Cutting Back on Carbon

this report involves state climatologists

"Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_0001_-_Flooded_Bus_Barns_and_Buckled_Rails.pdf

setting up traffic flow logistics to reduce damage and facilitate safety

 

Yay more future predictions.

Predictions are hard when it comes to the future.

 

supported by incidences of actual tidal flooding and climatologists' analysis

 

I don't see any obstruction of traffic at the flooded area. Looks to me like they have crews working both ends of the pipe which means there is a blockage or break.

Sorry but your source is just a wacko environmentalist who sees global warming even in street maintenance.

 

who said anything about obstruction of traffic?

 

Repeating the meme that IS in question does not make it any more valid.

 

So, unless industrialized and the rising industrializing nations give up cheap energy (coal and petroleum) and all the technology its based on is ratcheted down there is no stopping Global Warming until we run out of these cheap energy sources which will take many decades and have no choice to do so. And even going cold turkey may not stop the effects at this point.

Our best chance is to adapt to the changes and relocate vulnerable populations to safer areas over a period of time.

 

have you ever heard of the 'real costs of production'? industries should start paying them

 

Why not advance fusion to cut back on carbon emissions?

 

Because no one has figured out how to do it yet.

While I'm usually a big fan of Krugman, I have to disagree with the stance he takes on carbon emissions.

Solar and wind just aren't going to do it, and they bring their own problems in the environment with them.

I'm very much a proponent of carbon capture and sequestration. The technology is advancing there, where it can realistically make coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels have a much smaller carbon footprint.

 

I'm all for CCS but I haven't as yet seen a serious projection that makes it an important factor in our energy future and that includes from the Chinese who are cutting edge players in the development of CCS. If you have any source that shows otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

All it takes is central planning and an official Mint.

 

Really? The US doesn't really have central planning for much.

And what kind of Mint? Jr ones?

 

First, fossil fuels will be the largest source of energy for the next several decades. So it makes sense to promote CCS programs. Second, the jobs benefit will be great for the economy, while reducing emissions.
http://americaspower.org/sites/default/files/BBC-FINAL.pdf

 

You think that is bad, it seems our elected representatives don't have any Faith in Capitalism, either, where it only takes money to make money; we have an official Mint.

 

Well, those are just the conservative ones effing it up.

As far as the mint is concerned, that's what governments do. It's generally worked well for us.

 

Why does it seem our elected representatives don't have any Faith in Capitalism? We have an official Mint and it only takes money to make more money. Have the People been misled about Capitalism.

 

Conservative ideology says to rail against socialism, while enacting policies socializing losses for Wall Street and large banks and corporations, while privatizing profits. Keynesian policies mixed with New Deal-like approaches seem to work best for the continuation of capitalism.

And we not only have a mint system for making coins, but the Treasury Department has printing presses. It keeps the economy, society and government running.

 

This is basically a jobs program. It might as well be titled SAVE COAL! What I want to see is a serious projection of how much CCS will contribute to cutting back on CO2 production. I couldn't find it. Let's try to get away from these deflections to serve special interests and come up with some hard core numbers.

 

Jobs, especially high paying jobs in construction and energy, are important for the economy, and for people to live.

 

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/35017

Storing carbon in basalt at the Juan de Fuca plate could hold 208 gigatons of carbon.

There are other forms of sequestration than storing it in rocks formations, like seeding protoplankton in oceans to eat the CO2 out of the atmosphere, or growing plants that do the same on land.

 

You left out the extensive job possibilities associated with increased disaster recovery programs. The 60 billion for Sandy no doubt provided a lot of jobs.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of addressing climate change in a way that still keeps jobs without encouraging the damage from the climate change.

Wind and solar are supplements. But when the wind turbines are killing endangered bird species, or solar cell production for electricity leaves behind toxic chemicals that have to be stored long term, and both are effected adversely by the vagaries of climate, they just aren't good for primary sources of electricity. Never mind the costs associated with maintenance/replacement of solar and wind through attrition or storm damages.

Carbon capture should be at the forefront of US energy policy to have areal impact on lowering carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

Take hydro out and see how far growth in wind, solar and biomass has carried us along the decarbonization path so far.



Clearly they still have a long way to go.

http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-growth-in-perspective/

 

There is too much focus on our investment on commercial production which has never brought the price down for solar into the affordable end-user range. Unless you intend to live in the same house for 20 years, you won't even break even on putting the money into solar.