Yes, although "amazing" isn't always the first word that springs to mind.

You forgot to mention the Biblical imperative that calls for Man to dominate nature and use it solely for his needs. Thus, the Religious Right has an interest in opposing environmentalists.

Besides, environmentals all wear sandals with socks, crow about their wilderness backpacking adventures, and lecture about the evils of gas-powered transportation with an ardor that would make Cotten Mather proud.

You forgot to mention the Biblical imperative that calls for Man to dominate nature and use it solely for his needs. Thus, the Religious Right has an interest in opposing environmentalists.

One might argue that, inasmuch as survival of humanity is a need of Man, a certain degree of environmentalism is not merely consistent with but actually demanded by such a command.

Remember, Jesus says it's a sin to drive an SUV.

Tonight on The History Channel, “Decoding the Past, edgar cayce predicts World War II, the death of US presidents and The Great Depression.”

Kevin, there are two other huge obstacles towards acceptance.

One is that ending global warming will require negotiations as equals between rich and poor nations. Even if the rich nations were stop all emisisions, the poor nations emissons may already exceed what is tolerable and certainly will do so within a few decades. If the poor nations were to stop all emissions tomorrow, the rich nations emissions alone would produce unacceptable results. So, on this issue, rich and poor nations have to bargain as equals. We can't bully the poor nations into assuming the entire burden for us; we can't go it alone and solve the problem without them. We have to do our share of the problem and solving and still negotiate with the poor nations besides.

Secondly this is not a problem that lends itself to fundamentally conservative solutions. Green taxation won' solve the problem by itself; you need regulation and public works as well. For one thing any solution to global warming will involve a lot more rail both for people and especially for freight. It takes about one tenth the fossil fuel to move a ton-mile of freight by rail that it does by truck. Containerization already lets us move cargo mostly by rail, then use trucks for the final 50 miles. But as rail infrastructure deteriorates we are doing the opposite, moving more freight entirely by truck, and in combination journeys, using trucks for more of the miles and rail for less. To reverse this we not only need to start maintaining our rail infrastructure; we need to add more lines, more locomotive and especially more freightyards and switchyards, so that there are more entry/exit points to and from the rail shipping system. Additional connections between lines (via new trackbed and new switchyards) could also cut hundreds of miles off many journeys, encouraging the use of more rail freight over truck freight.

cld -- Didn't I read Arthur Schlesinger say something favorable about the History Channel? Guess he didn't see this program.

This just in from the looney Christian Right Wing:
Thursday 20th of April 2006 10:24:12 AM PDT

Rev. Sheldon Speaks Out On Earth Day
April 20, 2006 – This week’s commentary by TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon is on the upcoming Earth Day on Saturday, April 22.

The first Earth Day was held on April 22, 1970 and was organized by leftwing anti-Vietnam War activists and environmentalists. Coincidentally or not, the date was the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lenin, the brutal dictator of Soviet Russia who condemned millions to death.

As Rev. Sheldon points out, the founders and supporters of Earth Day were far left radicals, including David Brower. In later years, he openly supported the Fidel Castro-inspired Sandinistas in overthrowing Nicaragua. The current head of Earth Day is Denis Hayes, who served as the first coordinator in 1970.

Rev. Sheldon observes: “Ironically, on the first Earth Day, radical environmentalists were ranting about the alleged coming dangers of ‘global cooling.’ Today, they’re ranting about global warming. So, which is it? ... the jury is still out on how to interpret complex and incomplete scientific data on global climate changes.”

Rev. Sheldon urges Christians to look to the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, the Heartland Institute, and the Acton Institute for reliable information on environmental issues. Junk Science is another good source of information on non-politically correct views on environmental issues.

The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance has published the Cornwall Declaration, a statement about environmental stewardship and the importance of balancing proper stewardship of the world’s resources with sound science, concern for the poor, and reasonable economic policies that do more damage than good.

The Alliance is urging church leaders to join the Cornwall Network to begin educating church members about environmental issues—from a non-hysterical perspective. By joining the Cornwall Network, individuals and churches will have access to updates about environmental stewardship issues; bulletin inserts for distribution in churches; scripture notes on stewardship; an electronic newsletter on the environment; and other materials for Sunday School. Several educational projects are in the works right now.

For recent writings on the facts surrounding global warming and climate change, read these articles: RealClearPolitics - Articles - Public Doesn't Warm to Doom and Gloom; RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Media and Reporting on the Environment; Climate of Fear.

Read and distribute TVC’s report on environmentalism: Evangelical Environmental Group Funded By Pro-Abort, Pro-Homosexual Foundation

Jonah Goldberg's column in the LA Times today carries the same theme. My favorite piece of idiocy in it is when he claims Gore is wrong to blame the disappearing snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro on global warming, when a study indicated that it was the clear-cutting of the forests that were the probably cause.

But see, if we didn't have the Clean Air act and all those other onerous gummint regulations, the economy would be doing even better! Why, my studies show that without those durned regulations, we could afford to cut taxes in America. More money in your pockets, see?

And here is exhibit A

What especially cracks me up is that Jonah accepts that global warming is real, and that it is likely man-made - but then says, roughly, "why rush off and spend trillions of dollars on a threat that might not be existential anyway?"

Compare and contrast with Iraq. Try not to cry.

A theologian friend of mine points out that the command for man to “have dominion” over all the earth occurred before the fall from grace. God pretty much changed all the rules after Adam and Eve tasted the apple.

Personally, if I was God, I would be pretty pissed at humans for trashing the planet I created for them.

With gobal warming, conservatives don't have enough scientific information to choose, with intelligent design, they've proved that scientific data can't answer their questions. Too little data on one issue, no need for it at all in another. Just depends on the issue I guess.

Isn't it bizarre that the party that most equates itself with family and family morals and tradition, etc., seems to hate children? Their own children, no less? I mean, 50, 100 years from now things could be quite unpleasant, and while I'm sure the GOP fatbastardscum feel pretty sure their kids and grandkids are gonna be plutocrats themselves, why would they want the world they live in to be fundementally effed up? They truly care about nothing besides power and I think the probably figure being king in a dying world is better than not being king at all.

Al Gore was right about climate change

*snicker*

Yeah, right!

Cute thing about Al Gore, but basically it boils down to a war between the fossil fuel industry and everyone else on Earth. The profits of the fossil fuel corporations are already almost inconceivably huge. In the era of "peak oil" which we are now entering, with demand for oil and other fossil fuels growing while supply peaks and then declines, their profits stand to skyrocket even higher. Unless, of course, the world moves to rapidly reduce the use of fossil fuels. They just don't want that to happen.

Well, that Vanity Fair special issue was lame--simply because of its stupendously shallow treatment of everything. I suppose if Julia Roberts' fatuous gushing about her brand-new habit of taking a metal cup to Starbucks inspires someone to do the same, I can put up with a little personal retching.

Martin: How hilarious that these two sentences are right next to each other:

For recent writings on the facts surrounding global warming and climate change, read these articles: RealClearPolitics - Articles - Public Doesn't Warm to Doom and Gloom; RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Media and Reporting on the Environment; Climate of Fear.

Read and distribute TVC’s report on environmentalism: Evangelical Environmental Group Funded By Pro-Abort, Pro-Homosexual Foundation

Climate of fear indeed.

but that doesn't mean conservatives can't just switch gears and claim that a bit of warming might actually turn out to be good for us, or that hurting the global economy is too high a price to pay to save Bangladesh, or....well, something

Done that already, to be duly recycled as necessary, Kevin.

Best,

D

Yes, you know how those homos are all over this global warming fraud.

Yes, you know how those homos are all over this global warming fraud.

They'll find global warming, all right--IN THE FIRES OF HELL!

And, anyway, we've heard this song before. As I recall, the Clean Air Act and the Clear Water Act were supposed to devastate the economy too.

Yep.

And this is true for two reasons.

1) Corporate folks fear the building of better mouse traps.... as their wealth is predicated on the old inefficient mousetraps. Environmental laws force into being better mousetraps. That's bad.

2) The marketplace has always taken a free ride on the atmosphere. Anybody and everybody can hang out a tailpipe (or two or three) and blow smoke. The marketplace doesn't charge you to blow your wastes up into the air. In essence: the invisible hand of the marketplace freeloads off the earth's atmosphere.

Dude, you're letting fake tbrosz get to you.

What new "environmental laws" in response to global warming do y'all propose?

(This should be fun)

If conservatives remain true to form, it won't be long before you hear them saying "We never said global warming isn't caused by human activities."

I remember when the Democrats proposed putting nutritional labels on all food sold in the U.S., things like fat content, %age of protein, etc. - the GOP trotted out the old "it will bankrupt businesses" schtick. Well, it became law and who among us doesn't read and use this labeling (and benefit from it)? And, as near as I can tell, it didn't affect corporate profits one iota.

These conservatives and their silly, misguided arguments have become pathetic...

David in NY,

The History Channel does have some really good documentaries and programs, (they had a fantastic program about Julius Caesar a few months ago), but it's interlarded with the most egregious tripe giving a context of historical verity to the dimmer topics that attract the attention of the dimmer populace with a general intention of promoting, apparently, wide-eyed religious credulity and right-wingediness.

GOP wrote: What new "environmental laws" in response to global warming do y'all propose?

The state of Maryland, where I live, just passed such a law, which mandates reductions in CO2 emissions (as well as mercury, nitrogen and sulfur) from power plants, a major source of greenhouse gases. The law also requires Maryland to join the existing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a consortium of eastern states committed to mandatory CO2 reductions from power plants.

The law was opposed by our Republican governor (soon to be ex-governor) Robert Erlich, but he signed it after it was passed by veto-proof majorities in both houses of the Maryland legislature.

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, which campaigned for this legislation, says that Maryland thus becomes the first "coal state" (a state producing a majority of its electricity from coal) to join the RGGI, and that "No state in America has passed legislation that reduces all four power plant pollutants in such an aggressive way. It is our hope that other states will now follow Maryland's lead and that the federal government will quickly supercede all such efforts with its own tough and comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction measures."

What new "environmental laws" in response to global warming do y'all propose?

(This should be fun)

I'll go back to my old standby -- how about a fuel tarriff on imports (a function of distance, weight, bulkiness). It would encourage the development of more efficient trading practices for the coming energy crisis, encourage US manufacturing, and even favor agriculture in the caucus state of Iowa. The downside is that It would totally fuck box stores and apparel companies that outsource everything to east asia and people who rely on their cheap crap.

Remember the "coming ice age" of 30 years ago. Global warming- same crock.

No, "doc."

The global cooling talking point is nicely blown away here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Tucked away on page 7 of its Summary for Policy Makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits the following:

"The rate of increase of atmospheric O2 concentration has been about 1.5 ppm9 (0.4%) per year over the past two decades. During the 1990s the year to year increase varied from 0.9 ppm (0.2%) to 2.8 ppm (0.8%). A large part of this variability is due to the effect of climate variability (e.g., El Niño events) on CO2 uptake and release by land and oceans."

"Slightly more than half of current CH4 emissions are anthropogenic (e.g., use of fossil fuels, cattle, rice agriculture andlandfills)."

"The atmospheric concentration of nitrous oxide (N2O) has increased by 46 ppb (17%) since 1750 and continues toincrease. The present N2O concentration has not beenexceeded during at least the past thousand years. About a third of current N2O emissions are anthropogenic (e.g.,agricultural soils, cattle feed lots and chemical industry)."

So, of the three most common greenhouse gases, only about a third of one (N2O) comes from human activity, only about half of a second (CH4) comes from human activity, and increases in the concentration of the third (CO2) were observed to vary by a factor of four over a single decade. A "large part" of this variation "is due to the effect of climate variability."

This means that our ability to reduce or stabilize concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases by reducing emissions from cars, power plants and other anthropogenic sources is severely limited.

Listened to the drugged out whack job known as Lush Rimbaugh this morning speaking his piece about "global warming".

He thought we should quit worrying about the melting Arctic and the extinction of polar bears, wallowing in thought that we "might" discover more oil reserves, even making a joke about accelerating global warming.

Of course the fool forgot completely that his compound in south Florida would then reside some twenty feet underwater.

Typical Republican moron.

When one considers that, in 1965, the Mojave Desert in California could supply 100% of the energy needs of the fricking globe, an answer lies at our doorstep. Like the Bible directs we do with strangers at our door, all we have to do is invite it in.

BTW, to be in "command", as the Bible directs, one must first be a guardian. It is only then that one can direct. Basic part of military leadership 101, not that I would expect a side of well-marbled pork like Jonah to understand.

"The state of Maryland, where I live, just passed such a law, which mandates reductions in CO2 emissions"

What level of reductions? 1%? 10%? 80%? And over what period of time? What is the expected cost of these reductions? How did Maryland determine that the benefits will likely outweigh the costs? Or didn't it?

You're right, it's all about who supports the theory...that pesky data doesn't have anything to do with the right's rejection of the theory of global warming.

Quite simply, the republicans are in denial.... on pretty much everything.

The global cooling talking point is nicely blown away here

I don't know about "blown away." The gist of that article is "yes, a whole lot of people were talking about global cooling back then, but that doesn't really count."

I remember the global cooling scare. The thing of it is, it had a lot of consensus among climatologist and intelligent people discussed it seriously.
I'm not saying there's not global warming, I’m just saying I'll believe it when the nutritionists can tell me if salt/meat/dairy/sugar/ ect is either good or bad for my health. (I wish they would make up their minds)

No, the jist is global cooling was considered as a theoretical possibility back then on various timescales up to tens of thousands of years, taken out of context by various non-scientists, found to be very unlikely in the near term (hundereds of years), then taken even further out of context and used by dishonest and or ignorant people to cast doubt on later science.

doobie:
It's the change in GG gasses like CO2, CH4 and N2O that matters. If there were no such natural emissions, the earth would be a frozen snowball. And the fact that the CO2 buildup has noise in it over small timescales is also of not that much relevance.

Would it make sense to stop saving for retirement because the return on your investments varies from year to year? No. It's the longer term average that matters.

GOP: If your doctor tells you that, in his judgement, you're headed for a coronary, I can imagine your response:

"Reduce my fat intake, stop smoking, and exercise more? Do you have any numbers for the drop in risk I can expect? No more accurate than a factor of two eh? What level of reductions in fat? 1%? 10%? 80%? And over what period of time? What is the expected loss of enjoyment of life in these reductions? Please quantify. How did you, Dr, determine that the benefits will likely outweigh the costs in terms of my probable lifetime after-tax-income?"

No, not so smart. Smart would be going "oh, well, what can I do to improve things? Tell me the easiest steps first, then what I need to do longer term."

Nice Bruce (ok I’m buying)
What do I know about freaking CO2 anyway?
But what are we really going to do? Has someone invented a water engine I don’t know about? I live here in Detroit and my folk’s next door neighbor was a V.P. for G.M. He was head of the electric car project that ran for 20 years. They finally came out with that EV1 (Ted Danson bought one)
This guy took me for a ride (pretty neat, quick little car) He’s sitting there telling me It was a colossal waste of everybody’s money, his career, and political will. They can’t beat the battery problem no matter how much cash they threw at research. Anyway, the car sat two and maybe a set of golf clubs.

You know how India & China are growing.. What up?
Seriously?

Has Kevin blogged about Robert Novak saying Fitzgerald isn't going to indict anybody for leaking Valerie Plame's name?

Global warming as is currently going on is unstoppable. No state -- NONE -- has proven willing to decrease its greenhouse gas emissions by the 60-70% that is neccessary to stop and reverse today's global warming. We're bound for at least 2 degC of future warming, and likely at least about twice that, since no nation is likely to significantly reduce its GHG emissions by 2025.

These are facts.

Accept them.

We *might* prevent 4-6 degC warming if we take some action in the next 1-2-4 decades with alternative fuels. Fuel cells, wind power, NUCLEAR POWER, solar power. It will be far from easy, and FRANKLY IT WON'T LIKELY HAPPEN UNTIL OIL STARTS TO PEAK AND RUN OUT.

We've shown already that we will use all the oil we can, even at current prices and appx 2-3 times higher, and global warming matters not. WE WILL BURN ALL THE OIL.

That's another fact.

Cry now. But we're in for at least 3 degC of global warming. The seas will not cover Florida or NY, but people will be impacted. Also, people will benefit -- Canada, Russia. They'll become breadbaskets.

Others will suffer, as they should.

These things are (almost) already set in stone.

I think Kevin's last paragraph inadvertantly points to a problem everyone concerned about global warming is having. He mentions that this isn't the first time we've heard about how this or that environmental policy was going to destroy our economy, yet we've always done fine. Can't anti-regulation sorts say exactly the same thing about environmentalist doomsday scenarios of the past (e.g., global cooling)? When you couple the innate difficulty most everyone has with imagining the more drastic possible consequences of global warming, regardless of political persuasion, with a (partially justified) widespread suspicion that environmentalist groups have overstated the danger of other environmental catastrophes, you get a lot of apathy. Both industrial and enviornmentalist groups have great incentive to magnify the dangers and minimize the costs of policies they oppose. I'm inclined to trust the scientists, which is why I am concerned about global warming, but they tend to get lost in the crossfire.

Past history has shown that people will vote based on environmental issues that affect their lives in tangible ways (smog tests, clean water, etc.). Global warming is probably too big, too abstract in its effects (at least for now) to get enough people's attention. The far better route I think would use the soaring oil prices to attack a different aspect of the same problem. If you want to convince people to get off fossil fuels, stop talking about algae levels and glacier retreat, and keep mentioning how we'll fondly remember those $3 dollar a gallon days in a few years. And remind people who have normal-sized cars how much the SUV's cost them, in gas prices and safety, so we can get an SUV mpg law passed.

And one more thing, people who are serious about global warming need to accept a broad approach. I can't take seriously people who claim to be extremely concerned about GW who are nonetheless adamantly opposed to nuclear energy, which has much more managable drawbacks. I'd like to see a major increase in funding in R&D, and implementation, of solar, nuclear (both fission and fusion), hydroelectric, and wind energies, and any other credible prospects out there. Even if none of these alone is the solution, a combination might do the trick. A more heterogeneous energy policy will also damp price swings in the market.

Rufus...
Could you perhaps be more definitive?
What’s going to happen? When do we stop buying oil?

"Others will suffer, as they should."

yea, those bangladeshis sure deserve it... for some reason.

>They can’t beat the battery problem no matter how much cash they threw at research.

A car company isn't a battery company - but now, Lithium polymer batteries are far better, more than enough for 95% of driving. And the EV1 was actually quite popular with its drivers; the company was not super eager to promote it, from what I've read. They pried the things out of the hands of the lease holders with a crowbar. (hydrogen is close to a dead end)

The real problem with EV's, in my opinion, is that with modern materials and so few moving parts, they'd last too long and require almost no maintenance. Not so good, if you're a car company.

Anyways, we could reduce vehicle CO2 output fully 50% with a decade or so just by such measures as moving to hybrids, and cutting the tax breaks and regulatory loopholes for "light trucks". Without even changing driving habits. Look at the gap, even now, between the bottom and top end of single-occupancy commuter's gas mileage.

>You know how India & China are growing.. What up?
Seriously?

First, we need to set a better example here, so we have a leg to stand on in criticizing their consumer/industrial habits.

Serious investment in next-gen power storage/transmission and generation in the developed world could create a path for the developing world, and we can sell them the expertise later.

Fusion research facilities, such as the materials component of ITER, badly need funding. Demo plants for anerobic coal burning and thorium fission would also be a good idea.

Governments could set aside say a few Gw of their electricity purchasing for solar, wind, and other renewables to create a seed-market for industrial scale pilot plants. Wind is already competitive, and when matched with hydro as a buffer, has no issues with intermittency.

Simply coming up with an solid-state lighting source could save 15% of our power plant emissions. Plenty of room there for R & D incentives.

We could make it a long ways without even touching land use. The gains from better land use planning and urban renewal, higher efficiency in residences and more efficient industrial motors, could double that again. Much of that change, such as American Superconductors large-scale motor, load-leveling and transmission technology, is again exportable.

It's the change in GG gasses like CO2, CH4 and N2O that matters. If there were no such natural emissions, the earth would be a frozen snowball.

And the point of this observation to the argument I just made is....what?

And the fact that the CO2 buildup has noise in it over small timescales is also of not that much relevance.

Huh? A variation by a factor of four over a single decade is not "noise." As the IPCC said, a "large part" of that enormous range of CO2 concentration increases is climate variability that affects CO2 uptake and release by land and oceans. Changes in emissions over the same period of time cannot possibly account for more than a small fraction of the variation. This obviously means our ability to reduce or stop increases by reducing anthropogenic emissions is severely limited.

Frequency nailed it!

>ven if none of these alone is the solution, a combination might do the trick. A more heterogeneous energy policy will also damp price swings in the market...

Exactly. Hit it all, now, instead of squabbling over the solution this early. Carbon sequestering technologies as well. The total cost would still be a fraction of a single resource war in the middle east.

I can think of six avid Bush supporters who I have heard make the following statement regarding global warming and other environmental problems: "Well, I don't really think the world will be around that much longer anyway."

Bush and Rove know how to appeal to such folks.

Bruce the Canuck,

"GOP: If your doctor tells you that, in his judgement, you're headed for a coronary, I can imagine your response ..."

Well, you might be able to imagine it, but you haven't stated it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that we should pass laws that impose costly restrictions on businesses without making any serious attempt to determine whether the benefits are likely to outweigh those costs? That's a good basis for public policy decisions, in your view, is it?

Fitz,

I'm not sure I know when we will stop buying oil. I can imagine us pumping gas at $5/gal, $6/gal, $8/gal.... Really, what choice do we have? We have to get to work, and public transportation in the US sucks. I can even buy $10/gal, oil about $200/barrel.... but above that it's difficult to imagine. I live in Portland, OR, which takes public transportation seriously. Almost nowhere else in the US is this the case. If you have to go to work at $10/gal, won't you? You'll spend $5K/yr to make $60K/yr, but you will.... I think the real turning point re: oil is the hard, natural limit where oil actually starts to run out -- supply can no longer keep up with demand. Personally I think that is already happening, though I'd a bit deficit on the proof. But by 2010 I think it will be clear -- oil production will be declining, and demand will be increasing steadily (China, US, everyone else). By 2010 it will be clear we're in a bidding war, I think. Then -- get out of the way.......

The only thing I have ever been "amazed" byis that the party of entrepreneurial revolution hasn't been able to see how entrepreneurial and how revolutionary it might be for American companies to come up with the technological solutions we need to deal with this - solutions the rest of the world would be likely to buy.

But they really aren't the party of entrepreneurialism, and certainly not the party of revolution (unless you consider the imposition of fascism "revolutionary") and beyond that, they're too busy being like Lucianne's little Jonah-the-whale, whining away about how the "academic establishment" won't allow "dissenting voices" on the subject. As witness his latest ravings in the Los Angeles Fishwrap, er, I mean the Chicago Tribune West, er what used to be the LA Times.

PS: $10/gal by 2010 might be a bit much. Maybe it's only $6/gal by 2010, and $8/gal by 2015. Does it really matter in the long-term?

I don't often weigh-in on the global warming issue; too many "pat" answers to a very complex issue.

While I agree that reducing GHSE gases is a good thing I believe that we often overlook ways that our planet manages carbon. The oceans play a vital role in fixing carbon and it is for this reason that we need to reduce the amount of toxins entering our planet's oceans. What if some of the spike in atmospheric CO2 is partially due to diminished productivity of plankton, etc. planetwide?

While we could all drive less, planting trees is a more pro-active approach to fixing carbon.

Termites are a huge contributor to methane (CH4) and thrive where humans disturb vegetation in the tropics.

We should be covering the planet with vegetation, of all sorts.

In short, becoming better stewards of our planet just might be the only way to ensure our survival, regardless of what religion/political party/sports team we affiliate ourselves with.

Bruce the Canuck,

"A car company isn't a battery company - but now, Lithium polymer batteries are far better, more than enough for 95% of driving."

Battery technology is improving, and we'll see some plug-in hybrids relatively soon, but even the most optimistic reputable projections do not envisage the mass adoption of hybrid technology for many years or perhaps decades. Fuel savings are also relatively modest. In fact, most of the newer hybrids, like the Honda Accord and the Toyota Highlander, are more about adding power than saving fuel.

"And the EV1 was actually quite popular with its drivers; the company was not super eager to promote it, from what I've read. They pried the things out of the hands of the lease holders with a crowbar. (hydrogen is close to a dead end)"

Absent some real breakthrough in battery technology (gradual improvements aren't good enough), electric is a dead-end too. The range is far too small, and there's no electric-charging infrastructure. The EV1 was a boutique concept vehicle that appealed to a very specialized market but isn't remotely realistic as a mass consumer product.

GOP says "The range is far too small, and there's no electric-charging infrastructure."

How developed was the paved rural highway system in 1900? How many rural gas stations? Infrastructural development always trails the technology. There are certainly problems with electric car technology right now, but if and when those problems are solved, you'll see growth in urban markets, followed by entrepreneurs opening charging stations outside of cities, followed by greater market growth, etc. The current lack of infrastructure is not a serious or long term problem. The technical aspects may be.

Time is running out for reasoned discussion - that is, if you want to actually do something to mitigate the devastation that is going to prevent your children and grandchildren from surviving on the planet.

Bruce the Canuck,

"Serious investment in next-gen power storage/transmission and generation in the developed world could create a path for the developing world, and we can sell them the expertise later."

What does this mean? How much investment? Who's going to pay for it? How are you going to persuade them to pay for it? What "next-gen" power systems do you mean?

"Fusion research facilities, such as the materials component of ITER, badly need funding. Demo plants for anerobic coal burning and thorium fission would also be a good idea."

Thumbs up for more nuclear fission. But fusion is a boondoggle. It might be realistic 40 or 50 years from now, but for the near-term future it's a joke. ITER, which is only an experimental system, isn't even projected to begin operation until 2016. And that's probably optimistic. For about half a century now, people have been claiming that large-scale commercial fusion energy is about 30 years away. It's always 30 years away.

"Governments could set aside say a few Gw of their electricity purchasing for solar, wind, and other renewables to create a seed-market for industrial scale pilot plants. Wind is already competitive, and when matched with hydro as a buffer, has no issues with intermittency."

Hydro sites are pretty much tapped out, and environmentalist opposition makes large new hydro power sites very unlikely, at least in the developed world. Wind is intermittent, highly restrictive geographically, and is visually polluting. Try getting planning permission to plaster a pristine valley or mountainside with ugly giant windmills. Wind might one day supply 10 or 20 percent of energy needs, but it's not really feasible for anything beyond that.

"How developed was the paved rural highway system in 1900? How many rural gas stations? Infrastructural development always trails the technology."

No one except a few EV1-style enthusiasts will buy the technology as long as its performance and convenience dramatically lag those of conventional motor vehicles. Electric vehicle technology isn't remotely close to being competitive, and the lack of a charging infrastructure is one of the basic problems.

Try getting planning permission to plaster a pristine valley or mountainside with ugly giant windmills.

Oh yeah, that would ruin their plans to plaster it with another cookie cutter housing development and strip mall.

"Visually polluting", that's gotta be the lamest excuse ever. I guess that's the only type of pollution the GOP actually cares about.

Fitz,

The Swedes are planning to have their entire economy non-dependent on oil within the next 15 years or so - without building new nuclear plants:

The attempt is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, car manufacturers, farmers and others.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is worried that oil supplies are peaking, shortly to dwindle, and that high oil prices could cause global economic recession.

"Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020," said Mona Sahlin, Sweden's minister of sustainable development.

Gee, do you think the US could learn anything by seeing what Sweden is up to? Or would a Swedish solution, by definition, be 'socialist' and therefore unAmerican?

"Visually polluting", that's gotta be the lamest excuse ever.

Yeah, that's it. Just tell all the people who object to having a giant ugly wind farm built in their community that they're being "lame." I'm sure they'll come right around to your point of view and thank you for disabusing them of their previous notions.

"I guess that's the only type of pollution the GOP actually cares about."

I guess lefties think that copping an attitude of imperious moral superiority and talking down to the very people they need to persuade are effective means of achieving their goals. That's why they're always on the political margins (well, that and the sheer stupidity of so many of their policies).

Gee, do you think the US could learn anything by seeing what Sweden is up to? Or would a Swedish solution, by definition, be 'socialist' and therefore unAmerican?

the conservatards can't even bring themselves to support hybrid or electric vehicles because it seems to much like a "liberal environmentalist" solution.

only something else that's dangerous and polluting is acceptable to them.

Yeah, that's it. Just tell all the people who object to having a giant ugly wind farm built in their community that they're being "lame."

the only one calling it a "giant ugly wind farm" is you, dipshit. Try convincing them that a giant nuclear power plant is better. Yeah, they'll love that, it's so much more soothing.

"Gee, do you think the US could learn anything by seeing what Sweden is up to?"

Yeah, maybe. I see from this other BBC News report, that Sweden gets half of its electricity from nuclear power, and that polls indicate that 80% of the population wants to keep nuclear power.

Conservative aversion to the fact of global warming runs a lot deeper than resentment of Al Gore. A conservative philosophy linchpin is "small government". The idea of small government fits with their economic philosophy – individuals, each acting in their own best interest, will create conditions that will result in the greatest good for us all. Small government also ties into their idea of freedom -- lack of government interference in their lives is the key to their idea of freedom. However, global warming is not a problem that is solved by short term individual choices, nor even choices made by a single country. To confront the problem of global warming successfully requires cooperation at local, national and international levels. This is anathema to how conservatives see the world at a very basic level.
It has always amazed me how conservatives appreciate science and scientists when science does not challenge their idea of how the world works. Like most of us, they use computers, fly on airplanes, drive cars that have gps, and make a lot of money selling these things to each other. But when scientists inform them of things like global warming, or some subset of them, that life has evolved, hackles are raised.
Historically, America has had a pragmatic streak that has worked as a kind of bulwark against the various kinds of idealism that have caused so much trouble in Europe and the rest of the world. I am worried that it is leaving us now as I see various groups of
Americans strike out against the real world when it conflicts with the world as they imagine it should be.

Bruce-

I'm going to have to throw a yellow flag here on your "cut vehicle CO2" by 50% within a decade figure.

Here's the reality: The current average fuel economy in the United States is approximately 20 mpg. You can verify this information at the EIA web site:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts_survey/2001/tablefiles/t0464(2005).pdf

Suppose we eliminated all SUVs. That would bring up the average mileage to 23 mpg (same source), and that's assuming some people who used to drive SUVs go out and buy Echos.

Then, we replace everything with hybrids. EPA mileage goes up 50-100% with today's hybrid technology, but actual users are experiencing closer to 40% improvement due to actual driving conditions. You can verify this from multiple sources. That brings the fleet up to 32 mpg, and this figure corresponds approximately to an average EPA mileage of 40 mpg.

Counteracting this increase in efficiency is the increase in miles driven per year. On average, it's been around 2% per year:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts_survey/2001/tablefiles/eo0464(2005).pdf

In a decade, that will increase our vehicle CO2 output by 21%. Net result: only a 25% reduction.

-Mev

"the only one calling it a "giant ugly wind farm" is you, dipshit."

No, that's what the people you want to force it on will call it, fartbreath.

No, that's what the people you want to force it on will call it, fartbreath.

Last time I used that insult I was 8 years old.

BTW, if you read the report on Sweden you'd see that they're are planning to do it without building more nuclear plants. You could think about the issues, or you could continue to raise strawmen.

Hell, you might even want to call me 'stinkypoo' or 'fart face'. That'll definitely impress me.

"Last time I used that insult I was 8 years old."

When was the last time you used "dipshit?"

"BTW, if you read the report on Sweden you'd see that they're are planning to do it without building more nuclear plants."

Right. But as the other report says, they already get about half of their electricity from nuclear energy, which makes it much easier to satisfy their remaining needs from renewable sources. Maybe there's a lesson there for the U.S., which currently gets only about 20% of its power from nuclear energy.

When was the last time you used "dipshit?"

I didn't.

Right. But as the other report says, they already get about half of their electricity from nuclear energy, which makes it much easier to satisfy their remaining needs from renewable sources.

Which means that they'll be getting 50% of their energy from renewables.

Impressive, no?

Maybe there's a lesson there for the U.S., which currently gets only about 20% of its power from nuclear energy.

And how much is currently from renewable sources?

"Which means that they'll be getting 50% of their energy from renewables. Impressive, no?"

Perhaps, but I suspect that they have a greater supply of renewable resources for their population size than does the U.S. The point, though, is that it's much easier to satisfy your remaining needs from renewables if you already get 50% of your electricity from nuclear energy, as Sweden does, rather than a mere 20% from nuclear energy, as the U.S. does.

Still waiting for evidence of all those people who actually would prefer a nuclear power plant on their pristine landscape as opposed to some windmills.

Of course, such people only exist in GOP's moronic fantasy world.

What do they call this? A high signal-to-noise ratio?

Electric cars aren't that hard to buy. There are companies that make electric trucks for resorts and industries. Conversions aren't that hard to find, and typical performance is 60 mile range driving at normal speeds. These are just done with the regular batteries you find today.

And why not demand a 60-mpg average for the passenger car fleet? All this takes is a top speed of about 50 and intelligent design. I've been driving cars that get over 30 mpg for 40 years now. If you look around it's not hard to find a 45-mpg car today for a reasonable price.

Being childless, I have no dog in this fight, but all the family-value types might ask themselves if they really want to condemn their children to a terrible death. (I know, I know, the answer is all too often "yes" in the family of the true believer.) I truely do not understand how people with children can contemplate the end of life on earth with equanimity.

The point, though, is that it's much easier to satisfy your remaining needs from renewables if you already get 50% of your electricity from nuclear energy, as Sweden does, rather than a mere 20% from nuclear energy, as the U.S. does.

Sure, but the real point is that the Swedes are putting together a comprehensive plan, appearing to involve all the relevant national stakeholders, to do something about an issue that they have recognised as being serious.

It's all so novel, isn't it.

:)

floop,

"Sure, but the real point is that the Swedes are putting together a comprehensive plan,"

If you approve of an energy plan in which 50% of the nation's electricity comes from nuclear energy (two-and-a-half times America's current percentage), terrific.

Out in my backward rural county people are putting solar on their roofs and making a deal with the PUD to put power into the grid when they have too much and get their bill reduced. Apparently this also increases the value of your home- who'da thunkit?

There's also a company making turbines for wind generation on the roof of your house. When you put this together with conservation and other forms of passive heat-tempering, you can really reduce your energy use.

It also makes it a lot more pleasant if you have neighbors, because they're a lot harder to hear when you have good insulation.

"Still waiting for evidence of all those people who actually would prefer a nuclear power plant on their pristine landscape as opposed to some windmills."

Well, of course that isn't the choice. Nuclear plants can pretty much be built anywhere, and are usually situated some distance from population centers. Wind farms have to be built where the wind is. According to Wikipedia, a wind farm capable of producing the power output of a conventional power plant would need to cover an area of 200 square kilometers.

"Of course, such people only exist in GOP's moronic fantasy world."

Only in haha's mentally retarded world do nuclear power plants have to be built in the same location as wind farms.

Note to GOP- those initials remind a lot of us of a political party that hasn't been any help on the environment since 1908.

Am I missing anything there? Maybe a national park that Ike created or something? Can the GOP claim even partial credit for any environmental improvement in the past century?

Just sayin', y'know...

Am I missing anything there? Maybe a national park that Ike created or something? Can the GOP claim even partial credit for any environmental improvement in the past century?

Nixon made some solid accomplishments on the environment, though I'm too tired to google the particulars at the moment.

Global warming is an actual problem that has to be confronted and dealt with and not left for future generations to cope with.

It would be amazing if the Republicans actually start doing something about it instead of ignoring the problem.

"Can the GOP claim even partial credit for any environmental improvement in the past century?"

Er, there's a little thing called the Environmental Protection Agency. Maybe you've heard of it. Created by Richard Nixon.

There's a difference between respecting the environment, and fetishizing it. Lefties are often incapable of distinguishing between the two.

Yeah, in fairness Ruckelshaus was good and the Clean Air Act &tc passed with Republican support. I'm not sure but I think Bryce National Monument may be an Eisenhower creation.

And I'm betting that clean-air legislation didn't pass in Maryland without Republican support- even though I know absolutely NOTHING about Maryland politics. I'm just feeling generous.

There's also a fine line between degrading the environment and totally destroying it. Best to err on the caution side with that one.

catowner,

Oh dear, now you've done it. You actually said something about Republicans that wasn't a condemnation. That is not acceptable here in the comments section of Kevin's blog. The group-think orthodoxy that Republicans are evil incarnate must be maintained at all times.

Richard Nixon was the last one. The present conservative Republican position on the environment and global warming is an embarrassing intellectual disaster. It may be irrecoverable for a generation or more.

Not only do they not care to learn the present state of the science, they depend upon a very few scientists like Mr Lindzen who appear to have personal axes to grind; and parrots like Messrs Will and Goldberg, who are suddenly worried about the plight of the poor.

Indeed they are certain that the economy will suffer damage from climate mitigation: conferring a reliability upon economic models which they will not confer upon the climate models! Yet the climate science is more solid and predictable than the economics -- no big mystery there, since one is made up of physics and chemistry, the other of creative human beings. And the climate is far more fragile than the economy, for precisely the same reasons.

This is an intellectual failure of the highest order, and it is coupled with the implosion of their economic policy theories -- making a mental double-bind that that may be difficult to escape without a radical reorientation of worldview. Anathema!

The group-think orthodoxy that Republicans are evil incarnate must be maintained at all times by everyone except the 33% who actually think this admin is doing a good job.

If you approve of an energy plan in which 50% of the nation's electricity comes from nuclear energy (two-and-a-half times America's current percentage), terrific.

Of course I do - I'm Australian, and our continent has the world's largest supply of uranium. We'll be the Saudi Arabia of the nuclear age - but you'd better be quick, because we've already signed large deals with China, and India is next in line...

All joking aside - I still don't think you get my point. Those nuclear plants have been built already. Done deal. The Swedish population doesn't want to remove them - fine.

The US is doing diddly squat about it's rapidly developing enrgy crisis, leaving aside the environmental concerns for the moment. Which economy will do better when (not 'if') oil hits $100 a barrel? $150?

Sweden is looking ahead. The US is faffing around with more of the same.

"The Fates lead those who will. Those who won't, they drag". Seneca

There is no need for nuclear. Solar and wind are quite enough. One gigawatt per 200 square kilometers, is 5 terrawatts per million square meters. That's about the size of Iran. Wind is only $10,000 per KW. Solar will be less expensive. Spend the money on solar and wind not nuclear.

I also question the 200 square kilometer figure. A German company has one megawatt generators now. I doubt that a thousand of these would occupy 200 sq. km.

"The group-think orthodoxy that Republicans are evil incarnate must be maintained at all times by everyone except the 33% who actually think this admin is doing a good job."

Palpable nonsense. Otherwise it would not have once had a 60% approval rating. When independent thinkers turn against you though, it must be "groupthink!"

From Turner's post:

As climate change has come closer to its political moment, there has been, in the past couple of years, some competition for the role of head climate change issue-wonk among liberal political figures. Well, I guess about as much competition as there was in the 2000 Democratic primary. How did Al Gore win this time? It's not that he's more charismatic than, say, Robert Kennedy, or more politically promising than, say, Eliot Spitzer, both of whom have prioritized the issue. It's the sheer, indisputable, quasi-messaniac purity of his wonkery.

I just realized one more sign of an approaching dogma: a messianic prophet, preaching the end times.

I really don't want to hear any more about how the Republicans use fear as a political weapon.

mev: "Counteracting this increase in efficiency is the increase in miles driven per year. On average, it's been around 2% per year:"

Among the things we could do--you know, if we actually wanted to deal with global warming--is establish a national goal of reducing the number of miles driven per year. Other nations--Sweden, Brazil, China--are already figuring out that they need to find substitutes for oil. It is only the US that is mired in its addiction.

We need to change how we live. Turn off your office lights during the daytime if you have a windowed office. Learn to live in hot weather without AC. Drive slower.

I wish someone would invent a refrigerator for northern homes that could use cold air from outside to passively chill food, rather than using electricty.

We could have a huge economic boom if we started retooling the US for a post-oil energy era. My family needs to figure out how to warm our house during winter without natural gas. It would be fantastic to have government experts to provide advice and incentives. But no. The conservatives won't play. The free market will provide.

I really don't want to hear any more about how the Republicans use fear as a political weapon.

If climate change is a "political weapon", what's the goal? Republicans could blunt this "weapon" by simply saying "yes, we think pollution is bad too." But they don't. Instead, as they have for 150 years, conservatives resist improving the lives of human beings because "it's too expensive."

Slavery? Can't live without it.
Minimum wage? it will bankrupt business
Food safety laws? they will bankrupt business
Workplace safety? that will bankrupt business
Taxes? those will bankrupt everybody
SEC regulations? Those will bankrupt business
Air and water regulations? Those will bankrupt business
Lead-free gas? That will bankrupt the oil companies

On and on and on, and wrong every single time. Every single time. And you want me to believe that you've suddenly got this one right?

Did I mention that you've been wrong every single time?

I really don't want to hear any more about how the Republicans use fear as a political weapon.

Tell it to New Orleans, Venice and Tornado Alley.

The estimate of global warming caused by CO2 was 0.8C per century. There will of course be swings above and below this, caused by things such as the current peaks of the two solar cycles.

Meanwhile, there is increased worldwide investment in nuclear power, increased US investment in biofuels, increased worldwide investment in solar and windfarms, and increased world wide investment in energy efficiency. And there is increased worldwide investment in CO2 sequestration. In US red states there is considerable interest in nuclear power.

There is also increased worldwide investment in carbon for manufacturing. Not just hockey sticks and golf clubs, but automobile engine parts and structural pieces can be made of carbides; and electrical conductors can be made from carbon nanotubes. by 2050, the average auto will be made at least 50% of carbides and weigh half what a same-sized car weighs now. For that, the C recovered from reforming liquid fuel to H2 will be a resource, not a pollutant.

The real problems are malaria, HIV, MDR TB, and the Islamist/Jihadist insurgencies all over the place.

If it is true that conservatives don't like hearing about problems, it is equally true that Kevin Drum is resistant to solutions.

Mars and Venus are also experiencing a warming trend, for what it's worth, and that warming trend is completely independent of human activities. If they are still warming in 2050, then maybe I'll start to worry.

Considering that every global warming for the last 800K years has been followed by cooling/ice age, the following from a relative in Sweden might be of interest:
"We still have snow (sc. just the othr day) and this is very unusual.
> Hasn't happened since 1898. Part of the global warming?
> Good question. We got the first snow in the beginning of
> November and the last in april. 6 months of snow. I would
> like to say a new ice age rather than global warming."
Since I live below sea-level in Katrina country, the rising sea levels are much more of a short term concern than a glacier eventually (again) covering Boston.

...the Islamist/Jihadist insurgencies all over the place.

Yeah, if it wasn't for the islamists in Louisiana New Orleans would never have flooded.

WHAT IF WE PASS LAWS TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING and the bulk of scientific opinion turns out to be wrong? Let us say global warming is eventually discovered to be just a natural cycle. What have we lost?

Nothing. In fact, we still have a net positive. It is very much in America’s economic interest to keep up with the green technologies that are sweeping the globe. Without legal coercion, many American companies will never take their heads out of the sand and compete in this area, which is becoming a big global market. Of course we’ll also get cleaner air and water out of the deal, which is unimportant to a hardcore Repug, but a damn fine thing to the vast majority of the people.

WHAT IF WE DO NOT PASS LAWS TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING and the bulk of scientific opinion turns out to be right? What have we lost? Only the whole damn planet!

The choice is incredibly obvious. How can there be a difference of opinion on what we should do?

The choice is incredibly obvious. How can there be a difference of opinion on what we should do?

Because the conservative mindset, by definition, resists change.

Democracy was originally derided as inefficient and impractical by the conservative Athenians of their golden age. Someone upthread mentioned slavery, but there's a whole raft of progressive ideas including votes for women and the 8 hour working day (a product of the union movement in my home town Melbourne, actually - it's the memorial day today).

Every single one was fought by the conservatives of the day. If they hadn't fought them, they by definition wouldn't have been conservatives.

Conservatism, in it's most hidebound and extreme form, is nothing more than the figure of Canute ordering the tide to not come in.

I usually put my money on the tide, actually.

It seems like 16 sq. miles for one gigawatt is reasonable with one megawatt turbines. That's about 200 yards by 200 yards for each turbine. World capacity then seems to be well over 300 terrawatts.

I really don't want to hear any more about how the Republicans use fear as a political weapon.

So long, Bud.

We're gonna miss ya.

craigie:

If climate change is a "political weapon", what's the goal?

For the politicians, what it usually is. Destruction of political opponents, and gaining and keeping political power. On that, yes, I'm right. For the radical environmentalists, its a holy war against capitalism and industrialism, but that's another story.

Republicans could blunt this "weapon" by simply saying "yes, we think pollution is bad too."

Wouldn't matter if they did (and they have). The last thing the Democrats want in an election year is for Republicans to come up with something that works. On any issue.

Remember the great "spoiler move" in the House on illegal immigration that Kevin admired so much? If Bush came up with a plausible and effective plan for energy, Democrats would kill it on the spot.

This article is typical of many I've seen. Of course, someone who makes solar energy systems stands to gain quite a bit from an "Apollo-scale" renewable energy program.

Do you think the Democrats are fighting that hard against ANWR because they love caribou? The price of oil on the futures market will drop like a rock when the fields are opened up and the first bit hits the ground, and they damn well know it. ANWR isn't about oil or the environment for the Democrats. It's about not losing a political battle. No oil from ANWR for ten years? Did they know that when Clinton vetoed it ten years ago?

For the record, I support alternative energy. I also support safe nuclear energy, and other reasonable ways to get us off of hydrocarbon fuels, which, CO2 or no CO2 are, frankly, too valuable to burn. They are also produced in too many loon-controlled nations (no, Canada, not you).

In other threads, there have been long and productive discussions of technologies and solutions.

We are going to gain nothing by generating panicked national or international "fixes" for global warming. Particularly fixes by politicians whose knowledge of science and technology is less than comprehensive.

Last thing we need is an "Apollo-style" program, a new "energy czar," another "cabinet-level" agency, or any of the other dumbass things our government does when it thinks it needs to be seen by the voters to be Doing Something Right Now.

You think Homeland Security needs work? Wait till you see the National Department of Energy Independence.

A theologian friend of mine points out that the command for man to “have dominion” over all the earth occurred before the fall from grace. God pretty much changed all the rules after Adam and Eve tasted the apple.
Posted by: fafner1 on April 20, 2006 at 6:56 PM

There was also this St. Francis guy who had quite a different take on the proper Christian relationship between man and nature.

Nixon made some solid accomplishments on the environment, though I'm too tired to google the particulars at the moment.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida on April 20, 2006 at 11:36 PM |

You mean, accomplishments like the Clean Air Act of 1970, authored by Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME), and signed by Nixon because he feared the repurcussions of opposing such popular legislation? The same Muskie who was a victim of Nixon's "dirty tricks" in the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972?

For the radical environmentalists, its a holy war against capitalism and industrialism, but that's another story.
Posted by: tbrosz on April 21, 2006 at 3:28 AM |

What's this, tom brosz declines to enlighten us with a link to a story which, when checked, does nothing to support his point? What a wasted opportunity! You'd then have another chance to tell us "I'm too busy to check, but it doesn't matter because I'm sure I'm right."