Update. Desalinated sea water cost about $1/m^3 and about as much to transport (uphill I assume) inland. So if freshwater use originating from Himalayan meltwater will be one trillion m^3 annually, that is maybe $1-2T annual increased costs if the Himalayas melt. This has to be 75% likely by 2200 under business as usual. The are many other costs but also many prospective tech innovations. Depending on how you discount time my March 14th estimate is about 3x too high. This is assuming greatly increased investment in water saving and water desalination technologies and assumes no loss of life or economic activity when Himalayan water is replaced by sea water.
Still cheaper not to melt world glaciers in the first place.

Thanks for your excellent talk at the Museum of Natural History last Thursday.

You said at that talk that by 2100, climate change will be the only issue of today that people will care about. You also predicted that very rapid change would not occur until we witness some sort of catastrophe.

Please address in your blog:
How could we rally together the spiritual energy that will drive major action, now, in advance of catastrophe?
What events or actions by young people or by any people who care might transform the present political climate?
How could the internet help them?

Thank you for your writing and for your advocacy for rapid action.

2) Nuclear – the problems with and why so many foreign countries seem interested/excited in pursuing this option.

Which of these cost more than $1T/yr in the future?

You are to be congratulated for the number of suggestions here; please take it as proof of the value and importance of Climate Progress! I join others in thanking you for your work.

I agree with Bob Wallace about creating a section of CP that is a resource, but I think there are already resources out their for issues such dealing with denier talking points (including so many of your original posts…people should also check out Peter Sinclair’s You Tube Channel on the “Denier Crock of the Week”).

What I would like to see is an evolving wedge analysis – as more information is available you revise and build this section to clarify what experts are saying about the potential for various wedges to grow. While Pacala and Socolow identified options that “can save a billion tons by 2050,” I think what is most important is “what options can be ‘multiple wedges.’” Certainly the recent work of the Mackenzie Global Institute puts energy efficiency at the 3-5 wedge size. Is Gore’s goal of 100% carbon free electricity in 10 years realistic…the ACP analysis has some issues addressed, but not others (interstate transmission siting, among others)

As the information develops, this section of CP would be revised. I’d go for more of a “managed wiki.” My experience with wiki’s is that many edits and editions make them harder and harder to use as the number of pages proliferate. You could solicit information from your readers in a form that could be easy for you to add.

This is a big piece, I know, but it seems important to policy and to “hope mongering”

A recent technology review article on this was excellent:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21747/

The surface explanation would be basic issues and statements. Hit the magnification button at any point and the center of the screen or cursor point expands to the level of complexity desired. Using the word “biochar” as an example it might not be referenced at all on the face page, appear on the second level as an expansion of carbon sequestration, have a section on it’s own still deeper and a forum and bibliography at the basement level.

Ok, a bit much for this blog but maybe somebody from Google is reading this. Frankly I think we have all the know-how we need but access and understanding is the missing ingredient.

(Yes, I’m pimping my idea. ;o)

It needs to be written on at least three levels.

It needs to be written at an elementary school level – ten year olds should be able to understand the world in which they are going to be living. They are going to be much more hurt by inaction or improper action than are us in the latter years of our lives.

It needs to be written for the general public – understandable by someone with a high school education. But it should not be dumbed down for them. Leave in the real meat but write it with a minimum of technical terms and give good links to explain more complex concepts.

It needs to be written for people with higher levels of education, especially those with background in the specific areas of discussion – the people who are most capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff. We need these people with specialized skills and knowledge to discuss ideas and provide a reality filter to ideas that might sound good to the rest of us but are in some way flawed.

Discussion at this latter level would provide a place for inter discipline interaction. A place for chemists to talk to economists. A few good science teachers could translate the more complex discussions for the rest of us.

Look at each of the topics suggested above. We’ve got everything from population levels to biochar to desalinization to clean coal.

Where does one now go to learn the latest state of each issue?

Where is the reliable site that one can use for decision making? Be that person a politician, reporter, or concerned citizen.