On Climate, Failure Is Not An Option

[wtmusic]

Bill McKibben is the founder of 350.org, dedicated to stopping atmospheric CO2 concentration at 350 ppm.

"'MJ: Well, how do you stay hopeful, or at least engaged? How do you keep people from just curling up into the fetal position?

BM: You know what, at some level I’ve given up trying to figure out whether I’m pessimistic or optimistic. I get up in the morning and do what I can, as much as I can, to try and change the odds of this wager that we’ve undertaken. What keeps me hopeful is seeing the tremendous response of people all over the world. We’ve organized 350.org in every country except North Korea. The thing that makes me bleak sometimes is just how quickly the science grows darker. We haven’t caught any breaks in the last 20 years. Everything that we’ve worried about has come in on the upper end of the projected range or off the charts altogether, whether it’s the melt of the arctic, or acidification of oceans, or the increase in drought and flood. So we’re clearly not going to stop global warming at this point. We’ve already raised the temperature of the planet one degree. We’ve got another degree in the pipeline from carbon we’ve already emitted. What we’re talking about now is whether we’re going to have a difficult, difficult century, or an impossible one. And we may still have enough room to maneuver to affect the outcome of that question.'

This is eerily similar to my own thoughts of the last few months.

I would emphasize that the heat “in the pipeline” McKibben refers to does not, as far as I know, include the additional warming that will be triggered by the aerosol whiplash (part 1, part 2). It also does not assume a major acceleration of warming from permafrost and methane hydrates emissions, both of which could start happening any day now or next century or never."

http://theenergycollective.com/lougrinzo/61427/mckibben-and-determination?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[elocs]

It doesn't matter whether or not failure is an option, that's what's going to happen.

There hasn't even been any preparation for the consequences.

[wtmusic]

3. Thanks for that shining ray of hope.

There is no "preparation". That's why failure is not an option.

[elocs]

4. So, you don't like the light of realism. That's a pretty typical DU trait though.

So, all the nations of the world are going to agree and magically work together to stop climate change. I suppose it's possible to believe that if you are regularly doing drugs.

[wtmusic]

9. A very typical DU trait is considering your own opinion "realism"

and propping it up with a straw man to boot.

At least with drugs you can come down (they're not a character trait, like arrogance).

[Ghost Dog]

6. Yes. That's the Chicago School of economics for you.

They assume the "market" will protect the soulless rich and they do not care about the many many many millions who will suffer and die.

[elocs]

1. It doesn't matter whether or not failure is an option, that's what's going to happen.

There hasn't even been any preparation for the consequences.

[stuntcat]

8. +1

soo many different fails, all in the same decades.

[pscot]

2. Failure is not only an option

We're knee deep in it already. From the same article:

"After studying climate change and it’s twin terror, peak oil, intensively for over eight years, optimism seems like, more than anything else, a symptom that one is disconnected from the facts. Even taking swift action now will not likely avoid some nightmarish events in the next few decades, most related to the creation of large numbers of climate refugees, whether via lack of food and water or weather catastrophes or resource conflicts. "

[damntexdem]

5. Actually, it looks like failure is the leading option.

We are in for it.

[pscot]

7. Meanwhile, Let's fight among ourselves

There are real enemies out there. Going after each other is just easier than going after the ones who are doing this to us. We need to develope a stronger sense of grievance if we want anything done. Posting about it isn't working very well.

[txlibdem]

10. Doing nothing is the worst outcome

These fatalistic posts make me confused. If we do nothing then we risk the very survival of our species. If any of you doubt that fact then you haven't read enough about how much (and the myriad ways) we are dependent on the weather and the oceans for our very survival.

I agree that gets frustrating to watch politicians doing nothing but bickering when we need to begin *yesterday* with a full-scale effort to end our dependence on fossil fuels, switch to a 100% renewable energy economy and improve the efficiency of every thing we do, whether that be in our factories or commercial and retail buildings, switching to electric vehicles and finding ways to get the same benefits but use far less energy (like LED lightbulbs which give off exactly the same light as incandescent bulbs we have always used but only needs 15% of the energy to do the job).

We need to make this a national priority just as JFK did when he announced that we were going to put a man on the moon. Everybody said it's too hard, we don't have the money to do it, it can't be done -- they were all wrong. And those who say that zero-carbon energy sources cannot provide for all of our energy needs are just as wrong today. With the technology that we have today we can achieve 100% renewable energy. What will happen once we start pushing towards that goal is the innovation and intelligence of our brightest will work together with the American worker (the most productive workers in the world) to reach that goal on time and under budget. Just as happened with the human genome project: it came in faster than scheduled and well under budget.

The only thing we're waiting for is the signal from our government that this is what we are going to do and start prioritizing public policy to make that goal attainable.

[pscot]

11. Nothing is what we're doing.

Your best-and-brightest, innovate-our-way-out scenario might seem plausible if it had begun in earnest 20 years ago. But the clock is running and we're still waiting for a signal. The signal is the writing on the wall. It's an ice free Arctic and burning forests. It's a heat index of 134 degrees in Minnesota and Siberian herdsmen sinking into the permafrost. It's drought and floods and a million hapless slum dwellers in Nairobi, or Karachi or Mexico City. It's Indian farmers committing suicide becase the water table has disappeared and they can no longer scratch a living from the stoney ground. It's dieing oceans. It's a drowned polar bear. Wake up, my friend. The signal is right before your eyes, in letters of flame a yard high.

[txlibdem]

12. 20 years ago? How about President Carter's plan from 1977 -- that Reagan killed

There are so many villains that own a piece of the blame for the climate mess we're in but one man stands out for his tireless and singular efforts to kill President Carter's energy program... Ronald Reagan. If you are looking for the biggest traitor to this nation, history will show it is Ronald Reagan.

Here are the 1st four of ten tenets of President Carter's plan:

1. We can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the Government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

2. Healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people working.

3. We must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems--wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

4. We must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Jimmy Carter: National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7373#ixzz1SkTJQJSA

I agree that we should have started more than 20 years ago; how about 31 years ago. That's why I voted for Carter in 1980 against that blithering idiot Reagan.

Where would we be in terms of energy efficient buildings, electric cars, solar power and wind power if Reagan hadn't been elected?