"Practical Solutions to Climate Change"

[maxsolomon]

pardon my rant:

just got back from a lunch lecture sponsored by Seattle City Light. presented by this group:

http://www.climatesolutions.org/

my assessment: neither practical, nor solutions.

we're going to run a vehicle fleet the size of our current one on biofuels, namely Cellulocic Ethanol? an assumed 50 mpg fleet efficiency? With our current cropland base being nearly 100% utilized? 100 million acres in switchgrass & soybeans just to drive to work from our exurb? There's a bipartisan concensus emerging, composed of foreign policy hawks, labor, & CEOs?

pardon my cynicism, but i don't think so. bandaids on a sucking chest wound. the american government won't enact legislation capping carbon emissions until the oceans are boiling. just yesterday morning some talking head (whose name escapes me on a show whos name escapes me on a channel whose name escapes me) called global warming "a hoax perpetrated by a few environmentalist wackos", and not one other pundit called him on it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I agree

pretty silly. Part of a solution, but not nearly enough.

At this point I think we need to just figure out how to live with the damage.

[umass1993]

2. I wrote the following letter to Union of Concerned Scientists:

I hope some of you all will read it and give me some feedback. It describes a concern I have with the environmental movement. It really upsets me that scientists would be guilty of giving misinformation.

Here it is:


Dear UCSUSA:

I appreciate your concern for the environment, but it seems to me there is a serious flaw in one of your proposals.

Your website repeatedly misleads the public into thinking that high fuel economy in automobiles will result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. Although I understand the reason you believe this to be true, in fact, it probably isn't true.

In fact, I believe hybrids could cause more environmental damage than their wasteful predecessors. Why? Because the same amount of fuel will be consumed, it will simply be consumed by more cars. More cars means more roads and auxiliary damage to the environment.

All of the worlds oil will be consumed. The stuff is too rich to keep our hands off of it. Whether a billion hybrids consume it, or 600 million SUV's consume it, the same amount of CO2 will be released.

The question should be how to curtail all other sources of greenhouse gases so that the effects of oil are not augmented by coal and other sources.

Right now, I believe you are doing the public a serious disservice because you offer a "solution" that is not a solution, which further confuses the issue.

Right now, the people still trust the scientists, even if they don't listen to them. It is absolutely critical than the message be clear and well thought out when the public does turn to the scientists to address their problems. We can't afford to say "Drive a hybrid!", and then five years down the line, say, "Darn, I guess that isn't working, let's try something else"

I would be more than happy to clarify this position if I have been unclear.

[Kolesar]

3. When auto fuel efficiency went up in the 1980s,it seemed people drove more

It did to me. People bought homes further away from town and rationalized the mileage as being "affordable". People vacationed more. They opened outlet malls several exits beyond the metropolitan area and they came. We need to phase in significant gasoline tax hikes and use it to pay for medical care for the 45 million uninsured.