Comments on: Bush/Nero climate speech: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, let’s fiddle until 2025″

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:59:41 +0000

The comparison with Nero is apropos. Nero’s name (Nero or Neron) is the source of the number 666 (originally 616) in Revelation 13. So you are in effect associating Bush with the apocalypse. Care then to speculate on Bush’s “ten horns and seven heads”?

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:17:17 +0000

“I am announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.”

So, what he’s actually announced is the US Government’s intention to continually increase greenhouse gas emissions until 2025.

A crime against humanity.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:32:35 +0000

So far, Bush administration policies contrary to the continuous asinine criticism from so called progressives have not only lowered the rate of emissions growth, they have lowered actually amount of CO2 emitted. In the face of this fact, the critics ascribe this success to any conceivable cause other than the policy. Wonderful things are happening in the replacement of fossil fuels.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:39:53 +0000

“I am announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.”
A crime against humanity.
I believe that’s about the same timetable that Joe and most of the climate scientists have in the stabilize at 450 ppm scenario. When do we round them up?

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:50:43 +0000

Paul K, 2001 was Bush year 1, and GHG emissions that year were 6865.4 million tonnes (CO2e). The preliminary 2006 data (last year available) are 7075.6 million tonnes. That is not a decrease, it is a 3% increase.

In actuality the data from single years is a bit noisy, just like climate data. We would need to see a sustained trend to say things have changed.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:59:02 +0000

One question is how did President Bush’s greenhouse gases reduction goals and The Breakthrough Institute’s policies of greenhouse reductions effort come so close to the same numbers? Answer me that.

By: Shannon

Shannon — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:17:18 +0000

I am sure that this mysterious low-carbon incentive will turn out to be public subsidies for nuclear power. Just read the playbook.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:17:49 +0000

Paul K, stopping growth in GHG emissions in 2025 is not the same as stopping GHG emissions. Today we add 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere. If we continue to grow emissions between now and 2025, we’ll be at least 2.2 ppm by 2025. If then we manage to stop the growth in 2025, i.e. they stay at just 2.2 ppm / year, then we reach 450ppm in 2039. This is not what Joe and climate scientists are recommending. For example, Hansen is recommending the elimination of coal by 2030. That would have CO2 emissions much less than 2 ppm by 2025.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:17:54 +0000

According to the NOAA website, 2006 US emissions dropped by 1.3%. Compare the rate of growth in the current administration to that in the previous. There are many reasons to criticize Bush. That’s fine. I’ve got plenty of my own. The apocalypse and crimes against humanity nonsense is beyond inane.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:19:43 +0000

Paul K;

Read carefully:

Dubya wants to stabilise EMISSIONS GROWTH.

Those who know what they are talking about want to stabilise atmospheric GHG CONCENTRATIONS.

Two completely different things, as Joe’s “friend” Roger P Jr pointed out many moons ago.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:20:54 +0000

“Dubya wants to stabilise EMISSIONS GROWTH.”

He doesn’t even want to stabilise emissions, just keep them growing…

I stand by my original comment.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:26:10 +0000

But you knew he was going to say that, didn’t you?

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:36:14 +0000

Earl Killian. When you say we add 2.2 ppm/year you mean the whole world, not the United States. I don’t think we’ll have any problem replacing fossil in this country. There’s an alternative revolution underway here and we just have to be careful not to do anything to stand in its way. I like Joe’s approach because, for all his alarming rhetoric, his mitigation proposals are measured and designed to enhance economic activity rather than hinder it.

By: Ken Levenson

Ken Levenson — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:40:07 +0000

Paul K,

And reductions in growth over the last 7 years is surely in spite of the Bush administration. While I don’t have the info on hand I’m willing to bet that any reductions are the result of State efforts. (Cheney would like nothing more than a coal power plant in every driveway.)

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:57:23 +0000

Ken Levenson,
Thanks for illustrating my point about the everlong search for non Bush causes of anything positive. There’s a reverse cult of the personality here, ascribing powers to the leader that do not exist. I have no idea if Bush is responsible for the reductions. I’m just glad they are happening. If your information about any Bush policy comes mainly from groups like the Center for American Progress, I hope you can concede your source has a strong (legally non-partisan) partisan bias.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:01:13 +0000

Paul K: The world must peak in emissions before 2020. Obviously, U.S. emissions in 2020 must be below current levels. That ain’t a peak in 2025.

By: Aqua21885

Aqua21885 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:07:04 +0000

Beyond needing to peak before 2020, they also need to start declining pretty quickly if we’re going to achieve 50-85% reductions by 2050.
Is that goal even plausible? Emissions are still growing, they have to reach a peak, then there’s a stabilization period, and then cut them in half (or more?) I feel like we are way behind in terms of needing to have already started.

By: JCH

JCH — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:25:14 +0000

The following factors were primary contributors to this decrease:

(1) compared to 2005, 2006 had warmer winter conditions, which decreased consumption of heating fuels, as well as cooler summer conditions, which reduced demand for electricity,

(2) restraint on fuel consumption caused by rising fuel prices, primarily in the transportation sector and

(3) increased use of natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:33:40 +0000

Paul K, you ignored the part where I explained “In actuality the data from single years is a bit noisy, just like climate data. We would need to see a sustained trend to say things have changed.” I.e. the 2006 (preliminary) decrease is not meaningful. Previous one year decreases occurred in 1991 and 2001, for example. 1991 and 2001 were recession years, by the way.

And yes, my 2 ppm comment was for the whole world. Essentially all of the major emitters need to decrease emissions for the world to have a chance. The atmosphere sums everyones contribution and shares the resulting heat, unfortunately.

You also wrote, “I don’t think we’ll have any problem replacing fossil in this country.” We won’t if can get people to understand the problem and the solutions. This is made more difficult by having people like Bush saying that all we have to do is stop emissions growth (blatantly false), and then having people like you try to defend such falsehoods.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:37:50 +0000

Earl Killian,
After 8 shots of single malt and 8 beer chasers, I hope you’ll forgive any omissions. Bush does not say all we have to do is stop emissions. He has been pushing non corn ethanol R & D since day one. His energy proposals as opposed to what was passed have been strong on alternatives supporting technology deployment. Hic.

Joe,
I’m all for your goals if not always agreeing on the details. I also have no doubt US emissions will meet or exceed those goals almost irrespective (beyond cap/trade and economically sensible regulation) of government action. Your method of political attack is of a bygone era. Obama and McCain have both promised a respectful campaign featuring a reasoned discussion of the issues. It’s time to throw out the ways of Carville and Begala and Rove.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:30:35 +0000

You think you’ve got problems. We’ve got “Severe storms across Mexico” in Europe.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ img/ climate/ research/ 2008/ mar/ extremes-200803.gif

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:33:06 +0000

More seriously, after a chilly start to the year we now have the warmest March on record in the N hemisphere:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ oa/ climate/ research/ 2008/ mar/ global.html#temp

By: danny bloom

danny bloom — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:47:36 +0000

Joe
On May 10, the world pop will reach 6,666,666,666 people.

In 50 more years, it will hit 8,888,888,888 people.

So: the Global Roll Call initiative begins today:
http://sixbillion101.blogspot.com

PRESS RELEASE
Contact: danbloom / gmail.com

GLOBAL ROLL CALL SEEKS NAMES OF 6.7 BILLION INHABITANTS ON EARTH

According to census figures, the world population on May 10 will stand
at 6,666,666,666 people. In 50 years, some population experts say it
will reach 8,888,888,888 and maybe even 15 billion by 2500.

The Global Roll Call is an online initiative and thought experiment
that is attempting, against all odds, to compile the names of all 6.6
billion people on Earth, in more than 35 languages, from more than 150
countries around the world.

The Global Roll Call has set up a website where individuals may list
their names in any language and leave comments about the Earth and
climate change and overpopulation or any other issues they are
concerned about.

While the task seems impossible, the website says “nothing is
impossible” and says it is determined to press forward with this
non-threatening thought exercise about population statistics and what
they might mean for the future of humankind in terms of global
warming and climate change.

But the initative has no climate change agenda, other than to prod
people in thinking about the issues involved. It takes no stance on
whether global warming is for real or a hoax.

COMMENT BY INTERNET POSTER ON ROLL CALL:

“We are so honored to place our names on your list.
we love planet earth, and this is a magical way to bring awareness.
thank you for including us in your project.
here is our household:

david leeson
georgette leary
sarah gibson
shone wilcox

love and light
georgette

http://sixbillion101.blogspot.com/

because

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html

By: Nylo

Nylo — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:02:12 +0000

Do you have any idea how many people are born and die every day? It’s not like we are only adding people and the rest stays the same. A list of 6.666.666.666 names would be valid for about one tenth of a second.

There are silly initiatives and then there is this.

By: Danny Bloom

Danny Bloom — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:52:17 +0000

Nylo,
There’s more to it thanmeets the eye. Go read the blog again.
SMILE

\Danny\

Speaking of 6,666,666,666 billion people on planet Earth, have you
heard of the Global Roll Call initiative? We are attempting to compile
a list of all the people on Earth at the present time, and it’s a
self-nominating
process, DIY, just visit our blog and sign your name in the comments
section, no registration necessary and anonymous log-in okay, but
please to read our blog
and sign in if you wish to be included on the Global Roll Call. Maybe
an impossible task, but there’s a method to our madness. Read on

GOOGLE NEWS: Climate change website “Global Roll Call” to list names
of all 6.6 billion people on Earth……
And if some newspaper picks up the story and
sends out an alarm by reporting the news about the Global Roll Call,
more people might be made ……………….
http://sixbillion101.blogspot.com

By: Danny Bloom

Danny Bloom — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:54:28 +0000

Joe
Your Salon article about Solar thermal electric power was very very good. How about calling that kind of power slectric power, for S = solar, t = thermal with electric = STelectric = slectric power……? has anyone coined that word yet? easy to say and remember……instead of all those CPRs and GTHs and PRCs etc…..why not call it stelectic power

\danny

By: Danny Bloom

Danny Bloom — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:55:05 +0000

i meant to type STELECTRIC power……

By: Ken Levenson

Ken Levenson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:46:52 +0000

The best response to Bush’s speech I’ve seen:

Germany slams Bush’s ‘Neanderthal’ climate speech
http://www.thelocal.de/11363/20080417/

By: Ken Levenson

Ken Levenson — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:58:05 +0000

South Africa is condemning us too….we’ve come along way baby!
http://www.sabcnews.com/ world/ europe/ 0,2172,167850,00.html