http://www.issues.org/25.1/apt.html

The limitations of many energy sources is hitting home. This is precisely why poll numbers for coal are going up. It is cheap, it is abundant and it is our most precious energy resource. Really disheartening to see "renewable money" being wasted.

Recent poll:

72 percent of opinion leaders nationwide support the use of coal to generate electricity, a significant increase over the past year and the highest level of support since the group (ACCE) began polling nearly 10 years ago.

What about cap-and-trade? Nobody but a fool would have anything to do with that nonsense, but as it says in the great Julie Style song 'The man who got away', "fools will be fooled".

If you want to see utilities robbing energy customers, come to Sweden. They are also being robbed with the help of the government, but perhaps they have themselves to blame, because they voted themselves into the parasitic European Union.,

Given so much more money being sucked into the electricity system from rate payers, I predict too that the economic incentives of all this extra cash flowing will make Len Gould's IMEUC reform proposals on this website look incredibly appealing to private investors, the educated voters, and eventually our politicians. The inherent temptation to get a piece of the growing gravy train should inspire increasing demand for competition in the electricity generation business, and even increasing demands on our politicians to enable ways for consumers and industries to mitigate the pain on their energy bills.

So the fact that there is no scientific evidence of warming (the Earth is currently in a decade-old cooling cycle) do not matter? As to the harm that will come of legislated mandates based on a global warming that is not occurring, I suspect it will be significant and will deepen and expand the economic crisis the nation has encountered.

You can take solace in knowing that the public is so inundated with misinformation and disinformation about global warming that you will not be challenged, nor any of the lawmakers. That said, polls increasingly demonstrate a general and growing public skepticism.

In California, voters rejected two clean-energy proposals. In Colorado, voters opposed raising taxes on oil and gas industries to divert it to "clean energy" projects.

No harm? Think back to the recent food riots around the world that occurred as the result of converting corn into fuel instead of food.

An "Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore's propaganda "documentary" has, at this point, been dissected and revealed to be a collection of exaggerations and outright lies. Forcefeeding it to children in the nation's schools might be deemed harmful, if not a form of child abuse.

There's always harm in unsubstaniated lies on which decisions are based that affect the lives of millions of people. Behind much of the Green agenda is a disdain, a contempt, and even a hatred for human beings.

As for voters in California, they accepted electric deregulation didn't they. That's not much of a recommendation is it.

Speaking of Al Gore's film, they showed it at the engineering university in Bangkok when I taught there. When I stepped into the auditorium to see how many people were present - it was packed - I accidentally fell, and almost seriously damaged my equation writing arm. That was a sign from someone telling me to stay as far away from that film as possible.

No, I don't see any harm at all in accepting global warming - quite the contrary. And, as always, anyone who wants to discuss this in public in a seminar, and is passing through Uppsala, they have the usual invitation. You know, the invitation that ends with ".....amateur hour is over".

Some GREENS do indeed despise human progress in society in general, and the global warming issue has given them a wide support mechanism for change. Many GREENS however are not that full of hatred. It’s just that many who were not before have become GREENS today, since anyone over 40 need only stick their noses out the door to see climate "change" has gripped the planet. Whether it is actually warming or not is still up for some debate, but it's tough to convince anyone that the melting Arctic ice caps and receding mountain glaciers everywhere are caused by anything else. I suppose some who vigorously oppose global warming to protect their vested interests will probably say aliens are visiting earth to carve up the ice and take it all away.

Whether global warming is real or not won't matter because electricity prices will skyrocket for global warming AND all the other reasons in my post above. Since global warming is so passionate with the voters too, it gives the regulators and politicians a great way to justify the rate hikes. Save your pennies, you're going to need them to keep your lights on!

Excuse me, but the Arctic is not melting and Antartica is growing. Glaciers are not receding, they too are growing. You can check out the facts at www.iceagenow.com, a site that tracks the COOLING CYCLE that the Earth has been in since 1998.

What is being discussed by Ferdinand and Bob is not science, but a surrender to the global warming hoax.

As for the climate changing, it has been changing for 4.5 billion years and often does so in cycles that have been chronicled and which are predictable. Something like the current interglacial cycle we are in right now...which, by the way, is coming to an end.

Regardless of global warming, a new energy economy is will have to be constructed or.... That's right, you don't believe in peak oil either. Well, I've got some news for you, sir. Just about everybody believes in peak oil these days, and if they don't they keep it to themselves unless they reside in a crank colony.

As for science, I was expelled from engineering school because I failed everything twice except english and history. Even more lovely, I was expelled from infantry leadership school in the army although I finished first in my class. I was also first in grad school, where they wanted to expell me but couldn't figure out how, and I decided not to tell them. Worst of all, and I hate to admit it, my energy economics textbook is going into a new printing although it has only been out for a year. But I will confess that I'm dumber than stupid because I prefer the opinions of real scientists instead of neurotic bloggers.

I thought the wheels would have fallen off the AGW bus this year, but I underestimated the way that this money generating hysteria sticks - almost as good - as various humorists have pointed out - 'like snot to a coatsleeve.'

"Regardless of global warming, a new energy economy is will have to be constructed or..." Fred's message here is the whole point of his and my comments to this article.

The regulators and politicians know fully well that our bargain electricity prices are unsustainable under the demands our grids are facing, and peak oil will only make it worse. They also know how to use passionate arguments like global warming to get the voters to back their massive looming rate hikes. Given the masses are now primed to believe in global warming, it's a done deal whether it is real or not.

I will admit as of late not being impressed by academics comments about AGW. They think the debate is over, so no further explanation is necessary. I find this arrogant, and wrong.

(Don't worry John, I find you arrogant and wrong as well!)

And Fred, while I appreciate and even agree with the pragmatism to which you apply to global warming debate (we have lots of over problems anyway, including peak oil and and overextended population, etc.) I can also see in other people why this viewpoint is unsatisfactory. After all, we ARE talking about retooling trillions of dollars in infrastructure, so perhaps something a little less flippant is in order.

[Great. I think I've offended everyone. Now I can begin.....]

Someone referenced an interesting video clip:

Burke Video

It's a very OLD discussion of global warming/climate change done by James Burke in 1989. Way before the issue got highly politicized.

Anyway, if you watch even a bit of it, you will see that humanity has been wracked with climate change problems throughout its history. Dramatic changes that have destroyed civilizations, and caused others to flourish.

I don't think many AGW disbelievers find this very hard to swallow. In fact, a core complaint from them is that "climates change, so why worry about this stuff?"

Well, I think one problem is that the last time we had a major climate shift (1300), the world population was no more than about 500 million people. We know have more than 6 Billion, and furthermore, live in a highly technical and interconnected society, which, by the way, also uses huge amounts of energy. (This also ignores the problem of peak oil, and peak energy in general given our historic growth in population and energy use.)

So, while I do find the academics a bit smug in their AGW ascendancy, I find the AGW critics a bit parochial in their complaints that AGW concerns will limit our ability to burn coal.

I think here you can see the basis of Prof. Banks pragmatism: There's other stuff afoot here, so if AGW is the simple way to explain it, maybe that's not so bad.

A rapid climate change event NOW would be especially bad because:

1. Our highly populated world would result in billions of deaths because of low food reserves, safe places to live, etc.

2. Our highly interconnected world would have many MORE dead because of a livestyle using essential trade links of thousands of miles that will be broken.

3. Our urban populations are not well-skilled in more basic living strategies.

4. Our biodiversity will suffer more than normal because we have limited these resources to tiny islands of nature that will be vulnerable to point failure and inability to migrate.

This all means that a climate change event will be MUCH WORSE (even in terms of percentage of population loss) than if we have smaller numbers, living simply (or even just smaller numbers). Perhaps what is worse, we likely lose our technical prowess, and enter some kind of dark age wherein we'd have to relearn hard fought lessons again. In any case, we will have to learn to live more sustainably, and locally, as our trade connections will be severed.

So, I ask you, is it better to learn how to do this BEFORE such an event occurs, instead of after? Isn't peak oil ENOUGH of a warning shot to get us going in this regard? If AGW is not the issue, then I'd also say that whether or not we build a coal plant is not an issue either. At best the AGW deniers are countering pettiness with pettiness.

The only facts that I am comfortable with are:

1. Peak oil is real. And bad. (Therefore, Peak oil is real bad.) 2. Rapid climate change has occurred in the past, and will occur again. 3. We DO have high levels of CO2 (higher than the last 600,000, during which time SEVERAL climate change events have occurred.) 4. High levels of CO2 seem to distabilize the climate further. This is due to ample evidence of positive-feedback components (albedo changes, limits on ocean CO2 uptake, etc.) so higher CO2 levels will likely make climate change events happen sooner and be more dramatic when they DO happen. 5. Our large, advanced, technical, and interconnected population will do quite poorly in the event of a climate change event. Much worse than what our ancestors went through.

I think this is the core basis of Fred pragmatism; we need to sort this stuff out anyway, so let's go about doing that. I would add that the main 'ADDED' cost of this belief is building nuclear power plants instead of coal plants, which, if done properly, will have little added cost to society, though it may not be good for coal interests.

Sobering commentary, but very realistic and likely accurate coming from you as usual.

Alan's article here, as petty as it may be, is very indicative of how many average consumers think. The public has been spoiled by bargain electricity rates for years, and most will whine and complain bitterly when our utility industry tries to hike rates in great big leaps. Accusations of corporate theft of consumers' pockets becomes the common cry, which is fundamental to why the public, and our governments legislate regulation of utility companies and their monopolies in the first place.

I've noticed this with food prices as well. Industries are loathe to raise prices, until the pressures are so high that they just do so, the consumer be damned. This has happened with food and with utilities as well. Yet another thing to thank the oil spike for, but perhaps was inevitable anyway.

In Connecticut, the proceeds of RGGI are supposed to go to energy efficiency and renewable energy measures, and possibly straight rate relief. For now, it looks like RGGI won't have a big effect on rates (for reasons described above), and I wouldn't bet that it will have much effect on the climate. It may have "show the way" value toward a national cap-and-trade program. Whether that is beneficial or not will depend. I would think that it would just make coal cheaper in China, but hey, who knows?

Has anyone noticed that Mr Caruba does not seem to understand the difference between atmospheric carbon, part of the natural carbon cycle, and fossil carbon. The problem of course is that humans have removed FOSSIL carbon, oxidized it and then dumped this waste (CO2) into the atmospheric commons...at a rate of about 8 billion tons of carbon per year. It's the added carbon burden that is the problem, the oceans for example are approaching their limit for absorption of CO2 as evidenced by the decrease in pH by at least .1 pH unit. One tenth of a pH unit suggests a trend that could very well be catastrophic.

Acidification of the oceans can be definitively measured, is not denied by any legitimate scientists as far as I know, and has nothing to do with "global warming" controversies...which seem to be so confusing for alot of folks.

I think (hope?) that Mr. Caruba DOES understand this difference, but feels that with some sophistry, he can get us to not see it.

Fossil fuel use, is, in effect, augmented respiration on the part of humanity. This makes us different and separate from the rest of the world's fauna. Whether we are obligated to do anything about this is (to some) debatable, whether or not this behavior has consequences is not (in my opinion).

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

Vision of UN Secretary-General on Climate Change (2007):

• “Climate change is a serious threat to development everywhere” • “Today, the time for doubt has passed. The IPCC has unequivocally affirmed the warming of our climate system, and linked it directly to human activity” • “Slowing or even reversing the existing trends of global warming is the defining challenge of our age” • “Galvanizing international action on global warming is one of main priorities as Secretary General”

Drawing from the conclusion of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (on climate change) 2007 Process, involving:

• +2500 scientific expert reviewers • 800 contributing authors • 450 lead authors from • +130 countries

Where does Alan get his expert scientific information to the contrary?

In view of the bleak outlook for mitigating climate change which is corrected frequently to be more dire and urgent by the IPCC, and in view of public confusion or apathy on this grave issue, it is damaging to the welfare of humanity and the earth for a respected news service to contribute to the problem by lending credence to falsehood, thereby magnifying it and increasing the confusion and inaction and danger.

www.climateaudit.org

These are the guys that exposed the fraud of Mann's "hockey stick" graph, the very same graph used by the IPCC to justify it's AGW "consensus", by showing that one could input any random set of variables into the model and it would always come out in the hockey stick shape. In other words Phil, the algorithim was constructed to be intentionally biased (e.g. a predicated outcome) toward AGW pronouncement.

It's called FRAUD, Phil.

The real question you should be asking is why these fraudmongers are allowed to publish in these energy newsletters. Every month we get more and more wind schisters hawking their wares, usually with a caveat of "we need the government to subsidized us" in some fashion so they can make a profit selling their snakeoil.

Frankly Phil, I feel the same way you do regarding unqualified submissions to these newsletters, albeit my objections arise from wind and other BS energy sources. Unlike you, I have taken the time to test these fantasy claims, while you are seemingly easily duped by them.

I had the opportunity to teach a class about certain aspects of the energy sector, and the question of global warming came up. Rather than try and replicate a long winded response with reference to Climate Audit and other anti-AGW science sources, I simply had each person draw a graph (using standard college rule notebook paper and a metric ruler) of CO2 as a total of atmospheric makeup. The only caveats I had were that the graph had to be to scale of 0% to 100%, with no "squiggly" breaks in the x axis, and with the y axis representing a timeline of 1900 (285 ppm) to 2010 (385 ppm, with 100 ppm due to fossil fuel use). The grade would simply be Pass or Fail.

Needless to say, the only ones who received the Pass grade were the ones who simply handed in a blank graph. But you should have seen the furrowed brows of the AGW believers like Phil try their damndest to draw that tiny imperceptable curve wherein the increase of CO2 from 285 to 385 ppm amounts to 0.00285 to 0.00385 on a percentage basis! Alan, you would have laughed your ass off!

For the record, my company is totally in the tank for this AGW BS, since they stand to make a mint on reselling higher cost electricity at 10% markup. Alan is not just making up this expose on utilities and the States willingly screwing over the consumer.

Dave Smith

Just a few observations from a know-nuthin engineer..........

1. Why do you think that, with all of the smart fellows out in the world, that there has been no agreement on a definitive study? After all this isn't string theory -- or is it?

2. Why would anyone look to the UN for anything?

3. Why would a proven scientific principle require a PR campaign? ... Gravity doesn't need one! It works just fine whether we believe in it or not. Why should global warming need to wander into the realm of religion in order to create disciples?

4. I am ready to believe, just prove it -- for real. Till then, don't ask anyone to spend a gozillion dollars on something that you want me to have faith in just because you say so.

5. Assuming that you really wanted to find the true answer...... what exactly would you do? How would YOUR scientific proof read?

This whole thing smacks of the old flat earth society - and I think (really) that we can agree on how that scientific difference ended. Let's agree that it is either true or it isn't -- and until it is either proven or dis-proven properly, NO ONE is capable of determining the proper thing to 'do' about it.

Maybe someone should make a movie........I dunno.... what do you think? How about an old fashioned contest -- a REAL intellectual competition....... now we just need a sponsor --- who will pony up enough prize money to get this issue resolved once and for all?

I am also a know-nuthin engineer, but I didn’t need any education or massive studies to know what normally causes ice to disappear all by itself.

But of course, Alan says it's just our imagination, the ice fields are actually growing, not shrinking. Tell that to the Inuit natives in northern Canada who have fewer ice roads and disintegrating permafrost under their houses, and the massive upheaval of polar bears that depend on the ice for survival.

The earth has been in global warming for the last 12,000 years - a long interglacial period as they go - which briefly separates ice-ages that last for more than 100,000 years & have been going on several million years. Even if you idiots were successful in stopping the process it would only speed up the next galcial cycle. Second - even the worse pollution by man is distant factor to cycles of the Sun & eatth volcanoes. Mt St Hellens is worse polluter on USWC - emitting more CO2 & emissions than all US industry on West Coast combined. The current 12 active global volcanoes & sea floor rift do same thing essentially globally.

Carbon Tax should not be allowed until the environmental idiots that sponsored Kyoto & this concept for Europe - straighten out the global increase in pollution they caused by not putting any restraints on developing countries & moved China from #7 polluter & Russia from #9 polluter into the #1 & #4 spot respectively. They have set gains by developed nations on the environment back decades - NIMBY focused ideals like the stupid Carbon Tax are just trading rip off scam they sell to anit-industry green morons as way to eleminate fossil fuels.

Someone has to prove to me why US harms the environment by putting on single Clean Coal Utility plant and yet nothing is said when China puts on a dirty coal Utility plant EVERY WEEK! Go clean up your mess from Kyoto before you put any more stupid regulations in place in countries that actually monitor, regulate & invest in enviornmental controls.

I will make you $100 bet that in 2011 when this solar cycle peaks and causes weather & warming patterns that all the stupid Kyoto backers come out of woodwork to claim it is all caused by global warming & CO2 emissions......just like they have done during the last 2 El Nino cycles.

Actually wind I can see in many places off the coast and in various locations, but even then it's far from ideal compared to other parts of the country.

That said, if solar is expected to make breakthroughs that will come with enough money and time, then the money does need to be there. Getting it from the northwest though is just stupid.

And that's coming from me ... someone in the northeast solar pv industry. Normally you'd think I'd shut up for my own good, but I've learned long ago my pipsqueak opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to the overwhelming masses of blathering idiots who have been shaping our energy policies lately.

What I'm saying is that this topic - AGW - has become and will remain a non topic for my good self, because the upshot of the above article and comments is that nothing can be done about it, which might very well be true. I'm excluding of course cap-and-trade from my 'not-to-do' list, because I might find myself studying this scientifically weird topic in detail some day, since it is and will remain a scam.

I mean...you see...what I am trying to say is that instead of wasting time arguing about something that we can't do anything about, maybe it's best to concentrate on the something that we can. I mean installing the energy policy that your's truly is so fond of showcasing these days, and which features a larger base of nuclear (given economic and political constraints) , and also some attention paid to improving third generation nuclear equipment if that is possible, multi-country research on the fourth generation. and some really serious thinking by our political masters on the subject of energy security and reprocessing.

Agreed on CAp-and-Trade, Fred. Its a scam.

I have doubts about RGGI. Reducing carbon emissions from electricity generation in the northeast means very little when compared to what will be released by China, India, and other sectors of the US economy over the next 20 years.

I also recognize the limitations of modern climate science. No one knows exactly what will happen as CO2 continues to rise. It is possible that the author is right and we do not need to worry. That is less probable than sea level rise, changes in ocean circulation, increased severe weather events, etc, etc... Personally, I cant tolerate that much risk.

This article is weak and enough people above have identified faults. There are so many better targets out there.... Gore's plan for 100% renewable electricity generation by 2020 or maybe Greenpeace's new scenario for carbon free energy by 2100 without coal and nuclear.

Let's be clear about this for a change. What we're talking about is careers. Kyoto was as much a scandal as the Swift Boat Captains, but in the words of that great tune 'These Foolish Things', what it has meant is '...airline tickets to romantic places'. Those tickets are a real temptation to do and say strange things in those romantic places. Of course, with that 'good', there is also some 'bad'. Imagine having to sit through a meeting where know-nothings are waffling about cap-and-trade.

Accepting AGW, and trying to do something about it on the local level, while trying at high level meetings to convince others to do something makes sense to this humble teacher. Doing something about it means a marginal increase in nuclear, a large new slice of reneables, and __________ with fossil fuels.

I do not believe AGW proponents who claim to be "climate scientists" are stupid. On the contrary, I find them incredibly devious and patently dishonest - preying on the masses' relative ignorance of advanced scientific issues by knowingly promoting a fraudulent scheme all wrapped up in impressive looking "science-esque" packaging, all the while collecting millions in grants from politicians, beauracrats, and tax-exempt/audit-exempt ecofascist activists.

No, it is the willingness of regular folks to bend over and grab the ankles in submission to this fraudmongering, apparently believing all the while that killing coal-fired energy and breeder nukes in deference to expensive intermittent "renewables" - it is THAT which I find to be "stupid".

BTW - after perusing the list of IPCC-sanctioned "climate scientists", it appears that just about any sod off the streets can claim the title of "climate scientist" as long as they toe the Marxist line. You have many Keynesian economists, political scientists, environmental psuedo-scientists, linguists, social activists, university interns, et al.........but few true meteorologists and solar scientists.

Why is that?

Dave Smith

Artic ocean aint filled with "Koolaid".

I think you're confusing "lists of climte scientists" of IPCC with that denier group from Oregon. Can you pose a few specific examples from IPCC list?

Please note that I don't really blame this line of thinking as I am probably guilty of some of it myself (namely cognitive dissonance with respect to peak oil). And for what it's worth, I do think the academics have more work to do in explaining and proving global warming. Just because they've convinced politicians of it does not make it so (more the reverse, actually). Nevertheless, I think it is telling that there are some people for which no amount of evidence would suffice to tear them from their status quo.

This all leads back to the wisdom of Prof. Banks; climate change induced by man is PROBABLY real, but not nearly as well-proven as it should be to warrant the huge economic changes needed (at least in some people's minds.) But it is likely ENOUGH and the impacts are dire ENOUGH to consider it seriously. So given that, why not modify vehicles (we need to do this anyway due to peak oil) and build additional nuclear plants instead of coal plants. My knowledge of the energy infrastructure informs me that we will be burning lots of coal for a very long time -- so there are hard practical limits to the rate of which we can change things. This all means that as we become better informed of the situation, we can modify the policy as needed.

This seems to be a rational course given we probably can't wait until we know everything and we definitely can't afford to shut down every coal plant tomorrow. (No Koolaid was consumed in the writing of this message.)

I simply prefer honesty in the debate. I'm definitely not of the opinion that society should bankrupt itself totally in a blind attempt at mitigation. However, some steps are clearly indicated now, until unassailable scientific certainty is available. Prefering conservation, nuclear, solar-thermal, geo-thermal, clean coal and perhaps wind if it can be proven to actually reduce overall GHG emissions over standard coal generation are obvious, even if they cause up to perhaps a 25% increase in electricity costs. Obviously also required will be commesurate trade penalties against jurisdictions which refuse to comply, a step which should also be taken on worker threatment standards and general environmental issues as well. Taking every opportunity to promote electrical transportation over petroleum fueled transportation, perhaps even up to the point of making any assistance now being proposed to the auto industry contringent on their achieving specific targets in transitioning to selling of PHEV and/or high efficiency vehicles, esp. grid-wise.

So much is obvious, and entirely affordable, I don't see why all the heat.

Laughable isn't it? Unfortunately, gravity is EASY to prove, hence no reason to vote. Climate "science" has yet to prove ANYTHING, their models are hopelessly wrong, and can't even predict the current COOLING trend, so instead of admitting they have no clue what they are doing, they call it Climate CHANGE instead of global warming. Same old sh*t, different container. And just in case someone tells the emperors they are wearing no clothes, they hide behind the sobriquet of, "the debate is over", when there hasn't even BEEN A DEBATE!!!!

I bring you back to your regularly scheduled coolaid drinking.

BTW, Len that northwest passage was open before, to sailing ships. That's why they called it the northwest passage! Ohmygod, we're able to sail where we sailed before! Call out the mounties!!!

LOL

"BTW, Len that northwest passage was open before, to sailing ships. That's why they called it the northwest passage! Ohmygod, we're able to sail where we sailed before! Call out the mounties!!!"

Check out the wiki page on Northwest Passage (quote: "The British called the hypothetical route the "Northwest Passage") The British were looking for such a passage because the Pope had deemed the Africa and S. America trade routes belonged to Spain and Portugal. Hence the desire to find a Northwest Passage.

Sir John Franklin and all of his men died (froze to death) trying to find the Northwest Passage in the 1840's, which was not successfully navigated until 1903-1906 by Roald Amundsen.

It's misrepresented crap like Jeff's comment that really makes me feel the anti-AGW are grasping at straws. This does NOT improve your case. Rather, it makes me feel that you, Jeff, are either a truly ignorant and thoughtless person that makes not effort to check on the factual content of whatever whim in your head you wish to type out, or a malevolent spin-doctor who believes nothing is off limits (including lies) to advance your cause.

Jeff may try to spin this as being part of the gravity joke, but it was clearly a different section of the post. So no go there. Don't even try.

Technically, I can see some areas of concern about AGW theories. But politically, the anti-AGW folk seem more apt to throw of smokescreens of deceptions or outright falsehoods (as above) than any reasoned argument. Why is that? I think it's because they really don't like global warming and its implications (hell, who does?) and are willing to do anything (like lying, see above). It's sad that they don't seem interested in adding any real content to this important debate.

However, given the potential problem which are obvious to anyone with even a modicum of science, it seems rational to make such choices as would be prudent in case the final result does turn out to be that dramatically increasing GHG levels seriously harms the environment.

I'm also, as I've said before, willing to grant that when the science is finally done it may turn out that a significant (and controlled) increase in atmospheric GHG levels is exactly what earth needs to maintain a stable warm climate while it enters the 100,000 year cold part of the next Milankovich Cycle (eg. the next ice age), an event which is due to start "any century now. Or we may be fools for wasting all the CO2 resources at hand now instead of waiting until they are needed......

The heat to light ratio of this discussion is increasing rapidly, to little effect.

I propose a question for your consideration:

If: increasing CO2 concentrations are driving global climate change; and, man is responsible for the increasing CO2 concentrations; then, by what percentage must man's emissions be reduced to halt the increase in CO2 concentrations? (NOTE: CO2 concentrations began increasing ~1750, when global emissions were 1/2000 of todays emissions.)

President-elect Obama has apparently bought into the "80% reduction by 2050" mantra for the US, but has said nothing about the rest of the world, especially the developing world. Is an 80% reduction of the US' 20% share of global CO2 emissions enough to stop the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Does anyone care?

I recognize that some here would have us believe that whatever must be done would be cheap and easy. The IEA, on the other hand, believes a 50% reduction globally by 2050 would require the investment of ~$45 trillion. The other 50% would likely be far more difficult and expensive.

A trillion here, a trillion there; pretty soon you're talking about real money. (Paraphrased from Everett McKinley Dirksen.)

If anyone can provide true scientific contradictions from a group that is not funded by Exxon or another fossil fuel group I would love to see it. A group whose science truly peer reviewed.

Who do you suppose Alan Caruba bills for the time he took to write this piece?

Seriously though, I want to remain open minded but every time I hear a claim that goes against the prevailing wisdom of global warming and I follow it through it turns out to be junk science.

These groups don’t have to prove anything…all they need to do is cause a shred of doubt. It’s a strategy that worked very well for the tobacco industry for years.

Does anyone doubt that smoking causes cancer anymore?

But I agree with Jim and Len's well argued points that we may not know what the outcome of global warming will be. It does seem prudent given the potential disaster to mitigate.

You've raised this same point many times before. The short answer (from me anyway) is "I don't know". Some people say the CO2 levels should not exceed 450 ppm. Others have recently said anything over 350 ppm is too high. We are at about 385 ppm now, compared with 350 ppm in 1988.

"Is an 80% reduction of the US' 20% share of global CO2 emissions enough to stop the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?" I'm quite sure it is not.

"Does anyone care?" Yes. That would be basically the rest of the world, and of late, somewhat more than half the population of the U.S. (Actually, McCain called for nearly similar CO2 reductions in his campaign as well.)

I can't think of ANYONE here would have us believe that this will be cheap and easy. (Where do you get this from?) Yes, $45 Trillion is a lot of money, no doubt. But how much money is likely to be spent on the world energy infrastructure anyway in the next 40 years? I'm sure that's quite a big number as well. The point is with a little PLANNING and perhaps some THOUGHT, this monies can be expended carefully such that the costs of such a changeover can be minimized.

So I guess Len and I propose a strategy of thoughtful actions to address a problem of potentially great severity in an effort to minimize the cost and discomfort of effecting such a change. [The boils down to building nuclear power to displace coal as coal plants are shut down, and use PHEVs to displace oil with nuclear electricity for transportation.] (Don't mean to be speaking for you Len, hope you understand...)

Another strategy is to wail about how big the problem is and how hopeless is is to fix.

Yet another strategy is to pretend there are no concerns at all with bluster, falsehoods and reapplications of the same discredited junk science.

If I ever gave any indication that this will be EASY, then I'm sorry to have confused you. Nothing could be further from the truth! It is the hardest thing that mankind has ever faced. (Even Hitler would've have died after a bit...) And to be fair, the lack of scientific clarity or accuracy or whatever on the situation makes it all the harder! (If we had a steaming meteor heading toward Earth, i.e., something definitive, it would be much easier to motivate action.) Instead we have aspects of uncertainty, but a large core notion that something REALLY, REALLY, BAD could be happening. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, I didn't think the North Pole would vanish in the Summer, but that is likely to be a reality in the next 5-10 years! What more do you want?!?! Wake the hell up!

Years from now, when may of us may be living a greatly diminished existence (I think this is more likely than not, at this point), if we are alive at all, we might be asked by our children or grandchildren why we didn't try harder. What are you going to say? "Well there were this people called Scientists that tried to warn us. But we didn't believe them because we viewed them as people we called Liberals, who would increase the cost of things we use, like the electricity to run our TVs and stuff."

On the flip side, it would be GREAT if I found myself being teased as the 'alarmist' that "insisted" we build nuclear power plants in lieu of coal-fired plants. "Wow Jim, what an idiot you were! Making us build a plant which, over the long run, especially with new technology, is statistically the same price as coal, and maybe a little cheaper, especially with the increased cost of mining coal these days!"

Boy, will I have egg on MY face!

Your mutual admiration society notwithstanding, the so-called consensus has been debunked a thousand times, and yet like dog doo-doo on your shoes, keeps hanging around. Do I have to post the exact same links again and again? I don't know who this Zimmer is, first time I've ever seen him post, but apparently he loves the cool aid so much he still believes in Exxon conspiracies and Santa Klaus. Word to the wise there Eric, Exxon LOVES the global warming swindle, they intend to make $billions MORE from trading carbon credits.

No one wants to address Ed's brilliant point because it is all too disconcerting. Even IF CO2 is causing... something... the US is in no position to actually do anything about it. Of course if we have a no-peeing section of the pool... oh that's right I've already pursued that argument to its logical conclusion... The whole topic reeks of deja vu.

Len your point sounds reasonable, now take a look at the $45 TRILLION needed to "mitigate" the "problem". Where exactly should $45 TRILLION get spent, for the most bang for the buck? To paraphrase your argument, substituting terms, let's say there is a .001% chance we're going to get hit by an asteroid, which will destroy all life on earth. Why don't we spend $45 TRILLION to defend against that? Don't you believe I could get a consensus of astrophysicists that would back my odds? Maybe after we politicize it a bit, we can get other scientists to jump on board, especially after they smell the gravy train and the $5BILLION a year spent on new asteroid mitigation research. The beauty of asteroids is the chicken little crowd could have a REAL "sky is falling" moment. :)

See how it goes? What seems perfectly reasonable with a small substitution looks pretty darn silly, hence the gravity metaphor. BTW, this technique will stand you in good stead on your next IQ test, if you'd like to pursue my scores. ;)

One goal, one plan, one budget for the entire globe. Know where you are going. Know how you are going to get there. Know what it is likely to cost. Know from whence the money is going to come. Get everyone on board. Get the job done.

Otherwise, move to high ground or a nice, cool, dry cave. Unless the globe is on board, the whole process is meaningless and ineffectual. (It might well be anyway.)

China is a bigger emitter than the US today; and, its emissions are growing at about 10% per year. Their emissions will be twice our current emissions within 10 years. Unless that stops, the CO2 battle is lost before it begins.

Driving the entire US industrial base to China and India would reduce US emissions, but not global emissions. There are no local, national or regional solutions to the problem about which you appear to be so concerned. Its global or nothing. Deal with it.

The reality is that any nation which chooses to go it alone and go first will be left bending over holding its ankles. BOHICA. Canada and much of Europe have figured that out.

Now, if you want to build nukes instead of coal plants, go for it. I'm with you. I think nuclear makes a lot of sense. Develop deep drilling technology and exploit dry, hot rock geothermal. Go for it. I'm with you.

But, if the strategy is bankrupt the coal industry (Obama), promote "clean coal in China and India (Biden), impede nuclear (enviros) and build the grid on wind and solar (SEIA & AWEA), count me out. I believe in miracles; but, I believe only God performs them. All I hear now is "The Great Oz".

We desperately need to do something about the hundreds of billions of dollars being transferred out of the country for energy. That is a real and growing economic catastrophe. However, we can actually solve that problem, readily measure success and clean-up the environment at the same time. The greenhouse gas issue is reasonably addressed as a serendipitous byproduct.

However, the reverse (throw all our money at “climate change” first) will not work because there is no way to objectively determine whether or not we are actually being successful. That being the case, we will tend to endlessly shovel increasingly larger amounts of our limited resources (money) into a bottomless pit in the forlorn expectation of seeing quick improvements. We will not, as even the most ardent AGW proponent must admit.

As far as emissions from China are concerned, with the population’s increasing wealth comes the growing realization that pollution is not good for the citizens. The Chinese government is pragmatic and will continue to improve the situation (although not as fast as we in the West might prefer) because they do desire a better lot for their people. Pollution levels (and as a by-product, greenhouse gases) will ultimately decrease.

Suggest we avoid "feel good" but ineffective actions, take the longer view and fix the real problem: energy.

Pollution levels can be decreased without decreasing "greenhouse gas" emissions, as we have demonstrated over several decades. Absent permanent sequestration, coal combustion produces CO2 regardless. While the Chinese government may well grow more concerned about pollutant emissions, it will be a lot longer before they swear off coal.

Solving the imported oil issue, in the relatively short term, may be politically impossible. In the longer term, there are probably solutions, but they will be neither easy nor cheap, absent a major breakthrough.

I agree that pursuing energy independence makes more sense than pursuing the elimination of climate change, if only because we can achieve an increased level of independence on our own, if we choose to do so. We cannot eliminate climate change on our own; or, in all likelihood, even reduce it in absolute terms.

I am skeptical of those who would feed the rest of us to the alligators, in the hope that they would be eaten last. I actually see them as superior alligator food.

But in any case, I should have been clearer. YES, it would make no sense to affect CO2 emission controls without worldwide cooperation. Does that suffice?

Does this mean that worldwide cooperation on CO2 emission controls is needed to build nuclear plants instead of coal plants? I'm not sure. The economics of nuclear are probably a little worse now, but close enough to make a good case, especially with a good, new design (IFR).

Does this mean new vehicle technologies such as PHEVs require worldwide cooperation on CO2 emissions controls? No. Peak Oil issues push for such technologies in any case.

Ed repeats:

"One goal, one plan, one budget for the entire globe. Know where you are going. Know how you are going to get there. Know what it is likely to cost. Know from whence the money is going to come. Get everyone on board. Get the job done."

You forgot Kumbaya. Again, what are you really trying to say? That this requires unprecedented political cooperation, so that any effort is practically hopeless? Well, that's possible.

But I will submit that sometimes large problems DO get solved in somewhat disorganized fashions. Note how the Soviets encircled the 6th Army when it got stuck in Stalingrad. Not exactly a "plan" or a unified "goal", but it "got the job done".

If even a portion of the population is thinking and planning on how to proceed, perhaps when further evidence appears which is convincing enough to justify the economic costs involved, then we as a group WILL act.

I don't support economically devastating measures. Let coal plants run out their lifetimes. Work to get nuclear cheaper than coal. IFRs+French "nuclear socialism" might do the trick. I don't think this is radical.

Perhaps what you are saying, Ed, is that this is all hopeless. There is NO WAY (politically if not technically) that we are ever going to keep CO2 levels from rising to 500 ppm or more. So let the climate change chips fall where they may. Honestly, I don't know what to think about this point. Perhaps the hope can change? Way back in 2003, Chris Rock thought the notion of a black man as president of the U.S was so absurd, he made a comedy about it. So I guess it's either hope or looking for the high ground and that dry cave.

Michael,

Agreed that peak oil should be fixed first. It has a much stronger economic imperative, though still dicey at that. I personally would settle for energy security instead of full up independence; the marginal costs of avoiding that first drop of imported oil is pretty high.

Jeff,

I certainly hope I am not licking the Greenland wounds, as they are not on my person. But such is your temperament to determine reality as you see it in your own head. Good luck with all of that. The Vikings never sailed to Attu, Kiska, or Cook Inlet as far as I or anyone else is aware. Good luck in your dreamquest.

No nation in its right mind will choose to go first. Europe and Canada did initially, but are back in their right minds now.

My solution is stated above: One goal, one plan, one budget for the entire globe. Know where you are going. Know how you are going to get there. Know what it is likely to cost. Know from whence the money is going to come. Get everyone on board. Get the job done.

The obvious first step is to stop the growth of emissions. The US is essentially there. Much of Europe and Canada are not there, though they agreed to be there and more when they signed Kyoto. China and India, among others, are not even thinking about it.

The US, Europe and Canada cannot reasonably reduce their emissions quickly enough to offset the growth in Chinese and Indian emissions. Therefore, stopping the growth of emissions requires the participation of China, India and the other developing countries. Shifting emissions from the developed countries to the developing countries accomplishes nothing, from a global CO2 concentration perspective.

My issue, which I readily confess to repeating here, is that nothing which has been proposed to date appears to be a SOLUTION to the perceived problem. The IEA $45 trillion 50% reduction by 2050 is not a SOLUTION; it is half a solution. The Obama 80% by 2050 US "go it alone" reduction is nothing more than self-righteous masochism. It would be as successful as Canada's and Europe's Kyoto commitments.

Ultimately the question is whether you are into self-righteous "feel good" displays, or whether you are serious about solving what you perceive to be a serious problem. I don't detect much seriousness.

If ANY country wants to participate in global free trade, they must be on board a universal plan to curb emissions, or the rest gang up on them, perhaps through the UN, and bar them from the economic game.

While I understand your last comment, there are a number of people who are not capable of anything more complex than "flipping burgers", which is probably the most demanding position in a burger joint, other than manager. Also, there will be a continuing demand for people in the burger joints. While more manufacturing in North America would provide more upward mobility for those currently working in the burger joints, it would also provide additional opportunities for those for whom working in a burger joint would be a step up.

Also, temporary trade embargoes would not encourage many entrepreneurs to start new businesses which would be swamped when the "temporary" ended.

Ed

The other reason I raise this subject is because many renewable energy industry boosters are touting "green jobs" to foster more employment in good paying jobs for the west, which in effect would replace the many good ones we’ve lost over the years in shuttered manufacturing industries.

The primary driver of cost differences in manufactured goods is labor and benefits costs. Yes, energy is a factor, but not usually a very large one. Yes, pollution controls would add to foreign costs, reducing their advantage. However, the jobs would go back to the developing countries for the same reason they are there now - low labor costs. Maybe not entirely, but enough to discourage major North American investment to restart businesses which had lost the competition to developing countries in the past.

We need to avoid "broken window economics" when looking at the potential of "green jobs". I am concerned that many of those touting green jobs would be perfectly happy to break a lot of windows to create them.

Ed

My proposed solution is a) every signatory government to take a solid stand based in solid science, thus silencing the Carubas etc. IPCC estimates of effects acknowledged, with stated uncertainties, rapid public expert review of any and all dissenter material, widely published progress on analysis of dissents, and results of those, again with stated uncertainties. b) establish an agreed target increased cost of energy (eg. electricity +US$0.025/kwh, gasoline, diesel, heating oil; comparable for N Gas +US$0.38/gal) among all signatories. c) countries do not set emissions reductions target percentages, instead asess penalties for emissions per capita above a treaty set worldwide yearly per-capita emissions target d) the increased costs above treaty annual baseline day in each country are collected by national govts. or trade tariffs if refusal, naval blockades for cheaters including non-signatories, submitted to a world body for use as emissions reduction funds in designated developing countries. e) countries are expected to use amounts collected from "increased cost of energy" excess to penalty amount "submitted to a world body" as funding for R&D and perhaps subsidies for developing renewables.

Its a bit complex, but the idea is its fair to everyone. eg. France (heavy use of nuclear) would likely not suffer any penalty amount "submitted to a world body" initially, but would still need to increase its energy prices so no unfair competition with other countries. "Emissions reduction funds in designated developing countries" could only be used to fund added costs of reducing emissions on plants already built or being built and paid for by the recipient country.

Much more refinement required, but is simple, understandable by everyone, places the incentive vectors for all participants heading the right direction, and employs market forces as much as possible.

John.

Your proposed solution, while elegant in its fairness, would not reduce global annual CO2 emissions in absolute terms, though it would probably reduce global annual CO2 emissions below what they would otherwise have been. Therefore, it is not actually a solution any more than several other solutions which have been put forth. I'm sure it would make some groups "feel good", especially the "world body", arguably the globe's least effective and most corrupt bureaucracy, which would be in a position to skim significant funds from the penalty stream for personal use. (See: Oil for Palaces, Payloads and Payoffs Program.)

The increases in CO2 emissions in China and India, among others, are the result of massive investments in coal-fired power plants with an expected life of 40-60 years. Those investments will determine, in large part, the future of global annual CO2 emissions, since it is unlikely that the plants will be abandoned before the ends of their useful lives.

I suggest that you add the word "transparent" to your phrase regarding the IPCC handling of dissenting opinion, in the interest of fairness. In fact, you might also add the word "transparent" with regard to the "solid science", such as the world famous "hockey stick generator".

I also suggest that we stop referring to the output from GISS as a "data set". (I suspect John would concur.) Once data collected from a corrupted set of data collection locations (see surfacestations.org) has been "massaged" through the opaque adjustment routines employed by GISS, it is arguably no longer "data". It is, rather, a number set allegedly depicting what the data set would have looked like if it had been collected timely from properly located and maintained data collection locations. I would have been summarily fired for alleging that such a number set was "data".

It appears that the component of the foundation of the "solid science" is built on a surface temperature record with the inherent stability of sand dunes in the desert. I believe that, were the curtain pulled back to provide "transparency", it would reveal a little man (James Hansen) shaking a piece of sheet metal to simulate thunder and flashing lights to simulate lightning. Perhaps we will not learn that until we have embarked, irretrievably, on the "slippery slope". More's the pity!

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/the-absurdity-of-a-reliable-average-global-surface-temperature/

Not at all clear why you jump to the conclusion that my proposl "would not reduce global annual CO2 emissions in absolute terms," -- How much reduction happens depends simply on the setting of the "treaty set worldwide yearly per-capita emissions target", intended to be reduced every year as technology and finances make that possible, eg. by 2050 being down to total emissions worldwide being 10% of present, assuming science which re

requires it still holds by then.

I missed the " intended to be reduced every year as technology and finances make that possible", perhaps because it wasn't there.

NOTE: 10% of current emissions is still 200 times annual emissions at the time the atmospheric CO2 concentration began to increase.

Ed

By your same logic, we shouldn't use any nuclear power if we don't know EXACTLY how it can be stored safely for the next 10,000 years or so. And we should not be using it at all until such a storage system is in place.

I understand where you are coming from, but I can't help but think we'd be in a better place in the future with a partial solution implemented versus doing nothing unless and until we have that Aha! moment which presents the complete solution.

In the same way the Amory Lovins would argue about the economics (vs. the safety) of nuclear power, yours seems to be an argument about the viability of remediation of CO2 emissions rather than the issue of AGW itself.

I remember Jeff berating me when I mentioned that additional drilling would not (alone) solve our oil problems. But if a strategy is only a partial solution, I don't see why that still shouldn't be employed, even if the full solution is not immediately known.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't really understand your logic, and I'm beginning to wonder if your are consciously or unconsciously providing justification to stall efforts in this area. On the other hand, I do see your point on a practical and economic level.

The Google folks had it right (at least conceptually) that we need a renewable energy source that is cheaper than coal (RE If we can suppose that something like that is feasible within 20 years, then it would still make sense to effect partial measures now, given the enormity of the challenge.

I am simply not supportive of doing something, anything, even if it's wrong.

I am also not supportive of obviously partial and ineffectual "solutions" to problems.

We are constantly told that the science is settled. Let's assume that is true.

We should then know, at least, by how much annual CO2 emissions must be reduced, either to stabilize the atmospheric concentration or to avoid a catastrophe. IEA is planning for a 50% reduction by 2050 globally, Obama for an 80% reduction by 2050 in the US. Is either the "solution? If so, which? Len argues above for a 90% globally by 2050. Is he correct?

I know that all three cannot be correct.

Logic tells me that, to stop the increase in ambient CO2 concentrations, we would have to return to the emissions level prior to the onset of the increase in concentration. That would require a 99.95% reduction, ignoring the effects of the respiration of the additional human and animal populations since ~1750. Is that correct?

You have acknowledged that you don't know the answers to the questions I have asked here. I don't either. I do know enough to ask them. However, if the science is truly settled, someone must know the answer. They have been very reticent to share that information with those of us who will be required to pay for the process. One wonders why.

My primary concern about partial "solutions" is that some of the investments made in those efforts would not be on the path to the reductions ultimately required to stabilize the ambient concentration. In that case, those investments become an economic "dead loss". Increased natural gas usage is one such partial "solution" which is not on the path to very high level reductions in emissions.

With regard to nuclear, the US made a decision in the 1970s not to reprocess spent nuclear fuel for reuse because of concerns about proliferation. The proliferation happened anyway. Reprocessing dramatically increases fuel utilization and reduces the mass of nuclear waste which must be stored. Spent nuclear fuel storage is not a technical problem at this point. It is a political problem. It is a case of the US federal government commiting to do something and then failing to perform. Imagine that!

I have warned here previously: "Don't begin vast programs with half-vast ideas." I guess I just did it again.

Well, given all that, it would seem that building nuclear power plants, in lieu of coal plants seems to be a reasonable solution given the current uncertainties. I don't think that's a 'half-vast' idea. I don't think you do either. But even stating this first step seems highly problematic to you.

I think as more is known, the understanding of what should and shouldn't be done will become known as well. For example, if the environmentalists had known about global warming earlier, they probably wouldn't have complained about nuclear power so much. They screwed up. (And they are realizing this now, in large numbers.)

You and John S. are both supportive of nuclear, but seem to think that this is the wrong reason for doing so (carbon emissions).

I guess I still don't get your point. You seem to indicate that we shouldn't go off half-cocked to solve this problem. I agree. So I indicate we should build nuclear power plants and PHEVs (due to peak oil if nothing else). You seem to agree with these notions, but then keep saying "Develop the Plan, Get everyone to agree, Figure out where you need to go, no half-vast ideas" etc. etc. In other words, how dare you take a first step at this point?

Even though you and John S. agree this first step is not without merit for other reasons.

I don't understand your rigidity of thought. I don't see what end it accomplishes. I do see it as unpractical in the diverse, political, and real world that we live in.

If we are to embark on an effort to reduce global CO2 emissions, then building nuclear electric generation is a very good first step. PHEVs are a good second step. There are others. These are also reasonable steps if your goal is increased energy independence, since they represent a "no regrets" approach. We can do them now, because they help us accomplish something we want to accomplish, whether or not the rest of the world goes along.

Things justified on a national basis to reduce global climate change make no sense, since we cannot solve that "problem" alone. Either everyone is on board, or the effort will fail.

More restrictive CAFE standards for gasoline and diesel vehicles are not a reasonable step, because those types of vehicles, at least operating on those fuels, are not on the long term path. The RDD&D required would consume resources better directed toward technologies which are on the long term path.

The "Pickens Plan" is not a reasonable step, since NGVs are not on the long term path. More natural gas combined cycle power plants are also not on the long term path, unless combined with permanent sequestration.

Geothermal, solar and wind are on the long term path either way, as long as we recognize their inherent limitations.

The other thing we need to remember is that we are not dealing with a static situation. US population will grow to 450-500 million by 2050, unless something changes. That means more energy, in some form, than we consume now. Any coordinated approach we take must include provisions for this growth. The population of the rest of the globe will also likely continue to grow as well.

It's like planning a trip. Where are we going? How will we get there? Can we afford the trip? If so, go.

Ed says "It's like planning a trip". Well, you guys can join me on a trip through bear country any time.

Ed

Agreed, it is foolish to wander in bear country without a high-power rifle, but as a kid growing up in N Ontario I've done it a lot. One time I encountered a big one approaching me on a path, about 100 feet off. I had no weapon so just stepped off the path about 20 feet planning to watch him pass, then carry on. I waited quite a while and he never passed. Opposite side of the path was a pagewire fence and I think I would have heard him going thru that, but nothing. My side was fairly open slash and I'd have seen him if he'd gone that way. Eventuallly I just walked a large circle around the spot and carried on, but it shook me up a bit. Always puzzled me where he got to.

"Actually, all I want to do is be sure it is really a bear."

So when's that? When the Arctic Ice Cap disappears in the Summer? Would that be sufficient?

It used to be in the old days, you didn't need to outrun the bear, you just needed to outrun your fellow hiker!

But it's not that way now. There is only 'one' of us. Humanity. Just us and the bear.

A decade or so of scandanavians farming and raising domesticated animals on Greenland again would probably be enough.

Ed

The PPCC, Priest's Panel on Climate Change? (That should do it. Now, where do we find a few ministers who could read a science document? Rats, I forgot. Never find a protestant minister who'd agree to serve on a "Priest's" panel).

Would you settle for bristlecones returning to higher altitudes? Hope we're around long enough to see Uncle Sam startup several James Earle Carter memorial reprocessing centers!

Don

How much higher?

If the feds start soon, they wouldn't have to be "memorial" reprocessing centers. West Virginia has amply demonstrated that large numbers of federal facilities can be named after "living legends", such as Robert S. Byrd.

Ed

The only thing the UN can be relied upon for is ineptitude and corruption, executed at great cost and with enormous fanfare. It is populated by a horde of "diplomats" would rather live in NYC than at home, which I believe is rather telling.

The IPCC needs to learn, if possible, to write executive summaries which accurately summarize the conclusions and uncertainties in the body of the document. "The sky is falling and we're all going to die" is not an accurate executive summary of the work of the IPCC scientific panels.

Ed

Do I hear 100 feet? Ladies and gents, these ancients will grace your climb and those of future climbers for 5000 years. Gimme 100 feet, 125 feet, 150 feet... Sold to Uncle Al for 150 feet and a fractal!

"Living Legend", by golly, you're right! Maybe we can get Habitat for Humanity to help out.

Don

This isn't to say they couldn't still be right, after all, muc of 1930s German certainly drank the Kool-Aid, and maybe we have too. But the operative paradigm at this point is how does one move forward in this current atmosphere of consensus? The wait and plan notion of Mr. Reid is not viable at this point; political forces can and will motivate action. Given they are apt to do SOMETHING, it is merited that they do something reasonable, given the uncertainty of the situation.

I mean no disrespect, but this is the current reality, and it is not likely to change, barring some definitive evidence to the contrary (unlikely) or an economic catastrophe due to following poorly conceived remediation policies (much more likely).

"Don't begin vast programs with half-vast ideas.", Ed Reid

"Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.", Admiral David Farragut

"Who needs a plan? We don't need no damn plan.", Jim Beyer

You will find a much more conservative and sympathetic ear in me than you ever will in say, Henry Waxman, the new chair of the house committee on energy and commerce, and literally the congressman representing the likes of Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, and Ed Begley, Jr.

Either my assessment of this political reality is correct or it is not. You can question my assessment, but please don't attack me with misquotes due to your anger at my assessment being correct. You wise guidance about what to DO about this would be much more helpful.

"The wait and plan notion of Mr. Reid is not viable at this point; political forces can and will motivate action."

I still believe a plan would be helpful. Unguided political activity has the potential to be far more dangerous and damaging than misguided political activity. A plan might actually help get them focused and keep them focused.

I agree they will do something. If we are fortunate, it will only be expensive and ineffectual, rather than counterproductive. However, Waxman's ascendancy does not leave me very hopeful.

Ed

My assessment of the situation is here: http://www.utilitiesproject.com/documents.asp?grID=111&d_ID=4646

My plan for the US is here: http://www.utilitiesproject.com/documents.asp?grID=111&d_ID=4296

They represent the wisest guidance I am able to offer.

Ed

I doubt Boone was thinking about the "Pickins Plan" when he said that. :-)

Ed

What aspect of the "Oil for Palaces, Payloads and Payoffs" program don't you understand?

What aspect of standing around watching rape and murder don't you understand?

What part of ignoring ethnic cleansing don't you understand?

What part of seating Iran on the Human Rights Commission don't you understand?

Remember Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe?

What has the UN accomplished in 60 years that makes you so confident of their prowess?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Ed

Let me propose a 'plan' for you:

1. Don't waste time with minor quibbles to the science. This just makes your case worse. Save your breath for a truly important revelelation (should it ever occur) to make this case credible. As it stands now, you are just crying wolf (from the standpoint of those that accept global warming) so that when truly revelatory material becomes available, that might well be ignored.

2. Remind us that ALL carbon sources are equal. From all places and all countries. This could help in keeping remediation from unfairly beating up on certain industries more than others.

3. Remind us that nuclear power is not carbon producing. This will help.

4. Remind us that the science is not clear or specific. This will keep efforts from becoming overly specific until more is known.

5. Remind us of the size of the energy industry. This will put the efficacy of 20 MW windfarms in their proper context.

The "hockey stick" was noticed only because it fit the narrative. But then, it was created to fit the narrative.

The most amazing characteristic of the "hockey stick" was its uncanny ability to beat both the medieval warm period and the little ice age into a straight line.

Oops! I guess I just exposed myself as a geek. Oh well.

Ed

"RD: In fact, the report that we did was on 11 January, and we got an immediate response back that I was not to intervene. I had essentially told them that that was my plan, to intervene and to throw the planning by the extremists into a whirlwind by seizing these weapons. So the U.N., through the Security Council, said that my mandate was chapter six and I had absolutely no authority to do that -- nor was I allowed to risk it or have the troops to do it – and I had to inform both sides of what was going on. Remember, at that time another factor, not only the technical side, was that [the slaughter of 18 American troops in] Mogadishu had happened just a couple months earlier and everybody was gun-shy. "

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/01/dallaire.html

Pick up the book some time, Shake Hands with the Devil, if you have the i fortitude. He leaves NO DOUBT that if the security council had not stuck their heads in the sand, he could likely have controlled the situation. Security council at that time pretty much had to do whatever USA wanted. Next time, we're not likely to wait for stupid-ass US controlled Securiy Council.!!

"Bolton recalls that his 'happiest moment at State was personally 'unsigning' the Rome Statute,' which had set up the International Criminal Court"

How are we supposed to do any proper international enforcement of law and order without a court? Ah, US Emperor's decrees, I suppose. Its just the ultimate in absolutely DISGUSTING, especially that any american voters get sucked in by this stuff!!! Ultra-conservatives freeze every attempt by the UN to do anything constructive, anything actually useful, then withhold the US's under-levied dues to the UN, then moan because the UN doesn't do anything.

Au contraire mon frere, Boone used that quote to INTRODUCE his Pickens' Plan! ;)

Jeff

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

Then of course there's the little tidbit that we are still in the little ice age, mod Dieu!

Same links from 11/18/08, still unrefuted, still ignored. Click on a link, READ the articles, undergo a cranial rectumectomy, enjoy life, freed of the particular blindness that comes from the crania being so encumbered.

I repeat again, for the thousandth time so you can indeed accuse me like Ed of being repetitious: There is NO SCIENTIFIC consensus, only a POLITICAL one!

Given where your heads are, I can't possibly imagine that cool aid tastes particularly pleasant, but what do I know?

"Ultra-conservatives freeze every attempt by the UN to do anything constructive, anything actually useful, then withhold the US's under-levied dues to the UN, then moan because the UN doesn't do anything." (A list here might be useful.)

Just for a bit of political perspective, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (1992-2000)was not and is not a conservative of any description. Warren Christopher and Madelaine Albright were not and are not conservatives of any description either.

You might also recall that the Kosovo involvement occurred without the vaunted imprimatur of the UN, despite the "US controlled Security Council".

You may wish for the advent of world government. I do not.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, even without absolute power, the UN is absolutely corrupt. Some may view that as an accomplishment. I do not.

Ed

No cognitive dissonance here. I agree with you. I'm not sure I'd know what scientific consensus would mean. And even if there were consensus, they could still all be wrong.

But there is now political consensus. And there has been ever since the Bush administration acknowledged climate change in Jan. '08.

And Ed is at least partly right. While the Rwandans were getting slaughtered, Pres. Clinton got legalistic on the definition of genocide. Probably his worst, cowardly moment as President. (Maybe there are others.)

S'funny though how poorly the US military performs for democratic presidents, and how well for republicans..... Obama better get them out of Iraq fast for his own political good.

In that case, I am very glad I do not live in Canada. Your concept of conservatism and mine do not agree.

Jimmy Carter was a disaster. I fear Obama will be as well.

You apparently have a more positive opinion of European socialism than I do.

Ed

I will bet you a beer Obama will turn out to be more like Clinton economically than Carter. He's enlisted former Clinton Treasury guy Larry Summers as his head economic advisor. When his choice of Treasury Secretary was announced (Geithner), the market went up 400+ points.

I think Pelosi and Reid will turn out to be more problematic than Obama.

I'm glad that I don't live in Canada, Len, because if I did I wouldn't have anything to complain about. Bush may be a disaster multiplied by ten, but as compared to the last Swedish social democratic government that my wife voted for - and I supported - he is a genius. Besides, that government sold Sweden out to Brussels.

As for the new Treasury Secretary, I heard him on CNN a couple of months ago. He struck me as being a big bag of wind. I hope that Mr Obama can find someone better that that for Energy.

About the business in Africa. A couple of billion to the French for the use and expansion of the Foreign Legion, together with some 'air' would have easily taken care of that 'issue'. The inability to protect non-combatants in Africa and elsewhere is the biggest mystery of all, but I guess that I'm just naive or stupid in matters of this kind. The Swedish government for example is scrapping the Swedish military in order to get a couple of battalions ready for duty in some Stone Age country somewhere. Better not to mention how much that will cost, although the moronic commander-in-chief of the Swedish military is getting a job in Brussels from his efforts.

And yes, I still say 'right on' to the people who claim that global warming is a reality. What's the point in saying anything else. If global warming is really a curse on all our houses, then as soon as we get or expand the nuclear base for our countries the better. And if it's not a curse, then as soon as we get or expand....If somebody starts talking to me (in person) about how crazy this talk about global warming is, I think about asking them why their shoes arn't shined, or have they thought about changing their mouthwash. Of course if they get nasty then they are invited to present their arguments in an open forum at the institute of economics here in Uppsala. I hope that I dont have to say what that means.

Only real difference from Sudan is that here, a violent military attempt to (separate / hold onto them) is not an option so far. Solution in Sudan (Nigeria, Congo, Timor, Rwanda? etc.) seems very remote unless some credible world authority with sufficient "police" power and will to enforce terms of their constitution simply "sits on them". Would take a lot of forces, a lot of will, and a lot of credibility, eg. Cyprus, where Canada has had "peacekeepers" for nearly half a century, finally jjust now the sides starting to get along again. Trouble is, the central authority winds up picking winners, eg. existing structure, which is not likely ideal in many places. That's where a "world court" is required.

None of it is possible anyway as long as rival superpowers refuse to allow the existence of any military / police force which might challenge their elite's independence of action. And why might they (USA, Russia, China) ever relinquish that? Though those three need to figure out quite soon that they'd either better figure out some sort of solution among themselves, or the rest of the world might try to do it anyway.

"Who do you suppose Alan Caruba bills for the time he took to write this piece?"

This is the oldest environmentalist canard, that nothing challenging their lies can be written without "industry support." No one paid me to write that commentary or the others I write on a weekly basis. At age 71, I have avoided doing what too many others have done, spend everything they earned in life. Thus, I have the luxury of doing my own research and sharing it with whoever finds it of interest.

You can read my work at www.anxietycenter.com, my clearinghouse for information about "scare campaigns" designed to influence public opinion and policy or my daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

Those entranced with "global warming" despite a present cooling cycle that began in 1998 should avoid exposure to the facts offered. Those who think coal, oil, natural gas or nuclear are "dirty" should avoid my sites as well. I do not write for children.

Sadly, I belong to neither the wordsmith nor the paid group . . . but I sure wouldn't turn down a job that promised to remunerate me for broadcasting the truth!

Finally, I encourage readers to take a trip to Canada's newspaper site, Globe and Mail and read the recent article on wind energy authored by Ms. Wente. It's an easy to read synopsis that I would dare AP to pick up!

Ms. Wente's article in yesterday's Globe and Mail is blunt and fairly accurate, wind turbines will never replace all the large central generators we have on the grid now. However NIMBYism pervades ANY type of large electricity generation project from ANY source. Furthermore the consensus is our global climate change crisis is largely caused by burning of fossil fuels, and this won't change regardless of the economics of our now cheaper $50 oil or cheap coal.

What the wind turbines symbolize is the climate change crisis continues building, and a supply-demand disconnect crisis is looming for world energy consumption. It doesn't take much science for the average Joe public to recognize either one.

The day may come when we in North America could spiral down into a third world society with rotating blackouts, sky high electricity prices, and stifling heat waves every summer. In the latter case Ms. Wente may capitulate and wish she had one of those wind turbines in her own backyard to keep herself cool when it is not unthinkable that Toronto Hyrdro could no longer always power her air conditioner.

And who would be masterminding this power play? A conspiracy of atmospheric scientists? I don't follow.

Any thoughtful person examining this problem will see the huge issues with relying on wind. (And the strong role nuclear power can and should play.)

With no conspiracies needed, one can sum up the issue thusly: A good deal of evidence strongly suggests that global warming due to human-caused increases in GHG emissions is occurring. The exact nature and magnitude of this problem is uncertain, but reasonable scientists seem to be saying this is an issue of great concern to them.

On the other hand, efforts to address this problem look to be very costly. At the very least, it would mean changing existing infrastructure and processes to which we've become accustomed. How can one justify such costly changes without further proof from the scientists?

This is a very real and reasonable conflict of interests. No conspiracy needed.

The good news (if one can put it that way) is that we are ALSO facing a problem of declining oil reserves (few seem to really challenge that). This will necessitate some changes regardless, and in many ways, is affecting us more directly than any results of global warming. If the continued growth in oil production is a significant driver in our economic growth, then how can we keep growing economically in the face of flat or declining oil production? That, I think, is a pretty serious question.

And one I think more worth of consideration then how one might best go about demonizing Al Gore or James Hansen.

I would add to Jim Beyer above that curbing GHG emissions will surely not hurt anything in the environment, "it's the economy, stupid" as our politicians were reminded of as being the main issue during our recent federal election on Oct. 14th.

Jim is right on, the real conflict here is between economic interests, nothing else. The point about climate change is that the price of doing nothing is potentially catastrophic and irreversible, and if this turns out to be true, the price of structural changes now would surely be the lesser of two evils. Now when you ADD to this the decline in oil reserves, most non-scientific people have reasonable cause to do SOMETHING.

It's an eerie parallel in some ways to the North American auto manufacturing industry. Do nothing and the potential of it disappearing is very big, as so many of our other industries have done in the past. Restructuring with painful changes, perhaps with massive government help, many turn out to be the only way for it to survive.

BTW, if you think the Big 3 is bad news, just imagine what the politicos are going to do with a "global warming" mandate. If you currently work for a "green" utility, great, you're employed for life, regardless of whether your employer EVER earns a profit. If you currently work for a "dirty" utility, better polish off that resume...

According to Thomas Stacy, there are many Americans who don't believe in AGW. Of course, there are probably more who believed in Governor Palin, but fortunately she has resumed her governortorial duties (although she might have been right about that gas pipeline). Incidentally, my reason for ignoring Al Gore turned on his incredible belief that Senator Lieberman was a suitable vice presidential candidate. A man who came to that conclusion shouldn't be allowed to walk past the White House, much less use one of its 'rest rooms'. Please note though that I can respect him for for the contemptuous way he has now for telling talk show hosts that only a handfull of the top climate scientists are against AGW. "There you go," he pointed out to some fool in Norway, "getting things wrong again."

As for the good Alan, he gets some things wrong, doesn't he? But he gets a few things right too. Maybe in another decade or so he'll find out that where 'research' is concerned, the best approach is to try to avoid being wrong too often.

I can understand where Alan is coming from in many of his commentaries. He has lived through the good times his whole life in America where the traditional energy economy and energy systems worked very well to drive the incredible prosperity in the west. All of that is now threatened it seems, and Alan like many others search for any reasons to keep doing things as always before, and sincerely believe in doing things as always before.

I personally have learned much from participating in the Energy Central forums here, especially about energy economics from yourself. It has reinforced my education from working in the business world for almost 30 years that economics and vested interests are at the root of many changes that happen, rightfully or not. I envy your chosen field of specialty, that of energy economics, since today it is becoming one of the world's most critical subjects. Let us know if you publish any books on the subject, I would like to get one someday.

- Bob

Mitt Romney the former governor of Massachusetts published an article in the New York Times on Nov. 18th about the the Big3. He generally agrees with you, and suggests letting them go into bankruptcy protection to restructure as the only way they should be allowed to proceed. Great reading, see it at the link below.

here is your link

Well apparently Alan does. [QUOTE] "If this sounds a lot like the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle that forced banks and lenders to make bad loans, welcome to the wonderful world of government mandates." [/QUOTE] My question then might be "Why did the bad loan problem only begin under the term of President Bush?" Of course that's an absolute nonsense thesis. The credit crisis has been caused by relaxing of regualtion under Bush which allowed certain investment banks to collect very bad risk mortgages, often from mortgage brokers and private banks, not F & F, and hide the underlying risk in them behind an AAA rating incorrectly assigned by certain insuring agencies who used the incorrect application of economically untested mathematics based on untested economic theories often lifted from physics texts. Turns out their theories were wrong. Oooops.

Are you going to set your position on climate change by influences from comentators like Alan with this sort of factual challenge?

Great example of how Alan likes to blame government intervention as a root cause for many old ways of doing things that end up blowing up down the road. For a while the deregulation led to an economic boom underpinned by soaring housing sales and prices, to every Tom, Dick & Harry off the street in the US. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

A bankrupcy by even two out of three of the big three will almost certainly bankrupt most of the huge parts industry in N America as well, and who's proposed a bailout package for them?

Allowing the big three to go into bankrupcy protection, even with a government guarantee that they will be able to come out again, will bankrupt most of their supply chain so I don't see how that guarantee can be provided. Unless the intention is to kill domestic suppliers and move all parts manufacturing to China of course...... hmmmmm.....

Better would be a simple act of congress to a) break all union contracts. b) pick up any excess costs of pensions above those typical of their competitors. c) mandate no labour strikes allowed until a first new contract is agreed. That levels the playing field with foreign competition.

Also, how much of the lost "excess costs of pensions" could be recouped to the pnsioners simply by providing universal free medical care?

I like your last suggestion better than bankruptcy restructuring. Indeed the vast supplier chain companies are extremely vulnerable, and we have many of them right here in Ontario. My brother-in-law manages an aluminum castings plant in Burlington and they are reeling already from the downturn in auto company orders from the Big3, as are the steel plants in Hamilton. Even before the threat of the some of the Big3 going bankrupt, the fierce competition from Chinese companies have been hammering my brother-in-law's company to the point it barely resembles its former self from years ago.

Also wouldn't hurt to address some of the market power issues among the dealership distribution systems.

I also note that assuming the $2000 cost advantage between domestic and foreign mfgrs is real, not very much of it is due to labour costs. Toyota spends 18 labour hours per vehicle on assembly in N America. GM spends 20. Given the much larger size of the average GM vehicle, and the fact that Toyota probably finds it more economical to ship parts to assembly plants in much more pre-assembled packages which would cost less to assemble, I think the "labour cost is killing us" line may simply be wrong.

Any rescue plan should establish this sort of thing prior to action.

All labor hours are not created equal. The US "Big 2.5s" labor hours are more than 50% more expensive than the non-US manufacturers rates, though "card check" may change that over time.

Universal "free" medical care is not free. Also, the demand for almost anything increases when it is "free".

"My question then might be "Why did the bad loan problem only begin under the term of President Bush?" Of course that's an absolute nonsense thesis."

"In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."[11] Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk is much larger than is commonly held." (Wikipedia)

"The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods." (Wikipedia)

NOTE: Both dates fall within the presidency of that noted "conservative", William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, not George W. Bush.

Communism could turn the US into a "workers paradise", like China, North Korea or Cuba. Certainly something to look forward to with great anticipation.

Ed

I'm glad I don't live in China!

But it's a tough situation here for our manufacturing industries, even engineering and other professional skilled labor services have been under siege from China in recent years. Global free trade has opened the doors and the draft has been bone chilling for the west ever since.

I wish I had some answers outside of government intervention with massive spending, but I don't see anything else yet that stands a chance of working to pull Canada, and the US, out of the huge mess our economy is in. The other unspoken gloom and doom is that even once we come out of the recession, the industrial landscape will never look the same as many companies with good paying jobs will be gone for good, unlike past recoveries where many jobs usually came back.

How many of those companies will be operating in China and India, supplied by new and largely uncontrolled coal-fired power plants, as the result of US and Canadian efforts to reduce CO2 emissions?

Ed

"Lewis also tracked down Steve Eisman, the hedge fund investor who early on saw through the subprime mortgages and shorted the companies engaged in them, like Long Beach Financial, owned by Washington Mutual.

“Long Beach Financial,” wrote Lewis, “was moving money out the door as fast as it could, few questions asked, in loans built to self-destruct. It specialized in asking homeowners with bad credit and no proof of income to put no money down and defer interest payments for as long as possible. In Bakersfield, Calif., a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $720,000.”

Lewis continued: Eisman knew that subprime lenders could be disreputable. “What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism... ‘We always asked the same question,’ says Eisman. ‘Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.’ He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S.& P. couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. ‘They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,’ Eisman says.”

All Fall Down

"By the spring of 2005, FrontPoint was fairly convinced that something was very screwed up not merely in a handful of companies but in the financial underpinnings of the entire U.S. mortgage market. In 2000, there had been $130 billion in subprime mortgage lending, with $55 billion of that repackaged as mortgage bonds. But in 2005, there was $625 billion in subprime mortgage loans, $507 billion of which found its way into mortgage bonds. Eisman couldn’t understand who was making all these loans or why. "

Apparently, according to this rare hedge fund manager who saw the problem early an shorted the participants (and got deservedly very rich doing so), in 2000, a year after your "Bill Clinton" episode, the subprime market was quite stable thank you. Problems began to get out of hand around 2005.

The Endby Michael Lewis - www.portfolio.com

Of course we all already knew that. Its just another symptom of the problem that there's still some who think that what you say is more important than the truth.

If you are worried about the demise of capitalism, I would be staring intently at the prospect of peak oil. How healthy can capitalism be without the prospect of continuous and infinite growth? We may well find the answer to that question, whether we like it or not.

Ok, Ferdy, I previously assumed you were a crackpot. Now I'm thinking you're not quite that bright. cheers, peter snell

Today, July 10, 2009 - GM emerges from bankruptcy, the second of the (former) Big Three. Ford never needed it (YAY!), and Chrysler has already been through the process...now let's see what happens! See you in another 6-10 months.

PS - I'm only here for the commentary company, as Mr. Caruba's "articles" are rubbish.

You do not write for children. Nor care about them either it would appear.

You wish to continue to espouse 19th Century thinking in the 21st Century. Destroy the environment and steal anything you can----from anyone you can---the only thing important is my own comfort.

It is the children and future generations who come after us that will have to pay for your actions.

----------"On Not Understanding Capitalism or Liberalism Tuesday, 14 April 2009 12:45 Alan Caruba .By Alan Caruba Not long ago, Rasmussen Reports conducted a national telephone survey and asked “American adults” if they believe capitalism is “better” than socialism. I found it disturbing that only 53% responded that they did."------------

I'm sure you did find it disturbing. Your private little world of greed and self interest is coming unraveled. You are about to be swept away in a rising tide of people who care about other people, the environment, justice, equality, fraternity and peace. You want to have capitalism---and yet you try to villify Al Gore by saying "He's just in it to make a buck." Well, isn't that what capitalism IS? If Al Gore wants to make some money by investing in green technology--so what? I call it putting your money where your mouth is. Global warming or not, there is no denying that fossil fuels are the worst thing we can be doing to our environment.

Al Gore is right, and you are wrong.

from Alan Caruba--------" Capitalism also caters to the most inherent attribute of humans; greed."-----------

Which is why you are such a strong supporter of capitalism I suppose.

Richard Vesel--------" PS - I'm only here for the commentary company, as Mr. Caruba's "articles" are rubbish."----------

I couldn't agree more.