With the December Paris climate agreement, leaders and experts from around the world showed they overwhelmingly accept that human-caused climate change is real and, because the world has continued to increase fossil fuel use, the need to curb and reduce emissions is urgent.
Paris does mean we should rethink everything but it is unlikely we will change everything. Because of politics the goal will be to change things as little as possible while still reducing emissions. The solutions put forth are to keep doing what we are doing but do it in a more energy efficient manner and keep increasing the use of solar, wind, and geothermal and in some places nuclear. Given the low price of oil it is hard to understand the push for more tar sands oil pipelines. I guess it is based on conventional oil fields being rather rapidly depleted so that in about 10 years the price of oil will be high again. Hopefully there will be enough change so that the demand for oil is so low that there will be no need for tar sands oil in the future.
Living in your negative brain must be a bitch. Bernie Sanders supporters are positive and full of action. We don't use negativity as an excuse to do nothing.
An unstoppable force meets an immovable object ... Not quite maybe but what we are seeing now is climate change meets econonomic inertia!
Science tells us what we need to do but economics decides whether we do it or not. What is the need for more pipelines asks science but the answer we are given to that question comes from those who make a living off those new pipelines and those people have a personal economic stake in seeing those pipelines built. Fossil fuel companies want people to keep using fossil fuels. They really do.
Science vs economics? But that becomes building a science based future vs retaining an economic advantage. Solar, wind, tidal etc renewables vs oil, gas and coal? Well yeah...but renewables are cheap now says science... Well yeah x2 but people already own oil,gas and coal infrastructure and will benefit from building new pipelines etc.
Economic inertia is like lumbermen who cut down the last tree in their area until their paychecks stop coming. That leaves them jobless in a clear cut but they kept working for five more years than did their neighbors who still have a few patches of forest still standing. Then they moved elsewhere. Economic inertia is at play... Economic inertia is building those new pipelines.
On the other hand the area which still have forest still have working economies, stores, homes, hotels, tourists etc. The clear cuts benefited the few at the expense of everyone else. Economic inertia often does that.
Love you, David. ;O)
The Lorax. Dr. Suess.
Ah, Mr. Suzuki, you know quite well that Paris changed almost nothing. An alcoholic suffering from advancing liver disease promises nothing when he says, "I will begin to drink a bit less 5 years from now."
Lol... Never read it nor saw the flick (there was a flick right? My progeny were long grown by then). I am Suess deprived, mom read him to the offspring... Sigh... I was never a fan but admit that I never gave him a chance. Lol
Why so many words, Mr. Suzuki, about the need for action, while not even mentioning the most effective action that individuals can take, an action that requires no permission and which costs nothing? Since the Worldwatch Institute published findings that the meat industry produces 51% of all greenhouse gases, why don't you at least suggest to your readership that cutting down or eliminating meat consumption is a moral imperative? And I am sick of being accused of "hijacking the conversation." This is an article about climate change and meat consumption is at the heart of climate change. I am also sick of the deniers who debunk the 51% figure with ridicule. Those who ridicule serious research obviously have no intention of reducing their meat intake so they resort to ridicule and insults and I am sick of such tactics.
At the latest Climate Bowl played in Paris, to a self congratulatory collection of #1 daft picks, (also short on clever commercials) the Raging Fossils were again victorious.
yes, i think there are 2 flicks now. Book is good. "Suess deprived." :O)
After the financial collapse of 2008, while the Big Banks sought taxpayer bailout money, the "negotiation" reached not only favored the Big Banks (over the public's interest), it sanctioned the same practices that led to ruin then and threaten greater ruin (the big banks got bitter) now!
Dick Durbin (I believe it was) came out of the negotiation conference bluntly stating, "The banks own the place."
In parallel, Big Oil in everything from its Crimes Against Humanity in the form of funding major campaigns of disinformation to stymy efforts to reduce the build-up of CO2 and resulting warming of the planet's atmosphere, to its continued funding of pro-fossil fuel candidates... also "owns the place"; or thinks it does.
In any society and any given era, there are always visionaries. What they see and understand is always more advanced than what is commonly understood or often conceived of as possible.
When one connects these dots, a different picture of FREE ENERGY emerges:
The committed work of Dr. Steven Greer and his "Disclosure Project" on making it known that technology not only already exists, it's in the possession of several military-adjunct corporations... and it's fossil fuel FREE.
The Pope recently stating that if there were alien beings, he'd baptize them.
The New X-Files speaking about the Secret Space Program, reverse-engineered off-world spacecraft AND Free Energy.
LOTS of material all over the Internet in support of Disclosure, visits from our Space Brothers and Sisters, AND means of energy/transport that does not require anything in the way of fossil fuel.
The same deep pockets that force a false economy on the world also force its reliance on passe fuel sources.
Disclosure means liberation from the oil barons, the frackers, and the coal barons.
Damn! Is that overdue! And it would go a LONG way towards defusing wars, liberating people, and ushering in GENUINE Democracy!
A narrative so nakedly generic as to pretend that this WE item signifies equal policy-making potentials held by average citizens--like the millions who protest Big Oil and its Energy Friends--and the gigantic Energy Corps.
You must be a two-fer. Not only do you shill for the Establishment Candidate, you also provide apologias (disguised as "democratic" opinions) for Big Energy.
Anyone with the ability to bypass all known physical laws and travel between galaxies or other dimensions(parallel universes), a more likely scenario, would one: communicate with other intelligent beings and two: after doing their homework, would pick a more friendly planet for Quasar Day vacation.
Actually the Worldwatch institute claims that the meat industry is the THIRD largest producer of greenhouse gases behind power generation and transportation. This is verified on their website at http://www.worldwatch.org/agriculture-and-livestock-remain-major-sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions-0
I do agree that we should curb our voracious appetite for meat in general and follow a different dietary regimen, but even if we all stopped eating meat tomorrow, fossil fuels are still the main driving force behind global warming. Mr. Suzuki is quite aware of the role that meat consumption plays in global warming. His omission is not a journalistic sleight of hand, but merely an attempt to focus on the main contributor to green house gases.
You're pushing the narrative that there is no contact, has been no contact, and playing down this important matter.
There is TONS of documentation now on You Tube that doesn't require the gatekeepers' control.
The Truth is getting out there. And it does seem stranger than sci-fi... but then, it's based on a new level of applied Knowledge.
The author's name is Dr. Seuss
Right you are. Thanks. :O)
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
That's right! Thanks.:O) I'm going to share this cartoon. it's wonderful. Thanks, Cookies. :O)