Home | About | Donate

'Talk Is Cheap': G20 Told to End Public Subsidy of All Dirty Fuels by 2020


#1

'Talk Is Cheap': G20 Told to End Public Subsidy of All Dirty Fuels by 2020

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Extreme weather trends continue. CO2 emissions remain above the safe threshold.


#2

To Hell with Subsidies!!

When are we going to force these scum to pay for cleaning up the messes they've already made??


#3

We all must take to the streets, and scream as loud and long as we can.

RESIGN!


#4

Michael T. Klare had an article on "The Third Carbon Age" some time ago which appeared here on Common Dreams (originally on Tom Dispatch).

Here it is:

I am keeping track of Larsen C these days - or rather Cryosat is, with radar. Roughly 10% is about to break loose from this ice shelf on the east side of the Antarctic Penninsula, a harbinger I imagine to the complete breakup in the not too distant future of the entire Larsen C Iceshelf - now as doomed as it is possible to be.

All of this just prequels to the main show, the loss of the maritime Ice Sheet in West Antartica, capable of by itself raising sea level some five meters. Some scientists think WAIS, as it is known, is now in terminal decline.

I'm heading to the University first thing tomorrow morning to get John Mercer's 'Nature' article from 1978, which predicted all this way back then.

I'll add it to my climate science binder with Gilbert Plass's original 1955 article in American Scientist on CO2 and climate.

Sort of morbid nostalgia, to add of course to subsequent seminal publications such as the 1972 "Limits" to Growth", to "Planetary Boundaries", to Jim Hansen's Target CO2 (where the 350 ppm target was born), and on and on...

Both Richard Alley and Michael Mann have recent publications which allude to the possible need for direct air capture, both vegetative and artificial, something Wallace Broecker jumped on with Klaus Lackner seemingly ages ago.

Paris, the IPCC reports - all lowest common denominator reports - what we need is our best science and scientists, not some watered down spin.

We are potentially facing a Greenhouse Mass Extinction of our own "Age of Stupid" making, and I am more than tired of all these so called leaders, of so called democracy.

For me, a geologist by training, The Antropocene began when our species first appeared on Earth, date uncertain, ca 200, 000 years ago. This is a not uncommon way of demarking the beginning of a geologic time unit - by first appearance of some fossil.

Recent thoughts on the Antropocene generally prefer some more easily determinied stratigraphic marker, such as the bomb spike at the beginning of the so called "Great Acceleration", but for me I'll stick with the first appearance of this wandering, tribal, nomadic adventurer known as homo sapiens - toolmaker and weaponeer extraordinaire.

We left Africa for Australia perhaps, and our first new landfall resuled in mega faunal extinction and land use change by fire.

Nothing much has changed save our numbers and the size of our tools.

We need a major re-think - in "The Age of Stupid".

Hopefully, as Jacques Cousteau once pointed out:

"the impossible missions are the only ones which succeed".


#5

Except for political corruption, there is no reason for government subsidy.


#6

It's all very easy. Thoreau said it with Civil Disobedience. When we all refuse to pay taxes until we get a guarantee they will be used for what we want (no more war funding, having single payer, put toward green energy) then we can get what we want. While we pay taxes we are supporting the massive corruption and hijacking of our government and our taxes.


#7

The problem is the existing supply chain is so entirely wedded to oil and oil byproducts. Not only do we need to address simple consumption of oil-derived fuels and natural gas, we also must address what replaces all the industrial byproducts of oil that we are all dependent upon.

I doubt renewables will be able to address these issues by themselves. However, a renewable energy economy that temporarily grows up along side the existing fossil fuels-based supply chain will eventually supplant it in ways we right now cannot conceive. A couple generations ago, no one would have conceived that we might land a man on the moon (until Kennedy voiced it), and yet that economy - based as it was on fossil fuels - was able to make that a reality.

The possibilities that will emerge from the clean energy economy will likewise exceed our conception of reality. The epiphanies that will emerge will offer us a new path forward and will save us from our worst selves if we only have faith and optimism about this future path forward.


#8

I do like the way you think; I too want to do that. However I don't think it will have any effect, and if it did then we get perhaps the next in line, Pence, who is probably worse because he IS very smart, quietly cunning, and a far-right religious fanatic, which Trump certainly is not.
If anything, I'd love to go to DC, walk into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. gather every one of the SOB's together, push them out the door and then say, "You're ALL fired. And we have your replacements right here, (motioning at that point to a group of people comprised of Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, etc.) ready to listen to WE, the people. And, if they don't, we'll fire them too!" Then I'd push them all with Trump being in the lead, toward a bus waiting to take them far far away from DC. forever. That's my fantasy.


#9

Thanks, for that.... I try to "collect" articles... I had thought, in the past, that I could use them to show people, once everything collapses .... and help them understand WHY AND HOW.... AND WHEN IT ALL STARTED.... my thinking was that, if people understood... they would not be taking "it" out on those who do not look like them, or the poor... ( well, they/we should be taking it out on the rich and powerful, but... that' ll be a moot point not to long from now, anyway.)... so... now however, I feel that no matter what you try to explain to people, so FEW can understand it.... or do not want to..... THERE WILL BE SO MUCH EMOTION.... everyone will be filled with sorrow... and most, will not be able to think logically..... they will be loosing family members etc... and they will not like what I have to say and may not put up with anything from me in the first place..... AND therefore, it might not be a good idea for me to go around, trying to expel the demons they think they have to fight... and the people they will blame...


#10

I know I haven't been around much folks. Been hangin' out over at NTHE or .... Extinction Radio on facebook..... a lot... maybe most here do not miss me... .but, I have gone through a lot of transformation about all this ... since, I started learning about it in say ... 2003?... as you can see, from the articles here... especially Michael T. Klare's.... that ... NOTHING IS BEING DONE, NOR WILL BE DONE about climate change.... I remember reading a few years ago now... that, all that will happen with building up some renewables is.... to add MORE ELECTRICITY to our over all energy use, but that, it WON'T REDUCE emissions..... now, I know some here, will say... but but but .... we did bring a three year stabilization of emissions ... we did we did..... well, how's that working out for us.... CONCENTRATIONS ARE STILL RISING.... I suppose, you can say that .... rising emissions will.....slow?... but lot of good that will do... since, ANY emissions are still going to RAISE CONCENTRATION.....


#11

the question i would have is this. where does the money come from for all the wars. certainly not from your taxes!! Created out of thin air? Drug running??


#12

Nature on LarsenC yesterday


#13

I don't spend a lot of time here on Common Dreams myself anymore.

My sense is that little will change until fear takes hold.

When people say they are aware or understand climate change - look to see what changes they have made in their personal lives.

Unfortunately fear amongst 'the madding crowd' can get mighty ugly.

I think out best efforts right now are simply to spend time and effort while the world is still sane gathering information and formulating a workable plan, which for me entails artificial direct air capture big time, and I do mean big time.

The dangerous buildup of CO2 has been extremely rapid, really only decades. The only way to rapidly decrease CO2 in the Earth System that I am aware of is direct air capture, back to something like 350 ppm - maybe lower.

Unless we do that, the science is telling us it will be many thousands of years until anything like normal returns, and all the while sea level will be rising inexorably, and ocean acidification will be taking its toll.

The net result is not just high sea level however. The social disruption - civilizational collapse actually, which will be produced during this period will be seemingly never ending, and then there are the black swans, many I think, circling overhead, any one of which can produce truly nightmare times.

I don't think Martin Rees of the UK is kidding around when he gives us a one in two chance of making it to 2100.


#14

I'm concentrating on Antartica now.

It's beginning to look like not only the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is grounded below sea level, is at risk, but also sections of the truly massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

I cannot stress enough the conservative nature of the 'models', as compared to the more empirical evidence from the past episodes of global warming.

The last time CO2 was as high as it will be in a decade or two, say 450 ppmv, sea level rose twenty-some meters. That was just a few million years ago.

If by some "Age of Stupid" shenanigans we allow CO2 to rise to 1000 ppm - all bets are off.


#15

My sense is that dollar signs rule. Right now big bizgov is looking at 1) the gold and other minerals that await them under the mile of ice in Antarctica, 2) the the big bad homeless boogiemen who live in public forests that can be burned to clear them out, 3) the mineral rights that companies can easily get by burning people put of their backwoods homes like they did around Lake Tahoe, 4) the amazing new shipping routes that will appear when the Arctic all melts, 5) all tthat cheap land for mining and development that awaits in all of the northern stretches of frozen land, and 6) for every old port that goes under water, there will be millions of dollars waiting to develop the new ones in the north.
This is not at all my preference. we'll all be wearing oxygen tanks when this happens.


#16

Oh yes, VERY easy.  Just how do you propose that the 99% (well, 95%, anyway) of us who are (or were) em­ployees from whose paychecks State (in most cases) and Federal taxes are automatically deducted and sent to the government going to refuse to pay taxes?  And if a few of us do manage to avoid paying Federal taxes for a year or two, how do you propose we manage to stay out of prison when those IRS agents, for whom one is guilty until proven innocent, come looking for us?  Remember that "they" are looking for any excuse at all to lock you up and take away your vote. Even if you serve 'only' five years for one year of tax evasion, you'll be a felon when you get out and (in most states) will have lost the right to vote.  And good luck finding another job after you get out.


#17

Right, Helen.   And it's not just the "western" Multi-NaZional Korporations and the governments – like ours – that they own. Much of Siberia that is currently frozen all or at least most of the year will become habitable & productive farmland – even it doesn't yield a great deal of mineral wealth. Unlike most of the rest of the world, Russia may have more to gain than to lose from 'Climate Change' / 'Global Warming'.


#18

Speculation about what would happen if climate temperatures go up.

Vs. what we know will happen if climate temperatures go down.
During the Little Ice Age
1. Iceland lost about half of its population.
2. The Viking Greenland population was wiped out. At least culturally.
3. The population of East Greenland nearly vanished too.