It might be something remotely like “a simple engineering discussion” if conservatives, psychology, and the approaching destruction of civilization were not part of it. But they are, so it isn’t. It’s a very complex engineering and construction discussion and project embedded in the most important and charged psychological issues of the last 1000 years. We’re talking about the images, feelings and ideas about death that everyone has, doesn’t admit, and so projects onto global death. We’re talking The Book of Revelation, in more ways than one.

The fact that technology and other choices that could avoid catastrophe are available is not the point. Of course they are, and have been for decades. The fact that we haven’t made those choices and developed those technologies is the point, and while we have taken a giant leap forward in the last month it still seems that the public is not recognizing the true depth of the danger and as a result we are still moving too slowly to save our civilization from the pain and destruction of climate change.

And by the way, George Hayduke is a character in Edward Abbey’s novel The Monkeywrench Gang, an iconic name, word, (“monkeywrench- to sabotage, especially for ecological or similar reasons.) I can understand not knowing that kind of (1975) popular culture, (although not the unwillingness to do a 40 second search to find out) but to be so ignorant of the discussion (without seeming to be an obvious denialist) as to say Bill McKibben, Wendell Berry, Al Gore and for that matter, James Hansen don’t know what they’re talking about and haven’t put enthusiasm into thinking, when the subject is climate catastrophe, is so ludicrous as to have made me stop and re-read it several times to make sure I hadn’t gotten it wrong.

One thing this particular clamorer has thought is that we don’t need people talking about absurd desert-covering solar installations when we have many many times the area we need for solar panels already covered with roofs, parking lots and roads, right where the power is needed. We have millions of buildings that can be retrofitted, thousands that can be built right with passive solar heating and cooling, the first time starting now, and millions of sites for wind generators.

OK now have we buried the Bullises enough for one thread? Can we get on with the important work of preparing ourselves for the coming program of education, persuasion and healing that we need to begin this week?

Bullicus.

The issue is not the technological feasibility of shutting down coal. The issue is the political will — and the economic power that is expended to undermine that will. So long as Bullis offer comments based on the naive presumpotion that the existence of a preferable technological option will in some miraculous way result in its adoption in the controlled economy of the United States, he will be politically irrelevant. (Oh, yes, I did say we had a controlled economy — there’s n ofree market anywhere and all economies are controlled, in one form or another in every nation on earth.)

A much bigger “much of the coal used” now comes from the Powder River Basin and it is much lower in sulphur. The effect on the environment by the open pit Powder River mining operations seems to be comparable to plastering the desert with solar panels, maybe a lot less if the final solar systems were to get in place.

Yes, if there are coal plants close enough to urban areas to make children sick, then put them on big enough smokes stacks or shut them down. Go yell at the EPA about this. That is their job.

But oh what fun it is to call for violent action and get a lot of attention doing so.

Idiocy does apply to this discussion. An example of “idiot” is a person who would take warlike action without making serious effort to find an alternative. I thought we might have learned our lesson given our last eight years of experience.

And Fred, who the heck is Haydyuke?

As to a more serious point, there are certain ways people act that prove they are not scientists. Of course, McKibben and Berry do not pretend to be scientists so they are free to spout anecdotal evidence that might or might not be relevant. The same comment applies to Al Gore.

As to “NASA’s James Hansen” quoted by these cheerleaders, if he actually says that the “only hope” is to stop use of coal, then I submit that his credentials as an engineer are lacking and he should stay in his physics department, if that is what it is at NASA. I actually suspect if he was asked the right question he might answer that it would be pretty good to stop the use of oil also, or maybe instead.

But I would also like to point out that if coal was “stopped” the price of natural gas would go through the roof and probably that of oil as well. When that is realized the fools climbing the smoke stacks will be dusted off like flies.

Which gets me back to natural. It seems that an economically viable solution should be looked for seriously. That would be what I mean by natural. And I reiterate, this natural approach would start with drastically cutting the use of energy in ways that can be sustained in budgets of ordinary folks. Wouldn’t it be great if those clamoring for disobedience might put a little enthusiasm into actually thinking.

Bill Mckibben, Jim Hansen, Ross Gelbspan, and others have been trying to wake us up to the dangerous course we are on for years. While the progress of the past few years is encouraging, it is still too slow to assure us of saving the planet from a runaway greenhouse effect. If we reach that point, the future of man is one of unstoppable death and destruction.

So, if getting arrested is the cost of saving the planet, please count me in.