Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: (TED Talk) Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy [View all]NickB79
(20,286 posts)62. I'm going by respected scientists such as James Hansen
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=3&emc=eta1
And by all the new research that finds fracked gas is as bad for climate change as burning coal: http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/natural-gas-from-fracking-emissions-can-double-those-from-coal.html
This wasn't taken into consideration by the IPCC because it was only discovered in the past year, after the IPCC concluded their latest climate panel. And fracked natural gas appears to be the next big thing energy-wise, with the US setting up to become a net energy exporter of our dirty gas within the next decade.
I understand, you really don't want to hear these things. And I agree with you: I really hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I just can't see how this is going to end well for the human race or the planet when all the trends are pointing in the wrong direction. The one thing that would really, truly change my mind that we might be OK would be to see the atmospheric CO2 trend flatline and then start to decline. But so far, we're almost to 400ppm CO2 with no end in sight at this point.
GLOBAL warming isnt a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves regardless of what we do.
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
And by all the new research that finds fracked gas is as bad for climate change as burning coal: http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/natural-gas-from-fracking-emissions-can-double-those-from-coal.html
"The [greenhouse gas] footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years," states the upcoming study from Howarth, who is a professor of ecology and environmental biology, and other Cornell researchers.
This wasn't taken into consideration by the IPCC because it was only discovered in the past year, after the IPCC concluded their latest climate panel. And fracked natural gas appears to be the next big thing energy-wise, with the US setting up to become a net energy exporter of our dirty gas within the next decade.
I understand, you really don't want to hear these things. And I agree with you: I really hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I just can't see how this is going to end well for the human race or the planet when all the trends are pointing in the wrong direction. The one thing that would really, truly change my mind that we might be OK would be to see the atmospheric CO2 trend flatline and then start to decline. But so far, we're almost to 400ppm CO2 with no end in sight at this point.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
In other words you are going strictly by your own evaluation of the evidence
kristopher
May 2012
#55
Every communication is semantically loaded - at least this one was obvious.
GliderGuider
May 2012
#18
Or, perhaps, you dismiss evidence out-of-hand which does not confirm your beliefs
OKIsItJustMe
May 2012
#27
Your "rebuttal" of Lovins etal leaves the realm of energy efficiency and rebound ...
kristopher
May 2012
#44
That doesn’t follow—(i.e. It's all in where you draw the system boundaries.)
OKIsItJustMe
May 2012
#34
The question is, do “whole lot of little bits add up to” more than the initial savings?
OKIsItJustMe
May 2012
#37
I guess my difficulty is that I don't see further economic productivity as "good".
GliderGuider
May 2012
#57
Having fuel efficient cars in Europe has done nothing to decrease global oil use
GliderGuider
May 2012
#43
I call it a logical deduction. You may call it a hunch if it makes you feel better.
GliderGuider
May 2012
#53