I am not anti – government. Here’s a pro government proposal. Starting with next year’s budget – better yet amend this year’s – maximize fossil fuel replacement in all government purchasing.

You are not using Occam’s Razor in your pleas for “anything but government” to solve these issues. You are asking us to enter into a massive experiment in social organization that runs orthogonal to the common concerns of most people reading this blog about the future of the planet.

More democracy is good, a more active citizenry is good. But that doesn’t take government out of the picture. There has been a lot of hooey circulating in our public sphere in the last few decades about “wouldn’t it be better” if we have less government. This was often just a cover for greedy people who wanted more money and didn’t like taxes.

You are asking us all to bend over backwards because of a particular “government-phobia” that you have. This is self-indulgent and sophomoric.

The question is not “whether” government but “how” government. Not “whether” regulation but “how” regulation. The distraction that your type of argument has created has only led to the continuation of corrupt forms of regulation and subsidy of the oil industry and more no-bid military contracts. Instead we should be asking “how” the government regulates the economy, including in the energy sector.

You talk about volunteering, another book I would recommend is ‘Ignition.’ It’s a new book, I read it 2 weeks ago and it does talk about what type of organizing that needs to be done to make the changes in peoples thinking you are alluding to. It was in paperback, so maybe not that new, but definitely in print and maybe in your library as it was in mine.

One thing you have to remember is we can’t get away from the important role that government plays to reduce CO2. Government makes the rules of the economic game and like any game, that has an enormous influence in how it is played.

You in another thread wrote that it was technology that solved the smog from cars problem. Actually that’s not true, all the technology in the world wouldn’t have solved the problem if the government hadn’t mandated that it be used in all cars. It may have been possible to have people ask for it, but in a city of a million cars, I might conclude that my 1 out of a million contribution is not enough for me to spend the money for an expensive accessory like smog control and thousands of other people would agree with me. The fewer people who ask for the smog control devices cost, the greater the cost, the fewer people will buy it. Force everyone to have the smog devices, the costs of development and installation is spread along to everybody.

You also wrote that we should work towards making non carbon fuels cheaper, but if you have read many of the articles on this website addressing just that, you would see that that is just not going to happen. It would be a nice thing to have happen, but any new non carbon technologies and products just cost more. It’s more expensive to collect wind or solar for use than to burn a concentrated form of energy in fossil fuels.

You said [Anonymous looks to government to impose a solution.]

I am Anonymous but not your antagonist. I want to see my grandchildren functioning in a world economy that leveled its CO2 emissions to 450 ppm.

Your last comments still falls into the ‘wishing’ category and are not easily discussed in this thread because Joe has to move on with new topics and you and I are left to dredge up this archive and others may never look for or find it.

However;

Yes, government is not some grey box. It is the collective command of all citizens but we individuals have many serious concerns competing for our focus and financial commitment. Monthly bills and daily expenses are overtaking an increasing number of us Americans and the future is beginning to look uglier. So, we may have to rely more upon government to hand down edicts and commands because, on an individual basis, including families and communities, our priorities might soon shift from the future to the here and now.

The Lieberman-Warner bill could accomplish more CO2 reductions in its first year than any national public-individual (voluntary) campaign will in a decade.

And, just a reminder; coal, gas and oil fired electric generation comprises a bit more than 70 percent of the US electric energy infrastructure. A 3.5 MW wind tower weighs about 363 tons and much of that weight is derived from energy intensive steel foundaries and petrochemical compounds. How will we substitute the near-700,000 MW of fossil fired capacity without rolling out a hellish amount of CO2 to manufacture and erect even a small fraction of alternative power sources?

Closing nukes and opposing new starts will add to the CO2 increase when that power source is shifted to wind (or solar).

I too am desparate to imagine and demand something more concrete. But I have to begin from a place of hard reality and not conjecture.

John L. McCormick

Before going on, let me propose a change in how we approach the problem. Those concerned about global warming focus on reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. This seems reasonable as CO2 is seen as the cause. I suggest we make the focus replacing fossil fuels as our source of energy and power. This is not mere semantics. Most of the various schemes focused on CO2 are designed to force the private sector to compliance through penalty and taxation. Some solutions like sequestration do not reduce CO2, only store it somewhere until it escapes. Resistance to these schemes is well documented in the often frustrated posts by Joe here at climate progress. The focus on CO2 requires broad agreement on targets, methods and on AGW itself. On the other hand, simply replacing fossil fuels is a more direct approach with greater political feasibility. It is, ultimately, the aim of those focusing on CO2 and has the happy benefit of being the best – really the only, along with increased efficiencies – way to eliminate GHG emissions. More importantly, it is an approach everyone, including those so-called deniers and delayers can support.

I will leave the analysis of what government and the private sector can accomplish to another time. Michael asks the important question. How do I propose that the people coordinate their efforts? We have in this country a wonderful tradition of positive action through voluntary association. I wish to tap into that. We currently use fossil fuels for transportation, manufacturing, electrical generation and the heating and cooling of homes and buildings. It is frustrating because, as Joe says, technological alternatives already exist or are in the near pipeline. The problem is these technologies have not been widely applied. The biggest impediment, especially in the areas of generation and heating and cooling, is the high initial cost compared to savings over time. The consumer is simply unable to exert the usual pressures on supply and price as in other markets. There are two ways out of this dilemma – artificially raise the price of fossil fuels to make alternatives competitive or find a way to reduce the cost to the consumer. I believe the second is far more effective and is possible through action via the voluntary association of the people. I wish I could be more specific in answering Michael’s question. My thoughts on this are at an early stage. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts others may have either supportive or challenging to help me come up with something more concrete.

Government can be improved and made more responsive but editing it out of the solution is…naive and foolish.

Your brain has been filled with claptrap about the virtues of a lack of government.

If you are putting your faith in the people

[It is the people, not the government, who have to power to reach the real goal which is replacing fossil fuel. ]

you are not facing reality. Have you noticed national electric and gasoline demand dropping in the recent past.? And, are you counting on Indian, Chinese, Brazilian, Russian, Japanese and Indonesian people to replace their fossil fuel use?

Global warming is real and requires real commitments from nations and imposed on the people. People are focused on paying their bills, morgages and consuming goods and services.