Home | About | Donate

Dangerous Denial of Global Warming


Dangerous Denial of Global Warming

Jonathan Marshall

President Obama calls it “terrifying” and the greatest long-term threat facing the world. Three hundred seventy-five of the world’s top experts just warned of “severe and long-lasting consequences” for the planet if America’s next president drops the ball.


Certainly Trump would not focus on raising fear about global warming because fascists raise fears about targeted groups of people such a Muslim immigrants called potential terrorists or Mexican undocumented immigrants called rapists and murderers. Clinton is trying to counter Trump's dark picture of America with criminals and terrorists everywhere with a more positive picture and that will not work if fears about global warming are raised. So she talks mainly about jobs created through programs to increase green energy. Remember that Obama didn't even mention global warming during the 2012 campaign. It was only after he won that he started describing a possibly terrifying future. Clinton has not gone as far as Obama but something similar should be expected. If she wins, no doubt she will talk about global warming in much more dire terms. For the press, global warming does not create that much interest so don't expect much. Over the last couple of days the Washington Post has carried articles on Greenland and Antarctica which imply higher sea level rise than has been predicted during this century. Climate activists should not be that concerned about how much global warming is mentioned during this campaign. It is a no-brainer for them to concentrate on electing HiIlary Clinton. Their challenge is to see through all the lies about her from the right and the left and to understand that she is prepared to follow Obama and lead the fight globally against global warming. She gets it and has clearly said so.


It is definitely easier to rouse people to unite against an enemy than it is to get them to organized against the carbon fuel based industrialism that functions as a life support system for everyone in every developed country.

A World War Two sized mobilization is indeed what's needed, but as yet there is no viable plan that lays out how to go about doing a changeover as massive as what needs to be done,

Nobody has answers yet for questions like how will food be produced without petroleum bases fertilizers and diesel driven farming machinery and transported without carbon fuel burning trucks, how will electricity be generated to keep the computerized economy going, and -- most of all -- what should we do? Who will lead the way? How can we know that the right steps are being taken?


We are going to have to demand that our states take action. The federal government seems so corrupt and in bed with the fossil fuel industry that we cannot rely on them. We have to demand that our states go 100% renewable right away. Even the Pentagon just announced that they are going to produce a full gigawatt of power from renewable energy, because they see their reliance on fossil fuels as a security threat.


I like fracking --as long as it is hot rock reservoirs of enhanced geothermal systems that are being fracked. It should be feasible to use captured and compressed to over 11 atmospheres pressure as fracking fluid for enhanced geothermal systems.


k.2, The goal (100% renewable energy) is still a dream that is too far off into the future to require it now. Choosing a realistically achievable goal would be way more helpful than ending up banging everybody's heads into the nearest wall, and again.


Grace, It seems you are not aware that pressure underneath solid ground rises mighty fast with depth, meaning: Your 11 atm fracking would be a given anywhere at a depth into the ground in access of 25 meters.


I knew it took over 11 atmospheres to make carbon dioxide liquid at a temperature somewhere between 80 and 90 Fahrenheit. Now you are telling me that it takes way more pressure that that to frack a hot rock reservoir down where the rocks are hot enough geothermal energy to generate steam for electricity. OK, I don't know how long I am likely to remember that now that am am 73, but interesting. I know that geothermal needs to be over 150 C to be useful for generating steam for a turbine to generate electricity, like 150 C is temperature at which to abandon a hot rock reservoir and drill down another kilometer to frack a new hot rock reservoir.


I suspect adding energy storage (whether pumped storage as part of hydro-electric power or big batteries or something else we still have to invent) would be a big help in getting to something as close to 100% renewable as we have reliability of electric power delivered by electric utilities now in face of weather bad enough to knock down trees on top of overhead power lines. In addition to bad weather, utility delivered electric power is also susceptible to squirrels getting into circuits and shorting out the circuit while electrocuting themselves.