Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline!

[Gardenarian]

Yay!
Maybe the tide is finally turning :)

[mschrisgo2]

Yes! and while I know it's good for the environment, I have a good friend in Canada who "works in oil" who is pretty sure she's going to lose her job. I wish somehow her company could transform into something more environmentally friendly, so she wouldn't lose her job.

[lessisbest]

My husband worked as an oiler on a crew setting pipelines in the summer after he was a senior in high school (his father was a crane operator); and what most people don't realize, there are pipelines all over the place! There's a veritable web of them crossing all over the U.S. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this one. I don't understand why this ONE pipeline has become so controversial? Or then, maybe I do..... Ignorance is supposed to be bliss, when it's really just ignorance.

[catherine]

My husband worked as an oiler on a crew setting pipelines in the summer after he was a senior in high school (his father was a crane operator); and what most people don't realize, there are pipelines all over the place! There's a veritable web of them crossing all over the U.S. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this one. I don't understand why this ONE pipeline has become so controversial? Or then, maybe I do..... Ignorance is supposed to be bliss, when it's really just ignorance.

It's controversial, not because it's just another existing pipeline, but because it represents ANOTHER NEW branch of the pipeline transporting an inferior fossil fuel, disrupting ecosystems, contaminating groundwater, and for no lasting benefit. A good portion of the tar sands that make it to our refineries will be exported, so it doesn't necessarily reduce our dependence on the Middle East. It will not guarantee jobs over the long term.

But it will take the pressure off of finding alternative energy sources that are less harmful to the planet.

[Lainey]

The "permanent" U.S. job number I read is 35. Only 35 jobs for environmental risk to one of our major natural water supplies, and the oil gets exported anyway. All downside, no upside for the U.S.

Took him years, but Obama finally made the right decision.

[freshstart]

The "permanent" U.S. job number I read is 35. Only 35 jobs for environmental risk to one of our major natural water supplies, and the oil gets exported anyway. All downside, no upside for the U.S.

Took him years, but Obama finally made the right decision.

AGREED

[Williamsmith]

Both sides made more of a situation about it than was necessary. It wasn't going to impact the environment much and it wasn't going to provide much in the way of an economic boost either. Obama made his mind up a long time ago. It was all choreographed. He got all the political juice out of it that he could squeeze. What's next?

[ApatheticNoMore]

It's controversial, not because it's just another existing pipeline, but because it represents ANOTHER NEW branch of the pipeline transporting an inferior fossil fuel

yes but other pipelines down from Canada can (and in fact ARE I believe but am not 100% sure) transporting tar sand fuel. Imagine you were driving down from Canada to Texas, I imagine many roads would get you there, some more direct of course - and so I propose that analogy, pipelines as roads - of course crude can also travel by rail etc. as well and may very well do so. Tarsands are already flowing THROUGH the Keystone XL south which was already built just not FROM the Keystone XL North which now is not being built I guess.

tarsands is flowing through the keystone xl south:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/06/tar-sands-flowing-to-gulf-in-keystone-xl-south/


disrupting ecosystems, contaminating groundwater, and for no lasting benefit.

I can accept it maybe saved some *local* ecosystems. I just have trouble accepting it has much impact on *global* climate change. That tarsands crude will be burnt, possibly it slows it down, or maybe not. So maybe it had as much effect as an ecosystem becoming a national park or national monument or something is closer to the truth, which does indeed protect that local forest from logging let's say (but meanwhile the whole planet burns up in forest fires etc. ....).


A good portion of the tar sands that make it to our refineries will be exported, so it doesn't necessarily reduce our dependence on the Middle East.

same for tarsands that make it down any other way

lessisbest is mostly correct as far as I can determine, yes an oil industry expert would know better, but they aren't necessarily on the side of saving anything remotely resembling a livable planet ... so ...

[ApatheticNoMore]

Both sides made more of a situation about it than was necessary. It wasn't going to impact the environment much and it wasn't going to provide much in the way of an economic boost either. Obama made his mind up a long time ago. It was all choreographed. He got all the political juice out of it that he could squeeze.

+1. Look if one just wants to argue out of smaller victories larger victories are built, I'm cool with that. And it's not a super small victory and people put their bodies on the line to prevent it as well (as they did with Keystone South, people physically tried to block it, but it was built anyway!). A community garden is a super small victory, it's bigger than that. It's just not as big a victory as it's been made out to be, which sigh, to some extent is a fundamental dishonesty ... I realize some are about "keep hope alive", but I'm about are we honest at the end of the day maybe ... I don't know.

[lessisbest]

We have solar heat and part of our energy source is from solar-powered batteries. How many of you "Kill the Keystone Pipeline" crowd use solar?

Meanwhile, Warren Buffett had the best ever quarterly profit - climbing to a record $9.43 billion. In part, thanks to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad that hauls what the Keystone Pipeline was supposed to deliver - (which is also the 2nd biggest rail system) came up with a 12% increase. Crony WHAT!

[Williamsmith]

Solar power for me and those who live near me is of limited use. My weather on average has fewer sunny days than almost any other locality in the United States. That's why the Army Chose to built a munitions assembly plant here during WWII. The constant overcast was a deterrent to the likelihood that enemy bombers could pull off a succesful bombing run.

[ApatheticNoMore]

We have solar heat and part of our energy source is from solar-powered batteries. How many of you "Kill the Keystone Pipeline" crowd use solar?

To some extent it could be said I use wind. I buy the entirely green power option from the power company that goes to buy that much wind power. I pay a bit extra for it every month. But but .... are your actual electrons coming from wind? Uh, that's not how things work. But but ... can you prove they wouldn't buy that much wind anyway? No, I can not, but wind farming IS expanding and I hope in some small way I am encouraging that. But but ... shouldn't you install 10s of thousands of dollars of solar panels on rental apartments your in for a few years, I'm sure the landlord would agree right? Shouldn't you buy a house you can't afford just to install solar panels? NO. I try to be conscientious, but I am not a martyr. And yes I have been in the streets to protest even this pipeline itself, even though I put it in larger context here, and talked to the people protesting it (sincere as all get go, and often involved in many environmental causes, going to local talks on coal in the same day etc., but sometimes naive I think, as they trust Obama much more than I do).

As for whether solar is viable everywhere, I was talking to some people from Seattle the other day who seem to think it's viable there, which amazes me, but I don't really know the facts there :)


Meanwhile, Warren Buffett had the best ever quarterly profit - climbing to a record $9.43 billion. In part, thanks to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad that hauls what the Keystone Pipeline was supposed to deliver - (which is also the 2nd biggest rail system) came up with a 12% increase. Crony WHAT!

Ok. To prove it was done for those reasons, you'd have to prove there was more money in denying it rather than approving it. I don't think that's proven but I accept it is possible, partly perhaps since gas is cheap now. But yes the tarsands oil may travel by freight, in fact I think WILL travel by freight or other pieplines. I think the question is whether this provides a speed bump (which is different than banning driving :)), or not, plus protects some local ecosystems, not whether it saves the earth from climate change - that it does not I'm going to maintain.

[Gardenarian]

The environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline could have been quite severe.
But I think this decision is of great import because it sets a precedent and sends a message. That message being, we have hit the bottom of the oil barrel, and it's time to recognize that peak oil has come.

Solar panels and wind turbines require a lot of energy to be made, as well as rare metals that cause all sorts of problems to harvest. There is really no good alternative energy source.
What we need are real changes in our mindsets and in our world.
We need a new model for transportation.
We need to learn how to renovate our houses and other structures so that they can be passively heated and cooled (using wood for heat in rural areas.)
We need to practice permaculture, not just on a garden-by-garden basis, but as an entire society.
We need to recognize that our electrical grid is fragile and unsustainable, and figure out what we are going to do about that.

Accusing environmentalists of not having solar panels or driving cars or eating meat, that is entirely beside the point. The problem is systemic. The rejection of the Keystone XL is a seminal decision - one that says "Hey, this whole idea of supporting our wasteful lifestyles by wrecking the earth is not going to work!" At least that's how I choose to read it. :~)

[freshstart]

well said

[Rogar]

The environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline could have been quite severe.
But I think this decision is of great import because it sets a precedent and sends a message. That message being, we have hit the bottom of the oil barrel, and it's time to recognize that peak oil has come.

Accusing environmentalists of not having solar panels or driving cars or eating meat, that is entirely beside the point. The problem is systemic. The rejection of the Keystone XL is a seminal decision - one that says "Hey, this whole idea of supporting our wasteful lifestyles by wrecking the earth is not going to work!" At least that's how I choose to read it. :~)

I have couple of geologist friends and when ever peak oil comes up they tend to inform me that we really don't know how much accessible oil reserves really are available. I've seen articles trying to define the time or volume of oil reserves, but I have become convinced that my friends might be correct. All the newer methods of oil extraction from the likes of fracking and tar sand oil have uncovered a large new source. It just costs more to recover.

That said, I agree that Obama's rejection of the pipeline makes a good statement about global warming and adding more sources to the global oil barrel. At some point, when and if the price allows, I think the tar sand oils will find a way somehow to a refinery.

[Mary B.]

I have couple of geologist friends and when ever peak oil comes up they tend to inform me that we really don't know how much accessible oil reserves really are available. I've seen articles trying to define the time or volume of oil reserves, but I have become convinced that my friends might be correct. All the newer methods of oil extraction from the likes of fracking and tar sand oil have uncovered a large new source. It just costs more to recover.


My understanding of peak oil is not that it is a discussion of all the oil there is, but that it is focused on oil that is reasonable to extract. The point that it costs more to recover is, i think, the point -- there comes a point when the energy return on investment is not viable, because more energy is required to extract the oil than is gained from its use.

[creaker]

Obama rejected a pipeline TransCanada said it doesn't want to build now anyway. And the issue could be revisited any time (like whenever TransCanada decides they do want to build it). So although I think it's a good thing, it's a pretty empty gesture.

[ApatheticNoMore]

My understanding of peak oil is not that it is a discussion of all the oil there is, but that it is focused on oil that is reasonable to extract. The point that it costs more to recover is, i think, the point -- there comes a point when the energy return on investment is not viable, because more energy is required to extract the oil than is gained from its use.

I suspect that is largely irrelevant as well though, as there is enough profitable (well it IS subsidized and subsidized massively by governments worldwide - so profitable when subsidized at least) fossil fuel to fry the planet.


Obama rejected a pipeline TransCanada said it doesn't want to build now anyway. And the issue could be revisited any time (like whenever TransCanada decides they do want to build it). So although I think it's a good thing, it's a pretty empty gesture.

If they decide to push it through in the future, watch for things like lawsuits under the Trans Pacific and Transatlantic trade agreements. Protecting the environment or anything else interferes with corporate profits, and so must be made illegal (subject to lawsuit).

[Rogar]

[QUOTE=ApatheticNoMore;220638]I suspect that is largely irrelevant as well though, as there is enough profitable (well it IS subsidized and subsidized massively by governments worldwide - so profitable when subsidized at least) fossil fuel to fry the planet.
[QUOTE]

Here's what the chief economist for British Petroleum said (if you can believe him). He pretty much agrees that peak oil will be eclipsed by global warming.

Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. ... In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything ... Therefore there will never be a moment when the world runs out of oil because there will always be a price at which the last drop of oil can clear the market. And you can turn anything into oil into if you are willing to pay the financial and environmental price ... (Global Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than all these peak oil theories combined. ... Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.

[JaneV2.0]

Germany is generating 75% of its energy from renewable sources. I think their weather and latitude are similar to Seattle's.

[Williamsmith]

Germany is generating 75% of its energy from renewable sources. I think their weather and latitude are similar to Seattle's.

Highly subsidize and guaranteed by government surcharges to the consumer. It is an offense to the environment also with the endless eruption of gaudy windmills that kill native and transient species of birds, some endangered and power line infrastructure that gobble up beautiful scenic country sides. I think it is a foolish gamble and the fear of nuclear power catastrophe is driving it. I don't see it working out well but I'm glad Germany wants to be the guinea pig except it is risking further injury to the Eau economy by this foolishness.

[bae]

There is some concern that the Canadian product will still be brought to market, but with the pipeline killed the route will be via seaports in the Pacific NW. There's already a huge effort underway here to build large coal loading/shipment facilities, which will send a large amount of new shipping traffic carrying toxic cargos through a tremendously environmentally sensitive area. My whole county, which is in the route used, is a National Monument...

So by cancelling the Keystone XL, we may have just upped our odds of having a super-terrific environmental disaster here in the Salish Sea.

Cheers.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/11/06/with-keystone-xl-nixed-alberta-tar-sands-oil-could-be-headed-our-way/

[Rogar]

Highly subsidize and guaranteed by government surcharges to the consumer. It is an offense to the environment also with the endless eruption of gaudy windmills that kill native and transient species of birds, some endangered and power line infrastructure that gobble up beautiful scenic country sides. I think it is a foolish gamble and the fear of nuclear power catastrophe is driving it. I don't see it working out well but I'm glad Germany wants to be the guinea pig except it is risking further injury to the Eau economy by this foolishness.

Germany uses about half of the energy per capita than the US, which is a help. It would be interesting to see a run down of the total economic picture, including market externalities related to the environment and human health. They produce a significant portion of the solar panels and wind turbines for the whole world and have a supportive infrastructure that provides significant employment. And it's not like the US doesn't subsidize the oil industry. An economic risk, for sure. If a person believes that climate change is caused or related to man's activity and a major threat to the world's populations and environment, like the majority of climate scientists, technology hasn't given many options to fossil fuels that are not without their own less catastrophic problems.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Or else it's a super terrific environmental disaster in the Midwest where the Keystone XL was planned to be built over aquifers and so on. Native American tribes have protested where it flows over their land. There is no win. The win is not to mine the tarsands and to leave the oil in the ground.

https://emiliocogliani.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/native-american-spirit-camp-reacts-to-obamas-keystone-pipeline-decision/

[ApatheticNoMore]

Germany uses about half of the energy per capita than the US, which is a help.

I would suspect that's mostly transportation rather than home energy use. Either way yes, sure, but I think the problem is we commute (and fly) too much, not that our refrigerators are super inefficient or something really.


And it's not like the US doesn't subsidize the oil industry.

the whole world subsidizes fossil fuels, massively, so that it's not just an issue for people who hate subsidies, but a major issue for environmentalists - to at least stop the subsidizing.

[JaneV2.0]

Wind turbines, properly located, apparently pose less risk to birds than do other forms of energy production:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-death-and-wind-turbines-a-look-at-the-evidence

"Several studies have compared the effect of different energy sources on bird mortality overall. One, published earlier this year, calculates windfarms killed 20,000 birds died in 2009 in the US – while nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The research concludes that taken together, fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous per gigawatt hour of electricity produced to birds than wind and nuclear power stations."

Also, newer, shrouded turbines are designed to be even less dangerous to birds than those most commonly used today.

It remains to be seen if alternative fuels are a boon or a burden, but if any country can make it work, it's Germany.

[peggy]

Wind turbines, properly located, apparently pose less risk to birds than do other forms of energy production:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-death-and-wind-turbines-a-look-at-the-evidence

"Several studies have compared the effect of different energy sources on bird mortality overall. One, published earlier this year, calculates windfarms killed 20,000 birds died in 2009 in the US – while nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The research concludes that taken together, fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous per gigawatt hour of electricity produced to birds than wind and nuclear power stations."

Also, newer, shrouded turbines are designed to be even less dangerous to birds than those most commonly used today.

It remains to be seen if alternative fuels are a boon or a burden, but if any country can make it work, it's Germany.

Yeah, having lived in Germany for several years, I have to say we didn't see a lot of bird carcasses around the wind mills.
But we did see a lot of cloudy days. Funny how Germany can produce so much solar energy with all it's cloudy weather when we can't produce what we need with our abundance of sunny days (so say some).
Ask yourself, which would you rather deal with: an oil spill, fracking chemical spill, or a solar spill.
A 'solar spill' is simply a sunny day.

*solar energy will become 'a thing' when the big energy companies figure out how to charge for the sun.

[bae]

Trust us!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/16/keystone-pipeline-spills-210000-gallons-of-oil-on-eve-of-key-permitting-decision/?utm_term=.adccb71e3e96

[Suzanne]

Germany is steeply increasing investment in geothermal energy. There are other sources than wind and solar. However, there’s no escaping the need for more efficient usage. As others have already said, retrofit buildings and design new ones for passive efficiency. Rethink lifestyle factors. And let’s address the automobile problem! I know 4-people families who run 5 cars- one for each person plus a family vehicle. Note, every car is an SUV, each capable of holding all 4 people plus shopping of luggage! Their argument is that they don’t all follow the same schedule. I stilll don’t see the need for the 5th vehicle.

[Williamsmith]

Germany is steeply increasing investment in geothermal energy. There are other sources than wind and solar. However, there’s no escaping the need for more efficient usage. As others have already said, retrofit buildings and design new ones for passive efficiency. Rethink lifestyle factors. And let’s address the automobile problem! I know 4-people families who run 5 cars- one for each person plus a family vehicle. Note, every car is an SUV, each capable of holding all 4 people plus shopping of luggage! Their argument is that they don’t all follow the same schedule. I stilll don’t see the need for the 5th vehicle.

Ill tell you what.....you get Texas on board with this and I’ll consider rethinking lifestyle factors. You get China and India on board.....and I might even try it a Little myself.

[catherine]

Ill tell you what.....you get Texas on board with this and I’ll consider rethinking lifestyle factors. You get China and India on board.....and I might even try it a Little myself.

Isn't that like standing on a limb that is ready to break and you say "I'll get off the limb when the guy next to me does." Doesn't your getting of the limb save you and maybe the other clueless people still on the limb, too? I don't get the logic. My DH has similar logic. If everyone is looting, does that make it OK for you to loot?

Someone has to be the one to lead people into the future by their example.

[dmc]

Germany is steeply increasing investment in geothermal energy. There are other sources than wind and solar. However, there’s no escaping the need for more efficient usage. As others have already said, retrofit buildings and design new ones for passive efficiency. Rethink lifestyle factors. And let’s address the automobile problem! I know 4-people families who run 5 cars- one for each person plus a family vehicle. Note, every car is an SUV, each capable of holding all 4 people plus shopping of luggage! Their argument is that they don’t all follow the same schedule. I stilll don’t see the need for the 5th vehicle.

whats the problem with owning several vehicles? They won’t all be driven at the same time to the same place will they. Maybe the family SUV is equipped differently or the individual cars have everyone’s personal stuff in them.

[pinkytoe]

[QUOTE]whats the problem with owning several vehicles?[/QUOTE
Of course that's a personal choice but multiply our choices by millions...
Most of my neighbors, friends, relatives have multiple cars - the extras sit in the driveway.
We are learning to get by with one and it has been very freeing. Kind of like decluttering. Lots of money saved too for those of us to whom that matters.
All of our ways of living deserve some thought as our population increases. Besides, it is fun to imagine new ways of doing things that are better for the environment.
I always kid DH that until "the old men" let go of their old ideas, nothing will change.

[Rogar]

I was trying to refresh my memory on an article and just googled, future of car ownership in the US. There were several recent articles in places like Forbes and the WSJ predicting giant declines in car ownership and total miles driven in the next 15 years. I've lost track of the places proposing to regulate or eliminate the sales of gas autos, but it's seemed include nations like France, China, Germany, and even California. I don't think it will be too long before attitudes about car ownership will be much different.

[bae]

whats the problem with owning several vehicles? They won’t all be driven at the same time to the same place will they. Maybe the family SUV is equipped differently or the individual cars have everyone’s personal stuff in them.

We have 6 vehicles at the moment. 3 drivers, but one of them only drives for 3 months a year. Total combined mileage for the family during the year is < 8k miles I believe.

o Subaru Outback - main 4-person car for getting around the island/hauling the dog/bad weather
o Mini Cooper - the normal 1-person errand vehicle. Dog not allowed
o Dodge Hellcat, Charger - comfortable 4-door sedan for long road trips. > 700 HP, does 10 second 1/4 miles. (I hate flying....in commercial airplanes...)
o Hummer H1 - my main rescue response vehicle, or for towing Really Big Things. Seats 4, sort of, but really best for 2, as it is so packed with equipment.
o Porsche 911C4S - for long road trips where 4 passenger comfort/cargo capacity isn't an issue
o BMW Z3 convertible, supercharged - it's my virtual motorcycle replacement, stupid fast, handles well, especially on little roads like ours

I am sequestering carbon by owning these - if someone else had them, they'd drive them more, and that would be bad for the planet! Some of these vehicles are nearly 20 years old at this point.

[Teacher Terry]

PT: I am with you that having so many vehicles is ridiculous. WE have 2 cars and when one dies we will probably just use 1 because with Uber and living in town there is no need for more. Plus with being semi-retired we often go together. We also walk if we are going downtown.

[catherine]

I don't mind people having a lot of cars, especially if the total mileage, like bae's, is low. What difference does it make? Collecting cars might be a big "gazingus pin" but whatever floats your boat.

Personally, I'm looking forward to when more people are choosing alternative energy cars for their first car, second car, third car, and fourth car.

As for me, my Prius is 10 years old and going strong. Maybe some day I'll buy a car to replace it, and I'm sure it won't be a fossil fuel vehicle. Probably electric. By then the infrastructure will be set up for them. I noticed that Newark Airport's parking deck already has bays for electric vehicles.

[Rogar]

If people think their auto carbon footprint is important, they have to look at life cycle from manufacture to disposal. In most cases, more cars driven the same mileage as a single car will have a bigger footprint. I have friends who travel often and buy carbon credits to offset travel, which isn't a perfect offset. It's not one thing or another, but an entire package of consumption.

A number of strong climate change advocates don't seem to place their personal carbon foot print high on the scale of priorities. Maybe the concept is that government or regulation is the solution.

[bae]

If people think their auto carbon footprint is important, they have to look at life cycle from manufacture to disposal.

Last time I looked, the full-cycle carbon footprint of a vehicle had a large (~50% or more) portion attributable simply to the initial manufacturing costs. Which makes a certain amount of sense, if you look at what has to go on to produce all that steel/aluminum/carbon fiber.

One concern I've had with the electric vehicles is that battery production is pretty painful on the environment.

There's no free lunch really.



A number of strong climate change advocates don't seem to place their personal carbon foot print high on the scale of priorities. Maybe the concept is that government or regulation is the solution.

I've talked to some who feel the whole problem is so large and systemic that no amount of personal hairshirt-wearing will veer us from what they see as the current course. And so their efforts are best spent lobbying/working at a higher level of engagement, instead of hand-sorting their recycleables.

Me, I don't buy carbon credits. I buy forests, and don't cut them down.

[Rogar]

Me, I don't buy carbon credits. I buy forests, and don't cut them down.

Probably not an option for many. Have you considered a conservation easement.

Some of what I do on a personal scale is probably in the feel good realm and seems right, which overcomes some pain much of the pain from the horse hair effect. Most people will probably make choices based on social norms, convenience, and economics until those change, and that's a long road to hoe for entire societies.

[Williamsmith]

Isn't that like standing on a limb that is ready to break and you say "I'll get off the limb when the guy next to me does." Doesn't your getting of the limb save you and maybe the other clueless people still on the limb, too? I don't get the logic. My DH has similar logic. If everyone is looting, does that make it OK for you to loot?

Someone has to be the one to lead people into the future by their example.

The point is not leadership. It fairness.

[catherine]

The point is not leadership. It fairness.

Well, to me refusal to move forward and support new technologies that will ultimately help to remediate a sick planet simply because others aren't on board is cutting off your nose to spite your face. And it smacks of "Jimmy gets to stay up late and eat candy for dinner. Why can't I?"

So I will respectfully disagree.

[Suzanne]

In my example, 4 of the 5 SUVs are being used daily.

A lot of twitching nerves out there!

[Williamsmith]

Well, to me refusal to move forward and support new technologies that will ultimately help to remediate a sick planet simply because others aren't on board is cutting off your nose to spite your face. And it smacks of "Jimmy gets to stay up late and eat candy for dinner. Why can't I?"

So I will respectfully disagree.

Technology ....that deserves a separate thread. We can’t agree on basic tenants. Is the planet sick? What does sick mean? Ultimately, your world view requires applying force to an unwilling population. My world view respects freedom and independence. You can wrap your ideas up in feel good words like “encourage”, “move forward”, “lead by example” but the end game is use of force by one ideologist against a non compliant populace. I reject that on its basic immoral premise.

[catherine]

Technology ....that deserves a separate thread. We can’t agree on basic tenants. Is the planet sick? What does sick mean? Ultimately, your world view requires applying force to an unwilling population. My world view respects freedom and independence. You can wrap your ideas up in feel good words like “encourage”, “move forward”, “lead by example” but the end game is use of force by one ideologist against a non compliant populace. I reject that on its basic immoral premise.

I knew we'd disagree on this. I don't think climate change is an ideology. I think it's a reality. Is a hurricane an ideology? A famine?

I realize that I come off sounding like every other Northeastern liberal, and I apologize for that. Especially when I suspect that we both agree with the basic idea the nature is wondrous. To your point, you think that left to our devices, nature will be just fine. I'm not as optimistic. Do I have a right to tell people they can't destroy elephants for their tusks, or sharks for their fins? Do I have the right to tell SUV owners that they shouldn't buy gas guzzlers? No.

But do I feel that we are making a big mistake overtaxing our resources, polluting water and air, shrinking the diversity of the species? Yes, and I think someday we, or our children, will be sorry. Nature will prevail, but our descendants will be robbed of so much. Forced to eat test tube food because the fertile land now looks like the Arabian desert. Deprived of salmon and cod. Deprived of natural spring water.

We always apply force to an unwilling population when it's appropriate, and you know that, as a law enforcer. And I'm not suggesting force. I'm suggesting we collectively use our miraculous imaginations to think of better ways. That's what we've always done.

[catherine]

I've talked to some who feel the whole problem is so large and systemic that no amount of personal hairshirt-wearing will veer us from what they see as the current course. And so their efforts are best spent lobbying/working at a higher level of engagement, instead of hand-sorting their recycleables.


Yeah, makes me think of this article by Jensen: "Forget Shorter Showers" (https://orionmagazine.org/article/forget-shorter-showers/)

[catherine]

In my internet-browsing today, I came across a really interesting TED talk by Stewart Brand, creator/editor of Whole Earth Catalog. No one can dispute that he is an iconoclast in fighting for the environment. He's written a book called Whole Earth Discipline, which I hadn't heard of before, but its somewhat unexpected (at least to me) subtitle is "Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, RestoredWildlands, and Geoengineering Are Necessary"

Because I'm trying to save my pennies to put toward my very un-dense prospective rural home, I didn't want deploy my trigger finger on the Kindle One-Click. Instead I was able to find this 17 minutes YouTube summary explaining why an environmentalist is exhorting people to support nuclear power and GMOs. Very thought-provoking. This guy is really inspirational.


https://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environmental_heresies

[Williamsmith]

I like that Stewart Brand is pushing other environmentalists into defending their war against nuclear energy. Nuclear can be a large part of our energy independence. We don’t have to build large facilities. As he pointed out, smaller more diverse local facilities are more effective and less worrisome. Spent nuclear fuel is transported safely in this country daily. Technology.....the good kind...could turn us in the direction we need to go. More polar bear cubs......that would be nice right?

[Rogar]

I've talked to some who feel the whole problem is so large and systemic that no amount of personal hairshirt-wearing will veer us from what they see as the current course. And so their efforts are best spent lobbying/working at a higher level of engagement, instead of hand-sorting their recycleables.

I have had similar thoughts about voting and any political interests or energies beyond local.

[jp1]

Technology ....that deserves a separate thread. We can’t agree on basic tenants. Is the planet sick? What does sick mean? Ultimately, your world view requires applying force to an unwilling population. My world view respects freedom and independence. You can wrap your ideas up in feel good words like “encourage”, “move forward”, “lead by example” but the end game is use of force by one ideologist against a non compliant populace. I reject that on its basic immoral premise.

Does your freedom and independence force me to accept all the externalities caused your casual emission of large amounts of greenhouse gases?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Oh climate change will probably kill billions of people worldwide many of whom had the least of anyone to do with causing it, so one's absolute freedom may not be the most important thing here. Island nations are certainly drowning.

However I certainly agree the problem is extremely large and complex. Many things have simple solutions, but I don't see climate change being one.

[Williamsmith]

Does your freedom and independence force me to accept all the externalities caused your casual emission of large amounts of greenhouse gases?

With a world population of approxiamately 7.6 billion......my casual emission......is statistically meaningless to your externalities. But you are free to assuage your own guilt anyway you see fit.

[ApatheticNoMore]

With a world population of approxiamately 7.6 billion......my casual emission......is statistically meaningless to your externalities.

that's certainly true, jp1 probably, and quite reasonably so from the context, assumed the discussion was one of public policy though (on a national or even global level even) and the behaviors and incentives that affect whole societies, which IS likely statistically meaningful.

[Williamsmith]

I suppose my complaint is that whole societies are made up of individuals and enforcement is necessarily against individuals as societies are not gifted as such with freedoms. What I am curious about is who makes the analysis. Who determines if one is in compliance with the expected actions that are climate worthy? Who has determined for instance, if jp1 is more climate friendly than I am? And is this by one minute, by one hour, by one day, by one year or by a lifetime? As far as the earth is concerned, my life time is but a blink of an eye. So who is so emboldened to say to me that my certain action is encroaching on the well being of jp1 when for all we know....I may have contributed far less to the “destruction” of the planet over lifetime than he. My opinions do not matter....my quantitative actions do. So go do what you must do, turn your convictions inward and heal the planet.....do not oppress me.

[Rogar]

I am not sure that I totally follow the arguments, but you sort of get into a conundrum when you say individual actions are meaningless, but regulation by the government interferes with individual freedoms.

Of course there has to be some agreement that human related climate change is real and important, which doesn't seem to fit mainstream conservative values.

I'm also not sure that individual acts can be looked at as unique events. There are waves of activity that might have been thought of as "geenie" at a time and are now common place. Everyone I know of recycles these days and driving hybrids or electric cars is common place. Going from incandescent to fluorescent and now LED lighting might have some personal economic value, but the payback really isn't that huge. I still don't even know if in the big scheme of thing it matters significantly, but a lot of people do. It's not just one person, but groups of people. My comparison was voting in national elections, where in almost all cases one vote is not going to matter, but still it is the right thing to do.

[jp1]

For me the comparison that seems most apt is to what happened back in the 70's/80's when governments decided to start impinging on individual freedoms by forcing people to reduce the amount of toxic poisons they were spewing into the air and water. This was an easy sell because people were well aware of the harm that pollution was causing. Heck, when I was a kid growing up in Denver there were winter days that one couldn't see the mountains because of the literal "brown cloud" of auto exhaust. Selling the importance of dealing with climate change at a societal level is more difficult. Unless you live in one of the coastal south florida neighborhoods that floods at high tide even on sunny days or have noticed that you can start gardening a month earlier every spring it's easy to deny what's happening. But the reality is that those sunny day flooded streets are every bit as dire of a warning as the Cuyahoga river catching on fire.

[Alan]

Unless you live in one of the coastal south florida neighborhoods that floods at high tide even on sunny days or have noticed that you can start gardening a month earlier every spring it's easy to deny what's happening.
I doubt anyone denies what's happening, the conflict comes in the assignment of blame. If the earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly over the course of it's existence, is it fair to assign it all to human activity after declaring (for political purposes) that the science is settled?

[jp1]

I don't know that it's ALL being assigned to human activity, but certainly the science is pretty settled that a fair chunk of it is. I suppose some people aren't willing to accept that. But then there are also people who don't accept the science that says the earth is round. And isn't it in society's best interest to try and mitigate the damages as best we can. Especially considering that, as was mentioned above, the people likely to be worst hurt by it are those who had the least to do with causing it.

[Rogar]

I have wondered why there hasn't been some sort of special investigation by some supposedly non-partisan (if that is possible) agency of the government where science experts present all sides of the argument, it's debated and an official or formal opinion is offered. Something like the Scopes Trial, a congressional committee, or even something like the Mueller investigation. I suppose guys like Pruitt has some basic understanding of the issues, but I don't think he is free of special interest biased. I could strongly suspect Trump and some of his supporters do not have a have a clue of the basics from both sides. In all fairness, the same could be said of the opposites in government. It's not a partisan issue and there are facts that are debatable and others that leave little doubt.

[JaneV2.0]

Oil, coal, and natural gas-related businesses have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and they have the money to buy legislators (and a handful of scientists), so there you go.

[Suzanne]

Yes, Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly. Climatologists know this, and they can quantify it. They have many lines of evidence: ice cores, varies, deep sea oozes, the geological record, fossil forums and diatoms. They have modeled changes in Earth’s obliquity, worked out the precession of the equinoxes, and much more. When all non-anthropogenic factors are quantified, there is a small but nevertheless significant amount of change that can only be ascribed to human activity.

Studies of oxygen isotopes recovered from ice cores 100,000 years old, and measurements of ratios of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the air bubbles trapped in this ancient ice, taken in conjunction with changes in species of microfossils (often highly temperature-sensitive), lead to the same conclusion: Earth’s climate is changing at unprecedented speed, and the change has been accelerating for the last few thousand years. There are diaries kept by individuals, journals kept by amateur naturalist societies, weather records from weather stations worldwide, for the last couple of centuries, telling the same story: as humans have industrialized, significant shifts have occurred in such things as planting dates, first sightings of bird species, the date that ice breakup occurs in Alaska.

I really like this old cartoon from 2010:
http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

[Williamsmith]

Humans are at their very base predators. They have a means and will to live that surpasses any other species so they have risen to the top. They compete as hunter and gatherers. Climate change and global warming if you will, are simply other banners under which they will expoilt their fellow humans in order to stay at the top. The very proof of that is the insistence that all humans adopt “systems of sustainability” designed by a few.

[catherine]

Humans are at their very base predators. They have a means and will to live that surpasses any other species so they have risen to the top.

Wouldn't a will to live include ensuring that the systems that support our life aren't destroyed? What exactly does "rising to the top" mean to you? To capitalists it may mean having the most employees and the most capital. To a religious sect it might mean having religious freedom and a supportive, self-sustaining congregation. To a naturalist or an aboriginal, it might mean living harmoniously with nature the way all of nature does, except us. In any case, "rising to the top" is completely subjective and based on cultural habits and preferences. Humans have a will to survive that demands both self-interest and cooperation and harmony. If there's ONLY self-interest, there's chaos. Nature is an interdependent web, not a runaway train to "the top," whatever that is.

ETA: Great cartoon, Suzanne!

[Williamsmith]

Humans will use cooperation and harmony only in their own self interest. They will abandon both when it is not needed. I am a climate change agnostic. If climate change is altering the world and the species that live now, evolution and natural selection will aid large population species with short adjustment periods. Small population large bodied species might become extinct but the human race with its capacity for adaptation will continue as the last species on earth. To have the expectation that the human race will work in unison to combat this problem is naive thinking. This is the same species which aims nuclear warheads at each other as an alternative to peaceful coexistence.

[Tammy]

I think the cockroaches will be the last species on earth - or maybe the tardigrades!

[ApatheticNoMore]

Expecting the human race to work cooperatively for this problem (or other environmental problems) may be naive (and we know the drill industrial Western civilization and the human race at this point may indeed be a dead-end). But sitting back and accepting the consequences meanwhile is immoral (consequences are mass death in all likelihood). Pick your poison. I'll take naive.

(But naive isn't really how to describe it, because it actually has nothing to do with whether one thinks a happy ending is likely, it has nothing to do with whether one is an optimist, but about what is the right thing to do).

[catherine]

Small population large bodied species might become extinct but the human race with its capacity for adaptation will continue as the last species on earth.

Man, that's no place I want to be--a barren globe like all the other planets. Back to being an orbiting blob of minerals with only a hint of life-sustaining water evident. Maybe there will be a colonized planet called Musk-town or Branson-town somewhere where crazy human adaptations have permitted some special people to board a starship version of Noah's ark. What a shame that we can't honor the miracle of the flourishing of life and the prolific abundance of species we have now. It's flipping the finger at the Creator, IMHO.

Maybe I'm naive in believing in the goodness of people and the natural inclination to work towards common ends, but I believe the science that shows that humans are inherently cooperative beings, as well as self-interested. Self-interest drives me to feel fearful of my great-grandchildren's future quality of life by stripping the seas of fish, polluting the air, and reducing life to a soulless existence sans flora and fauna, as we kill each other in a mad scramble for survival.

[Rogar]

I don't think survival of the human species is especially at issue, but what form of civilization the future might hold is. And it will be lonely without the diversity of animals and plants, which we are already on the path to loosing. Climate change is just one big player in a system of biological population dynamics that will eventually catch up with us, one way or another.

[Williamsmith]

Well, you folks are a right bunch of inspiring optimists. So if we accept the fact that we humans are the reason the apocalypse is imminent...then it only follows that like you say....we humans are the only ones that can reverse it. What does science say about how many of us it’s going to take to get that done? Let’s see....7.5 billion of us. Would it take every single one of us, half heartedly reducing our carbon footprint? Or just 50% of us living in a eco friendly commune? Could you perhaps sell permits for people to get an exception? Right, that would be a carbon tax. And why should a guy like me or my ancestors deserve to live in a world that was saved by people like you if I didn’t lift a hand to assist in that effort? Or maybe I don’t.

[catherine]

Well, you folks are a right bunch of inspiring optimists. So if we accept the fact that we humans are the reason the apocalypse is imminent...then it only follows that like you say....we humans are the only ones that can reverse it. What does science say about how many of us it’s going to take to get that done? Let’s see....7.5 billion of us. Would it take every single one of us, half heartedly reducing our carbon footprint? Or just 50% of us living in a eco friendly commune? Could you perhaps sell permits for people to get an exception? Right, that would be a carbon tax. And why should a guy like me or my ancestors deserve to live in a world that was saved by people like you if I didn’t lift a hand to assist in that effort? Or maybe I don’t.

Gandhi said it best: Be the change you wish to see in the world.

I always respect your opinion, and I know you're a nature lover the way you talk about your childhood in the PA woods. And I don't know who "people like you" (me) are? I'm not trying to do the math to see who needs to do what. I suck at math. And maybe the numbers won't add up and we'll all wind up in the armageddon you describe. But my mother taught me to make my bed and clean up my room, and for me, that's all it comes down to. I can't save the world, that much I know. But I can make my bed.*

*And I can write my congressmen. And petition. And protest. And vote with my dollars. And take some of the money I earn from Big Pharma and siphon it to the NRDC, Sierra Club, and WWF.

ETA: Forget Shorter Showers (https://orionmagazine.org/article/forget-shorter-showers/) by Derrick Jensen

[catherine]

Pick your poison. I'll take naive....(But naive isn't really how to describe it, because it actually has nothing to do with whether one thinks a happy ending is likely, it has nothing to do with whether one is an optimist, but about what is the right thing to do).


+100

[Rogar]

Well, you folks are a right bunch of inspiring optimists. So if we accept the fact that we humans are the reason the apocalypse is imminent...then it only follows that like you say....we humans are the only ones that can reverse it. What does science say about how many of us it’s going to take to get that done? Let’s see....7.5 billion of us. Would it take every single one of us, half heartedly reducing our carbon footprint? Or just 50% of us living in a eco friendly commune? Could you perhaps sell permits for people to get an exception? Right, that would be a carbon tax. And why should a guy like me or my ancestors deserve to live in a world that was saved by people like you if I didn’t lift a hand to assist in that effort? Or maybe I don’t.

Difficult questions can have complicated answers.

http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/

[Williamsmith]

Gandhi said it best: Be the change you wish to see in the world.

I always respect your opinion, and I know you're a nature lover the way you talk about your childhood in the PA woods. And I don't know who "people like you" (me) are? I'm not trying to do the math to see who needs to do what. I suck at math. And maybe the numbers won't add up and we'll all wind up in the armageddon you describe. But my mother taught me to make my bed and clean up my room, and for me, that's all it comes down to. I can't save the world, that much I know. But I can make my bed.*

*And I can write my congressmen. And petition. And protest. And vote with my dollars. And take some of the money I earn from Big Pharma and siphon it to the NRDC, Sierra Club, and WWF.

ETA: Forget Shorter Showers (https://orionmagazine.org/article/forget-shorter-showers/) by Derrick Jensen

Thats what I love about you Catherine........you could never sing “I Dreamed a Dream”

There was a time when men were kind
When their voices were soft
And their words inviting
There was a time when love was blind
And the world was a song
And the song was exciting
There was a time
Then it all went wrong
I dreamed a dream in times gone by
When hope was high and life worth living
I dreamed, that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving
Then I was young and unafraid
And dreams were made and used and wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung, no wine untasted

But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they tear your hope apart
As they turn your dream to shame
He slept a summer by my side
He filled my days with endless wonder
He took my childhood in his stride
But he was gone when autumn came
And still I dream he'll come to me
That we will live the years together
But there are dreams that cannot be
And there are storms we cannot weather
I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I'm living
So different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed the dream
I dreamed

[catherine]

Thats what I love about you Catherine........you could never sing “I Dreamed a Dream”

There was a time when men were kind
When their voices were soft
And their words inviting
There was a time when love was blind
And the world was a song
And the song was exciting
There was a time
Then it all went wrong
I dreamed a dream in times gone by
When hope was high and life worth living
I dreamed, that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving
Then I was young and unafraid
And dreams were made and used and wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung, no wine untasted

But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they tear your hope apart
As they turn your dream to shame
He slept a summer by my side
He filled my days with endless wonder
He took my childhood in his stride
But he was gone when autumn came
And still I dream he'll come to me
That we will live the years together
But there are dreams that cannot be
And there are storms we cannot weather
I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I'm living
So different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed the dream
I dreamed


And I thought you knew me better than that. But I love that you quoted my absolutely hands-down favorite play ever. So, I forgive you for thinking I've lived a superficial life with no pain and disappointment. How little you know.