Arguing that machines and green jobs ruin traditional energy jobs makes no sense.

[LLStarks]

As new technologies and energy solutions are devised, we as a society have no obligation to make sure every single coal miner or oil rig worker keeps his job.

[arbusto_baboso]

1. Indeed. That would be a lot like arguing we need to burn more wood...

to employ all those out of work lumberjacks out there in the Pacific NW.

[Brickbat]

2. And what is it that you do?

Just curious.

[Duchess]

3. We're not obligated to make sure anyone gets to keep a job but...

I thinks is a bad argument because the time line for those job losses will be protracted enough for workers to see the writing on the wall and shift industries. This isn't going to happen overnight.

[LLStarks]

7. The problem is that people don't think to diversify their skills and have something to fall back on.

[Kennah]

4. My Apologies If I Ramble

If one has not seen the BBC production "Planet Earth" I highly recommend it. The last DVD has a lot of discussion with representatives of advocacy groups, scientists, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. One common theme throughout much of the discussion was the recognition that in order to get people in areas where wildlife is threatened--and these are often very poor people--one has to address the issue of poverty in the world. Simply put, poor people aren't going to pay all that much attention to the plight of wildlife if their family faces privation. I think there is an important lesson here.

In the state of West Virginia, anti-coal politicians are clearly a minority, assuming there are any at all. My great grandfather was a West Virginia coal miner who died in a mine collapse in the 1930s, my grandparents were from West Virginia, and my parents still live in West Virginia.

The people of West Virginia are in essence economically trapped by the coal industry. All Americans are, but those in coal states I would suggest are even more trapped. In order to convince more people and politicians from West Virginia and other coal states on the issue of Climate Change, we're going to have to discuss Climate Change and the future of coal in terms of how we can go about transforming the economy of West Virginia away from coal.

In December 2009, the late Senator Robert Byrd penned an op-ed piece titled "Coal Must Embrace The Future". If the late Senator Byrd, a man who at one time sympathized with the KKK, could evolve and change his views on race and coal, surely others can as well.

[Duchess]

5. Totally agree.

But that will take a long time and I think we are already too late. The more I look at how long it is going to take to jump all of the political, economic, and engineering hurdles associated with mitigating AGW the more I'm certain the best course is to start preparing for the worst. I think we should be preparing for the worst case future climate (while still trying to mitigate it). We should be pursuing renewable energy because it just makes sense from an economic/engineering standpoint but we need to face the fact that this IS going to happen. The sooner we get ready for it the better.

[Kennah]

6. Touché

I totally agree with you.

My wife once griped at me for cranking the thermostat down, and wondering why it is "we're suffering" while others do whatever they feel like. I even acknowledged to her that what we do as a family won't amount to much on a grander scale, and there may be little we can do to influence others. I told her when, not if, the price of energy begins to spike the impact will hurt us less. This seemed to reduce her angst.

After reading "Revenge of Gaia" by Dr. James Lovelock, I became one with the idea that we are already too late. OTOH, Dr. Michio Kaku has said he believes we'll come right to the edge of disaster, and then avert it. I hope he's not just selling optimism, and he does not strike me as one who will buffalo and B.S. others.

Lovelock talked about how, at his age, he and his wife won't live to see the dark days ahead he predicts. My hope is that my kids reach adulthood before the dark days hit on the theory that, as young adults, they stand the best possible chance of surviving and building a better future. I'm 43, my wife is 41, and our youngest is 16 months. If we as a society make it to 2027, then I'm OK if I don't make it through the dark times.

I know that must sound horribly nihilistic. Maybe with the economy currently teetering on the edge, I feel like I can walk with calm on the edge of disaster.

[Duchess]

8. I think that the dark days...

really won't be very dark...just less convenient. Unless you are very poor it is just going to mean a somewhat lower standard of living. More resources will be expended than necessary to make living comfortable.

There will be parts of the world that truly get hammered (including parts of the US). US crop yields will be significantly lower but probably enough to sustain us if not the rest of the world. Canada and Siberia may be able to be more useful to agriculture than they are now but they will have shorter growing season.

People need to stop fighting GM produce. We need to invest heavily in genetically engineering crops that will thrive in the future climate and good old evolution is not going to make that happen any time soon.

It's going to suck...but dark days don't mean hell on earth...it really just means a lower standard of living. If you really think shit will hit the fan then now is the time to prepare for the worst and those survivalists in Idaho might end up being the last men standing and those of us in the cities will be right screwed.