying and driving makes it obvious you’re blowing it out your aß on this accusation so please stop saying it.

I bloody well know what you contend; you’ve contended it to me about 15 times and my pointing out clearly and logically how completely moronic it is, has had no effect. What makes you think contending it to me once more–for the 16th time, once again with ABSOLUTELY NO evidence or support, will make the slightest difference?

Supplying less than adequate resources to what turns out to be fewer people in the face of no shortage at all makes no sense at all. Sorry I’m letting my rationality interfere with your fetish; can’t help it.

“greasy truck stops”???!! “resolve overpopulation their favorite way”??!!!

RUFKM, you randomly braying loon? Have you ever read a single thing I’ve written? All the way through?

Your utterly bizarre and non-sequitur straw person disinterpretation of what my view favors is crude, laughable and hostile and your last little bit of lunacy makes it clear just how anti-logical this obsession of yours is. Thanks for all the hard work on behalf of your delusion but there’s no longer any need for you to explain to me what I understand better than you do, thanks. Why not see somebody about it and then do something that will help?

You are fanatically devoted to all-battery BEV tech as a given. I disagree and make concise arguments that defend plug-in hybrid tech for its benefits, advantages and broader application to vehicle fleets. You resort to name calling far more than I have in return.

Now your support for mass transit, I agree though my experience informs me the standard 40’ rattletrap bus does NOT convert to EV very well nor are they suitable for most bus routes. Nor is the 60’ articulated buses any better. They’re basicly 1960’s drivetrain tech. The common Yellow School bus is 1950’s tech. GM & Ford paratransit lift vans are 1970’s tech. None of our standard transit buses convert to EV very well. Metro, light rail and streetcar can only serve perhaps 1/10th the routes of vast municipal transit systems. Buses must serve the remaining miles. Too few transit systems operate conveniently and reliably.

“Your utterly bizarre, non-sequitur strawman interpretation of my view is crude.” Oh bullshit. We disagree. I try to make clear points favoring PHEV. You are unable to express anywhere near a clear viewpoint on BEV in your own words. You rely on others to lead you where they think purists like them mistakenly believe is best. Most fairly express the need to address global warming and climate change unfortunately based on faulty information. You’re just a follower, repeating what you’re told as loyal as any MAGA chump to their NAZI President utterly influenced by the ruling class including shmucks like Elon Musk.

This edit of the above puts it more succinctly:

Most activists have fanatical faith in zero emission BEV tech as if battery and charging systems would reduce emissions enough to address global warming and catastrophic climate change. They include little regard for car dependency, traffic havoc, related costs of living, corporate control, etc.

I contend PHEV tech “distributes” battery and charging resources to many Hundreds more PHEV households than possible with fleets of Tesla ‘S’ sedans and freight trucks with giant battery packs to continue transporting goods across the globe longest distances.

I contend PHEV tech offers “more potential” than BEV tech to build local economies, whereby more trips become possible without having to drive, whereby households gain the choice to drive excessively or keep the lights on, fridge, stovetop and communication devices working indefinitely when matched to consequently smaller, less expensive rooftop PV solar arrays which actually “complement” regional power utility grids.

Whether you understand this or not, J4Z, your view favors vast solar farms located in rural settings next to greasy bacon truck stops for your (as yet unquestioned) global economy with its wage-slave products. The global economy cannot continue undermining all the lesser - though no less fundamental - scales of economy: local, regional, state and national.

The ruling class need only disrupt their supply of fuel/energy to transport these goods and suddenly completely shut off food, water and energy. Their plan to deal with CO2 emissions is to resolve overpopulation their usual way. I’d like to read your transit, bikeway-walkway perspectives simply put. I’ve designed a few, still working on others. I’m at Trikeway and bike freight corridor/veins with capillary bikeways, cars a thing of the past in some places.
Like science fiction.

Whether or not this has occurred to me does not change my belief in the separability of the tasks. I believe in the basic PAT math. I believe in passing legislation that can address the T (technology) part and if it is more likely to pass by divorcing too much talk on the A (affluence) part for which we have even less consensus, then I prefer to move forward with changes to T. As I said, I’m not opposed to changes in A and would support separate legislation to move that forward. And I’m definitely in favor of getting started on changing P (population) which will take a long time to have an effect. But I gave my assessment on separation being more pragmatic and you haven’t convinced me to change my mind yet.

"You are fanatically… "
No, sorry. Wrong. What I say is based on science and fact. What you say… wow.

“I disagree and make concise arguments that …”
No, sorry. You bloviate and repeat your own nonsense with no evidence or support of any kind.

"I try to make clear points "
Oops. You fail.

“You are unable to express anywhere near a clear viewpoint on BEV in your own words.”
Uh, sorry, but these are all my own words and the argument is quite clear. You wear the bizarreness of your argument, ignored or rejected by every single other person or group I’ve ever read, like a denying delayalist wears the “I’m just like Galileo” badge: Everyone disagreed with Galileo and he turned out to be right. Everyone disagrees with me therefore I must be right. It’s the argument of crazy inventor types, aka nutcase narcissists, the world over.

“You’re just a follower, repeating what you’re told as loyal as any…”
Again, disdain from you for anyone who’s not a lone n.n. But in fact I’ve been pushing beyond the curve for solar, wind, efficiency, wiser lives, the primacy of ecology, for decades, and sounding the alarm most–like you–still don’t understand on how dire the climate crisis is and how massive, radical and immediate the solutions need to be. And the bit at the end I just left off, as you go off the rails completely, trying to associate me with the lunatic right wing anti-science morons, who you have a lot more in common with than I do.

“You rely on others to lead you where they think purists like them mistakenly believe is best.”
First, you’ve conflated a bunch of arguments into an incoherent mishmash a lot like the rest of your ideas. Second, I rely on experts and science, which is obviously foreign to you since you provide no evidence ever for your lunacy, just repeat your own illogical assertions over and over and over. The experts and science aren’t purist, they’re experts, scientists, and science. And practical experience, like 450,000 EV buses and 20,000 miles of high speed rail moving people around in China right now. (It’s an integrated system in which each part depends on the other parts or it wouldn’t work.) Your nutcase conspiracy theories notwithstanding, this is how progress is made.

But on reconsidering I’ve decided to compose a letter to be sent to the Chinese government and several thousand city governments with your revealed knowledge from on high that Buses Aren’t Very Good. I’m sure they’ll scrap them all immediately, including the 450,000 EV buses in China, which, actually, make perfectly good vehicles that can charge at every stop and use and store solar from panels on the buses, the shelters, the stations, parking lots and other structures. But never mind that, I’ve given them your number so no doubt they’ll all be calling you soon to find out what to replace the many trillions of dollars worth of vehicles and infrastructure with now that we know Buses Aren’t Very Good.

“Your utterly bizarre, non-sequitur strawman interpretation of my view is crude."
You left out " laughable and hostile and your last little bit of lunacy makes it clear just how anti-logical this obsession of yours is." I’m merely describing what you’re doing. I stand by it. Please stop distorting my arguments.

“greasy [bacon] truck stops”???!!
Again? Holy frgoking fecal matter fellan, what a nut. Your attempts at insults are as nonsensical and non-sequitur as your theory.

“They include little regard for car dependency, traffic havoc, related costs of living, corporate control, etc.”
Not a single activist I know thinks anything remotely like that. More bjullsjhit straw personing from you. Please don’t do that any more.

"“favors vast solar farms located in rural settings next to…blah blah”
No, it doesn’t. You are being an aß. You’re lying. You’re using more straw person idiocy. Please stop.

“…as yet unquestioned) global economy…”
You clearly don’t know anything about me and again, are blowing it out your aß, willing to say anything no matter how untrue or absurd to try to attack me. Please stop doing that.

“I contend PHEV tech “distributes” battery and charging resources to many Hundreds more PHEV households than possible with fleets of Tesla ‘S’ sedans and freight trucks”
Oh! Well, now I get it! It just took that one more time saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same way with no more evidence than before for me to understand and agree with you! 17th time’s a charm, I’ve always said. See? You were right. You are just like Galileo.

“You resort to name calling far more than I have in return.”
Doesn’t that mean I win? Otherwise I have no idea what the point of you pointing that out is. I had more targets with big Ms on them for Moran. Everything I’ve said has been true. Almost everything you’ve said attacking me has been not just untrue but ludicrous. You’re clearly mistaking me for someone else, over and over and over. It’s clearly persisting despite being corrected. That’s known as a delusion. Please find someone who can help you with that.

Dude your OWN PLAN acknowledges that it’s timeframes are complete utter bs…

“ Heinberg and Fridley concur: “Even assuming a massive build-out of solar and wind capacity…renewables will probably be unable to fully replace the quantity of energy currently provided by fossil fuels, let alone meet projected energy demand growth.”
Despite these challenges, Heinberg and Fridley argue that a massive mobilization can de- liver 100% renewable energy. But it will take an immediate shift in government policies.”

Not surprisingly you adhere to nonsensical religion of “we’ll figure it out magically”. Instead of listening to the majority of scientific analysis on the subject you’d rather take the approach of doing something without any understanding and praying it works. It’s amazing I have to point it out, but that’s a HORRENDOUS PLAN…

“No, sorry. Wrong. What I say is based on science and fact.“

Yet you can’t find a single scientific study to support your timeframe for completion…

“No. Wrong. What I say is based on science and fact. What you say you bloviate and repeat nonsense with no evidence or support of any kind.” Evidence is apparent in the question of equitable and effective battery resource distribution. Calculate this: 500 vs 170 vs 35 vs 1. 500 Prius PHEV, 170 Chevy Volt PHEV, 35 Tesla ‘S’ sedans or “ONE” Daimler electric freight truck? So much battery resource made no longer useful in the single 2020’s decade. Elon Musk is a chump.