Climate change: what will it take to avoid the worst?

"A cold-blooded dedication to stopping climate change means having the willingness to step away from our comfortable shibboleths, accept the criticism that comes with that, and place ourselves squarely behind a plan that has a chance of working. Building out renewable energy will get us part of the way there, but we’ve got more to do and not much time to do it.
This isn’t a rosy-hued proposal. You can find plenty of naysayers for every project I propose funding. Solar presents problems of geography. Wind presents land-use problems. Carbon sequestration requires mammoth infrastructure. Nuclear produces radioactive waste. Biofuels have been unable to overcome technical problems even after decades of effort. Fusion power has always been 30 years in the future and still is. Geoengineering is just scary as hell.
Ultimately, massive R&D might fail. But unlike current plans, it has one powerful benefit: At least it’s not guaranteed to fail."
Kevin Drum has a long piece on the state of play in decarbonization and the kind of financial and political investment required to mitigate the worst of what we're facing. It is very thoughtful and pulls no punches. Because I respect your intelligence, I know you'll read the whole thing.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/kevin-drum-climate-change-reseach/

Comments

  1. adDecember 17, 2019 at 8:02 PM

    And yet. The one thing nobody is talking about is factory farming. The biggest emissions come from raising animals for food. Along with it, massive water usage. Deforestation to provide more grazing land and land to grow feed crops. Subsidies to make the meat and dairy products cheap. This could be the very first step we all take. Eat MUCH less meat and dairy; subsidize plant foods grown to support the earth, reduce water usage, and regenerate soil rather than growing feed for animals. Stop transporting those animals across the country, using fossil fuels to do so. Shall I go on? Here's one of many articles on the subject: http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet And we need to stop overfishing our oceans, too, so they can recover. I get so angry when this information is never provided; we only talk about driving smaller cars, which makes much less difference. Okay, rant over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joel EissenbergDecember 18, 2019 at 3:03 AM

      Thanks for your comment. I don't agree that factory farming is the biggest source of carbon emissions on the planet. In fact, your own link proves that statement wrong, and by a wide margin. That's probably why it's omitted from many discussions. However, it is one source, and it is something we can and should reduce. We should eat more plant material and less meat.

      Delete
  2. Joel EissenbergDecember 18, 2019 at 2:38 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Two sides

Image
  Yes, there are two sides to every question. In most cases, there is a correct side and a wrong side. In the case of Kamala Harris, the correct side is that she was born a US citizen. The wrong side is that her parents had to be citizens or permanent residents for her to be a citizen. President Trump pretended to be unsure about this, just as he pretended for five years that Barack Obama is not a citizen. In the case of the Harris noncitizen claim, it is backed by the racist C laremont Institute: "The Claremont Institute masquerades as an intellectual salon of the right, but it is really just a racist fever swamp with deep connections to the conspiratorial alt-right. It even granted a fellowship to Jack Posobiec, who helped promote the notorious Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Claremont’s resident bigots offer deranged fantasies of violently expelling Americans from their home country because of their ethnic backgrounds. Their work deserves the intellectual weight given to that of D...
Read more

Who chooses?

Over at jabberwocking.com , Kevin Drum blames pro-choice writers for failing to make the case for reproductive choice. Well, from everything I've read, a clear majority of Americans believe that Roe should still stand. Seems like the case has been made, and if we lived in a truly representative democracy, a limited national right to abortion would be preserved. But beyond that reality, I think Drum has it exactly backwards. Why does the burden of proof fall on those advocating for personal autonomy? Seems to me the null hypothesis is that women should be allowed to make decisions about their own health, and that the justification for nanny state intrusion into such decisions rests with the minority who assert state coercion. Democrats need to hammer on the right-wing GOP to explain why the government takes temporary custody of pregnant Americans. https://jabberwocking.com/liberals-really-suck-at-defending-abortion/
Read more

Black Earth

 Just finished reading “Black Earth: The Holocaust as history and warning” by Timothy Snyder. It is a detailed account of the Holocaust, as well as an effort to abstract lessons from this history for our time. Like his book “Bloodlands,” Snyder’s “Black Earth” makes for painful reading. As the grandson of a Ukrainian Jew and the son of a Jew, I would have been targeted in the Holocaust had I been in the wrong place. I had read several histories of Europe in World War II that included the Holocaust. I knew the basic story of the Holocaust and Hitler’s anti-Semitic vision. I learned a great deal by reading this book. I won’t belabor the ghoulish atrocities committed by the Nazis and their collaborators. To summarize them here would be to trivialize the enormity of the crimes and invite pointless debate about who did what and who suffered more. You’ll have to read the book to understand Snyder’s historical insights. However, I learned many things that I did not know by reading thi...
Read more