Smart meters are making a small percentage of the U.S. population medically sick, and so they might also be making a larger percentage of the population subclinically sick. We know someone who can’t come in to the city to visit us because of the new, stronger electromagnetic pollution in the 2010s. Now, they could build far healthier smart meters if they wanted to, and this would cost us amazingly little extra money, but they would rather not talk about this little fixable medical bug of theirs.
Sen. Chris Murphy to Doubters: Green New Deal 'Absolutely Realistic' and the Kind of Plan Needed to Avert Climate Disaster
Obama incrementalism is not going to cut it. At this point in order to have a chance to deal with climate chaos and destruction, going big is the only realistic course of action.
Seeing how GND is deadf in the water without 100% smart meters juxtapose with Paul K’s assertion that existing smart meters are unhealthy and “healthy smart meters would cost us amazingly little extra money” it sounds like incrementalism is the BEST way to proceed on GND, with the first increment being to convert the 60% of existing smart meters to healthy meters and install healthy meters in the remaining 40% of meter bases that don’t have them.
Don’t let anybody shit you . We can build ground tube travel, electromagnet, or one of the processes not being released to the public.Eliminate commercial air travel. The only reasons we don’t is the oil cartel, and letting the cat out of the bag technologies.
Surprise! Global warming will destroy our economy…and a lot more as well.
What a great comment, so great it is being over-looked. Thanks for having eyes that see.
Nice to see you again manysummits…nice to see you are up on your reading as well. It is amazing the discussion skirting the 6th extinction, some day the great minds will figure it out it is too late and of course that it was too late 40+ years ago.
While the richest few dominate the dialogue, politics and our collective in their greed-driven quest for ever more wealth and ego, the planet and its - our - other life forms are being exterminated to feed that worship of greed and Mammon That blind failure of stewardship IS A CRIME of the greatest proportions!
The PTB are allowing and enhancing this mass extinction by the unlimited and criminal poisoning of our only Earth by the chemical conglomerate they serve, spreading millions of tons of poisonous substances around the world to increase paper profits! If we do not radically alter our current capitalist model of life on Earth to protect rather than destroy, we are eventually doomed as well as all the rest…the Web of Life itself is threatened by ignorance and greed…and no example is more relevant and responsible than the hideous blight of the trump regime!!
" The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”, according to the first global scientific review.
More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century. They are “essential” for the proper functioning of all ecosystems "
Read my full comment. My money is on the status quo.
I formerly flew half a dozen times a year for work. Then I refused and offered to resign. Now I never fly.
And your economic reasons for maintaining the status quo are not going to matter 30 years from now. At that point, climate refugees will number in the 100s of millions, water shortages will kill many millions more, and even more feedback loops will be engaged with worse to come.
Did you read my comment? My money is on the status quo.
But that doesn’t matter. At the expected rate of ongoing carbon emissions, we are guaranteed massive devastation, the sixth extinction is already well underway, it’s too late now. I feel safe in predicting 5 feet of sea level rise by 2020, giant releases of methane from a thawing tundra, a series of droughts, fires, hurricanes, and water shortages.
This what tinkering at the edges means: When we had a chance to address emissions, we just plain didn’t. For that, your grandchildren will pay dearly.
I don’t disagree about the trajectory we are headed, and overreacted to your comment after reading multiple comments that have zero connection to reality. Apologies. The problem is not just leadership—Pelosi passed a viscously opposed cap and trade bill already—it’s just people. California has passed a suite of laws designed around lowering carbon emissions and the state has made good progress. Yet, the state can’t force everyone to live in multi-unit solar powered housing, drive solar-charged electric vehicles, take transit, and a host of other things that run against its emissions reducing goals. As I note, the public just whacked emissions efforts by passing a new property tax reduction expansion that will increase sprawl, passed in spite of Governor Brown’s serious efforts on GHG emissions. The public didn’t give a shit, frankly, about “leadership,” they wanted wealthy homeowners to buy that second home.
No it won’t. And how is eliminating air travel a viable solution?
Yep, the status quo is your current winner and frankly, that’s understandable. A second home in the high desert sounds nice. Here in MI, a huge summertime tourism industry thrives on not just the vacation homes on the lakes, but on the boats that go with them – in the winter, it’s snowmobiles.
Yet when the climate crisis proceeds to destroy civilization as we know it, the status quo will collapse in ruins. Every predicted climate outcome has come to pass, except much sooner than forecast. Are we 50 years out from the 3-foot sea level rise and killer drought? 100? Does it matter?
Meanwhile, politicians like AO-C and Markey will fade from memory, along with most other mammals.
The public “wants” things, but wants them easy. California has a $2500 incentive for purchasing clean air vehicles and is planning to up it another $2000 as the Trump administration rolls back clean air incentives. The problem is we are still seeing the market for light duty vehicles (trucks and SUVs) expand. What’s more, the stats on single driver commutes for those vehicle types, while improved, are still bad. Given reality, I just don’t see any real evidence that zero carboning the economy is close to possible by 2030.
Thanks, but actually, no, it wasn’t hunger that motivated them.
I read the short story, in one of O’Connor’s collections. The lads were merely on a walk about, and the gist was that one of them wanted to turn back when they came upon a particularly high wall. Those lovely stacked stone ones. The other simply tossed his cap over the wall, and said now they had to get over to retrieve it. In the story it was as much a challenge of one lad to the other, more playful than practical.
But I’ve used that very same analogy when I was working, to demonstrate our ability to choose a course of action. View things as insurmountable, or apply ourselves to the task with the aim of accomplishing it.
To carry it further, our choices are as simple as they are starck. Give up, accept that it’s inevitable we can’t, or won’t, make the necessary changes, or we apply ourselves with all our creative effort and determination, with every belief and conviction we can make positive differences.
I would not feel safe making that prediction. Since 95 the rate of change is 3.2 mm/yr (https://sealevel.nasa.gov/) and we are currently +80 mm over a nominal pre industrial revolution sea height. 5 ft is 1524 mm or another 1444 mm. Rates could change based on methane release or a big change in ice melt, but in 1 year you expect the rate to go from 3.2 mm/yr to 1444 mm/yr. Unless you have good grounds to claim that, I would say these types of predictions just make it harder to convince the skeptics. Reality is scary enough - if you give them any predictions they can laugh at, they close off to the mainstream scientific consensus.
My bad, I meant 2120. Thanks for noticing and informing me.
I am seeing stories of 1 to 1.5m rise by 2100 now looking possible (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3eed690dded quotes even 2m being possible). And by later years, the numbers keep going up, e.g. 8m by 2300. The plot at https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/07/30/how-much-sea-level-rise-is-actually-locked-in/#626700d19b39 from the IPCC (2014 so it doesn’t include updates referenced in previous article) where you see the range of sea level rise in low and medium CO2 scenarios.
We are very late, but I hope this political push doesn’t fizzle out. As you probably know, I’m more aligned with @PaulSwanee1 and @KC2669 on some of the difficulties of actually getting to 100% RE in the US anytime soon (e.g. 2035), but I definitely want to get started on whatever we know how to do well now and what has the biggest bang for the buck. I know we have another 2 years at least before the political situation here can change to enable much of the needed changes, so hopefully we can get a lot of high quality information into the legislation and into peoples’ minds to move forward as soon as we can.