Greeenpeace is not an opponent because they differ on methods.

Neither am I.

Climate scientists will not prevail if they fail to make common cause with the kind of people that can do something about it.

Once you go down the road of moderating posters and deleting posts then [snip]

[JR: Once you go down the road of moderating posters and deleting posts then you are like most climate blogs. Get over it. I have explained my long-standing policy of not tolerating people who constantly post long debunked disinformation, misstate my position (or others) for purposes of attacking a strawman, or keep engaging in ad hominem attacks. If you don't moderate, then you end up taken over by the deniers, as we see on DotEarth and elsewhere.]

Feel free to insult my family! They drive me mad. My daughter takes a delight in leaving her PC on permanently and threatens to fit a lock on the door if I drop it into standby one more time.

I actually think that an ignorance and disinterest in climate change is very widespread, certainly in the UK. As an issue it has virtually dropped off the radar since the recession hit. People think that because they can afford to buy something it must be alright. Period. And anyone that bucks the trend is some sort of sad loser.

I have come to the conclusion that all my personal initiatives are a complete waste of time (although it has cut my energy costs by half). Voters need to feel scared enogh to demand action from their political representatives. It will come but will it be soon enough?

I know you have blogged on Jevons before (at least I recall you posting one piece that dismissed it). Jevons CAN be overcome providing you cap carbon as it enters the system, but otherwise it is a force that undermines conservation.

My family leave CFLs on 24/7. Previously they might just about have got around to switching off incandescents occasionally… This is the invisible hand of Jevons at work.

[JR: Hmm. Don't want to insult your family, but that is just plain strange. Not a widespread occurrence, to go be California's documented examples.]

Waxman-Markey details the penalty clause for exceeding your emission allowance – double the going rate. This means that ultimately carbon isn’t capped at all – its just expensive. Improve efficiency enough and people won’t mind paying the premium.

Interesting. It seems that any post mentioning Jevons Paradox gets automatically deleted. Maybe you should blog on it and explain why.

[JR: I have already blogged on the rebound effect, which is the main issue here, so yes, I delete people who post stuff that isn't true that I have already blogged on. I will get around to Jevons after Waxman-Markey.]

I think Greenpeace telling the world this bill is a watered down compromise with the industry etc. makes it less ‘radical’ and ‘leftist’ in the eyes of politicians and business people who’s support is needed to get the bill passed and make it work. So don’t be too harsh on GP.

My ‘amateur’ view is, Joe, that both you and Jim Beacon (see above: May 17, 4:20 pm are right . Thanks for explaining your position in relation to Greenpeace’s.

In my experience, for an intentional paradigm shift to happen, what is being done that is wrong must be named, understood/felt as wrong, and turned from. To effect an intentional paradigm shift, can one (rationally) go with an approach that is effectively the same as pretending one is only a little bit pregnant. It seems to me that one is either living with integrity in the new paradigm or one is still part of the old. Anything else has a high probabilty of being motivated reasoning.

From my (and I hope) rational observations, we have–and playing with the wording of the assertion offered–a representative economy (i.e. an existing government that conforms to our economic choices. Isn’t government today, preponderantly, about the money? If so, until the difference between how much time we spend involved in acts of self-governance, and how much time we work to pay the taxes on which government operates become more commiserate (here in NY the tax free day is around today), is it rational to feel that we have a government (beyond the economy; beyond our economic choices and how we are living)?

Given the trends in the science of climate change and modeling, the “precious time,” for what you experience as rational, has been wasted. Systems do collapse. Concerning this fact, about the only choice we rationally have is whether a collapse, when it happens, is intentional, or bits us/US in the butt. In our situation there _MAY_ be time for intentional catastrophic change that could tip us/US out of klimakatastrophe (i.e. a paradigm shift). If so, won’t the change need to be as radical as repenting and embracing the four Constitutional changes I have outlined which our economic choices have caused us/US to be traitors toward?

Regardless, I hope you do start working with the tools at hand, and for the reasons you state. Personally, I have been trying to do things, as you suggest, for my whole adult life. The sooner you find out it does not work, the sooner you may be willing to give up your exclusive trust in them; to become open to thinking differently–an more complexly–about the nature of the systemic dynamics we are in the midst of. Conversely, it is also possible, because you are a woman, that you and the work you do will be treated differently than I have been.

In any event, do you realize how quickly collapses happen when everyone is “on board” for it (and I find that most people I talk with are pretty ignorant of what the science is behind the change we are in; at best they seem to just want the problem to go away)? In addition, aren’t loyal oppositions vital for evolution. If something other than peer pressure and motivated reasoning is to dominate social behaviors systemically important? Without them isn’t a collapse of a status quo assured? And, if so, isn’t such a collapse thanks to a mix of denial, ignorance, limits relative to what can be emotionally processed, and lies?

And speaking of ignorance and the essence of time, the staff person I spoke to at my Representative’s office was a self-describe neophyte relative to climate change. For a person who works for a Congressperson who serves on The Select Committee on Energy Security and Climate Change, is such, an interesting hire? Can such staff help a Representative be the leadership tool I hear you feel is there to be used? Regardless, I advised him that the statements about atmospheric methane at the Committee’s “Science Basics“ page was wrong. I, again, volunteered to network/be networked with, constituents in the 19th Congressional District of NY relative to working on Climate change at the municipal level. Silly, aren’t I?