So, there's this thing that comes up every so often in the climate debate about how incredibly wrong environmentalists are like, all the time. Well, no - they're wrong about the world ending, every time they say that it will. Which is fine, if you like making doomsday predictions - but it tends to hurt the climate change debate sometimes.
Consider for a moment that environmentalists have (as individuals, mind) made the following claims:
In the near future (less than 50 years):
We will all be poisoned to death by chemicals
We will be incinerated by ultraviolet rays from holes in the ozone layer
We will run out of food
The rainforests will be cut down
Most species will be extinct
There will not be enough top-soil left
We'll be out of fresh water
Acid rain will wipe out all the forests
The world will turn to deserts
We will run out of most minerals and fossil fuels
The climate will shift, get colder, and we'll find ourselves in a new ice age
The problem is exacerbated by the media, which is a terribly cliched thing to say in all cases except this one - because let's be honest. To most people, most Earth science is unexciting. Geological time-scales are not recipes for exciting new developments. But if there's an approaching catastrophe, that's interesting, and we all know how it goes. And the scientists get a little caught up in it (and funding becomes more readily available for the research-of-the-year) and environmentalists get caught up in it and all of a sudden, gloom and doom is coming.
You can debate some of the stuff - some of it might still happen, some of it (like the ozone thing) may have been stalled by the quick response from individuals and nations as a result of environmentalist efforts - but the over-all point remains, and is this:
To most people, the world is always in peril to environmentalists, and thus far they've been wrong.
So what does that mean to "most people" when they hear details about climate change?
Or, even worse, when they're holding the legitimate facts about climate change up against the politically-minded lies that this is more of the same hysteria and that nothing unusual is happening?
To set the record straight, here's the facts of the matter:
While global warming may have begun the same way many other environmental-doom fads have, we have discovered that climate change as a result of global warming exists and is caused by humans. We have an idea of what will happen. It will not be the end of the world, but it will be deadly to some, horrible to many, and uncomfortable for everyone else. If we begin acting now, we can prevent most of the deadly/horrible stuff and just keep with the uncomfortableness.
We know that climate change is real. It has gone through scientific tests and criticisms that no other doomsday claim from environmentalists has ever been subjected to. There is still consensus, which means that it's happening right now, and is still a danger.
Maybe the record is a little straighter, now, hopefully?
Oh, and for a demonstration of how this whole process works, read this article (via Yglesias) and try to nail down your immediate reaction. If it's negative, those environmentalists probably just hurt the cause.
2.10.09
24.9.09
And we're back.
Sure has been a long time for the vast readership out there - how y'all been handling the break?
There are two basic elements that are part of the lack of updates. The first, higher-level, public reason is that I've been working a lot on things not related to environmentalism - basically, I've been busy. Which is fine.
In addition to just not having a lot of free time, though, the trailing-off-then-ceasing of updates basically resulted in environmentalism, climate change, and the next stage of human social organization (and, y'know, stuff) getting pushed onto the mental back burner, which is, perhaps understandable.
That is, it's understandable, but not okay.
Because here's the truth of the matter - it happens to everyone. We all have lives, and the simple truth is that for 99% of us, environmentalism and the consequences of climate change are not a part of our day to day life. The evidence, infrastructure, and industrialization is there, if you know where to look for it - but so is physics, and chemistry, and philosophy, and theatrical lighting design, and all sorts of other academic pursuits. It's true that every time we change a light bulb, we're making a choice (say, between incandescent and compact fluorescent - or even a LED fixture) and continuing to use electricity and all the things that come with that, and every time we do we could take it as an object lesson in environmentalism... but more often than not, we don't. I don't, anyway.
Which probably explains some things. The spectre of climate change is so huge and so spread out across the world (even if is concentrated primarily in developed, Northern Hemisphere nations) that it's hard to bring down to an individual level. In order to work against it, we really have to learn about the issues and keep them constantly in mind.
So should we? It amounts to social reorganization, essentially - and, taken further, begs for worldwide intellectual unity on a subject that isn't even agreed on by members of the US congress (which is, maybe, a bad example). Putting climate change and environmentalism into people's daily thoughts is a huge job.
But I, personally, don't see another way of accomplishing anything. We can rely on our governments and scientists and maybe the occasional retired statesman or rich, philanthropic businessman. We can keep our faith of "action" in the governmental sense - new policies, huge solar and wind farms, carbon taxes (or cap and trade), NGO fundraisers, all those things.
But all the evidence to date suggests that the sorts of things that'll come out of political compromises will be too slow. Even the ambitious goals of the B-Man Obama - assuming they get out of Congress unchanged, which won't happen anyway - aren't ambitious enough.
So the only alternative left to us is to act ourselves. Not as revolutionaries, or even activists. Again, 99% of us don't have the time and will for that - it takes a rare breed in all but the most special circumstances.
What is left to us - and what can make the difference - are the small choices. We don't want to see taxes raise, it's true, but to be responsible world citizens we may need to spend a little more.
We can drive a little less, and a little less heat will escape into space.
We can buy organic, local, environmental-responsible products. They're more expensive, it's true - but maybe then the ocean deadzones will shrink a little, and there'll be fewer cargo ships bringing our our grapes up from Chile. We can eat a little less beef, or choose the more responsible, smaller scale, local stuff over the industrial food-lot stuff at fast food restaurants. We can honor the restaurants that make a point of being sustainable with our business, and make the effort to support them.
We can choose more responsible forms of power, and as we show our demand, they'll respond. They'll build more solar, wind, geothermal; they'll hire more scientists, and make the technology better and more proven. It will be slow, but with a bit of willpower - a tiny pinch for each of us - the mass of this whole thing will grow.
But most importantly, we can think and talk about this thing. This climate change, this environmentalism - this change.
We haven't created this change - that was done slowly, over the last century and a half, by our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. But we continue the change, every day of our lives, and that makes us party to us. We can ponder what it is, what it will be - and whether we can take the reigns away from habit and choose our own destiny.
Because this isn't just about the danger of climate change. That's what I've realized - and one of the things that gave me pause about coming back to this project, because the name - this goal of 450 by 2050 - doesn't encompass everything I want to talk about any more. I don't just want to think about the danger and prevention. We, as a generation, have been given a chance to consider our destinies. Climate change is dangerous, too - but so is how we confront it. It has the opportunity to open our eyes, and ask us whether this is really what we want.
And it gives us a chance to reinvent ourselves and our society. Not in a huge way, perhaps - maybe most things are fine the way they are, I don't know. But the truth is that we didn't decide the society we were born into - and if we continue as we are, unthinking, then we'll never have the choice.
So let's think about it, together and apart, and figure out if the current form of it all is really what we want. Confronted with this fear, though - and these very real dangers - it's hard to imagine someone answering "Yes."
There are two basic elements that are part of the lack of updates. The first, higher-level, public reason is that I've been working a lot on things not related to environmentalism - basically, I've been busy. Which is fine.
In addition to just not having a lot of free time, though, the trailing-off-then-ceasing of updates basically resulted in environmentalism, climate change, and the next stage of human social organization (and, y'know, stuff) getting pushed onto the mental back burner, which is, perhaps understandable.
That is, it's understandable, but not okay.
Because here's the truth of the matter - it happens to everyone. We all have lives, and the simple truth is that for 99% of us, environmentalism and the consequences of climate change are not a part of our day to day life. The evidence, infrastructure, and industrialization is there, if you know where to look for it - but so is physics, and chemistry, and philosophy, and theatrical lighting design, and all sorts of other academic pursuits. It's true that every time we change a light bulb, we're making a choice (say, between incandescent and compact fluorescent - or even a LED fixture) and continuing to use electricity and all the things that come with that, and every time we do we could take it as an object lesson in environmentalism... but more often than not, we don't. I don't, anyway.
Which probably explains some things. The spectre of climate change is so huge and so spread out across the world (even if is concentrated primarily in developed, Northern Hemisphere nations) that it's hard to bring down to an individual level. In order to work against it, we really have to learn about the issues and keep them constantly in mind.
So should we? It amounts to social reorganization, essentially - and, taken further, begs for worldwide intellectual unity on a subject that isn't even agreed on by members of the US congress (which is, maybe, a bad example). Putting climate change and environmentalism into people's daily thoughts is a huge job.
But I, personally, don't see another way of accomplishing anything. We can rely on our governments and scientists and maybe the occasional retired statesman or rich, philanthropic businessman. We can keep our faith of "action" in the governmental sense - new policies, huge solar and wind farms, carbon taxes (or cap and trade), NGO fundraisers, all those things.
But all the evidence to date suggests that the sorts of things that'll come out of political compromises will be too slow. Even the ambitious goals of the B-Man Obama - assuming they get out of Congress unchanged, which won't happen anyway - aren't ambitious enough.
So the only alternative left to us is to act ourselves. Not as revolutionaries, or even activists. Again, 99% of us don't have the time and will for that - it takes a rare breed in all but the most special circumstances.
What is left to us - and what can make the difference - are the small choices. We don't want to see taxes raise, it's true, but to be responsible world citizens we may need to spend a little more.
We can drive a little less, and a little less heat will escape into space.
We can buy organic, local, environmental-responsible products. They're more expensive, it's true - but maybe then the ocean deadzones will shrink a little, and there'll be fewer cargo ships bringing our our grapes up from Chile. We can eat a little less beef, or choose the more responsible, smaller scale, local stuff over the industrial food-lot stuff at fast food restaurants. We can honor the restaurants that make a point of being sustainable with our business, and make the effort to support them.
We can choose more responsible forms of power, and as we show our demand, they'll respond. They'll build more solar, wind, geothermal; they'll hire more scientists, and make the technology better and more proven. It will be slow, but with a bit of willpower - a tiny pinch for each of us - the mass of this whole thing will grow.
But most importantly, we can think and talk about this thing. This climate change, this environmentalism - this change.
We haven't created this change - that was done slowly, over the last century and a half, by our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. But we continue the change, every day of our lives, and that makes us party to us. We can ponder what it is, what it will be - and whether we can take the reigns away from habit and choose our own destiny.
Because this isn't just about the danger of climate change. That's what I've realized - and one of the things that gave me pause about coming back to this project, because the name - this goal of 450 by 2050 - doesn't encompass everything I want to talk about any more. I don't just want to think about the danger and prevention. We, as a generation, have been given a chance to consider our destinies. Climate change is dangerous, too - but so is how we confront it. It has the opportunity to open our eyes, and ask us whether this is really what we want.
And it gives us a chance to reinvent ourselves and our society. Not in a huge way, perhaps - maybe most things are fine the way they are, I don't know. But the truth is that we didn't decide the society we were born into - and if we continue as we are, unthinking, then we'll never have the choice.
So let's think about it, together and apart, and figure out if the current form of it all is really what we want. Confronted with this fear, though - and these very real dangers - it's hard to imagine someone answering "Yes."
10.6.09
The Wrong Way
So, according to the New York Times, Republicans in the House have drafted their own energy bill. This in and of itself is not shocking - even though congressional republicans have been lagging behind and disorganized in how they approach these things, they're still expected to offer another choice (as in the whole stupid budget thing).
The shocking thing is the content: nuclear power, increased drilling, and nothing to restrict greenhouse gas production. Oh wait that's not shocking at all.
Now, to be fair, their position isn't so ridiculous. Lots of human problems are not solved by direct, large-scale action; some of the time, we just slowly work our way out of the issue. And there are jobs at risk, and the economy is doin' bad still, etc. etc.
But here's the thing. If we look at history, the environment has been one of those things that individual people just can't solve on their own with a little more money from tax cuts. The history of America versus the environment can pretty easily be viewed in terms of regulation equaling success. Without regulation, there's rampant pollution and ecosystem destruction (like clear cutting). With regulation, we're starting to save wetlands, forests, resources - hell, the ozone layer is starting to heal. The simple fact of the matter is that the scale of environmental problems are far above and beyond us individuals.
And that's fine. That's one of the big reasons governments exist as-is - to handle things that are beyond an individual. That's why we need Waxman-Markey bill; it wants to regulate, and it's trying to put us on the right path.
We don't have time to hope the problem works itself out. And we've only got one atmosphere. Time to make the decision, say that it might hurt a little in the short term, but press on down the path we truly know we have to walk. Because once again, these outspoken congressional republicans have offered nothing that can accomplish anything in the kind of time-frame we have.
The shocking thing is the content: nuclear power, increased drilling, and nothing to restrict greenhouse gas production. Oh wait that's not shocking at all.
Now, to be fair, their position isn't so ridiculous. Lots of human problems are not solved by direct, large-scale action; some of the time, we just slowly work our way out of the issue. And there are jobs at risk, and the economy is doin' bad still, etc. etc.
But here's the thing. If we look at history, the environment has been one of those things that individual people just can't solve on their own with a little more money from tax cuts. The history of America versus the environment can pretty easily be viewed in terms of regulation equaling success. Without regulation, there's rampant pollution and ecosystem destruction (like clear cutting). With regulation, we're starting to save wetlands, forests, resources - hell, the ozone layer is starting to heal. The simple fact of the matter is that the scale of environmental problems are far above and beyond us individuals.
And that's fine. That's one of the big reasons governments exist as-is - to handle things that are beyond an individual. That's why we need Waxman-Markey bill; it wants to regulate, and it's trying to put us on the right path.
We don't have time to hope the problem works itself out. And we've only got one atmosphere. Time to make the decision, say that it might hurt a little in the short term, but press on down the path we truly know we have to walk. Because once again, these outspoken congressional republicans have offered nothing that can accomplish anything in the kind of time-frame we have.
7.6.09
The world comes crashing down
Maybe this is a little idealistic, but what's wrong with admitting that you're wrong? Or, strike that - admitting that you need to investigate something before all the conclusions are drawn?
In this case, we're talking about hydraulic fracturing, a process where pressure is built up in the hole that we've drilled to the point where the surrounding rock formation starts to crack. The point being that then, gas and liquids can flow to the hole better, and you get increased yields.
So, that's fine. And tree-hugging, gaia-wounding protests aside, there have been (very specific) uses of fracturing that have passed the EPA.
Enter this little controversy, thanks to Grist and ProPublica.
I'm less concerned about the issue at hand - as horrible as it perhaps is, it's short-term. What's a little more concerning is the industry's reaction.
So here's the question: have the issues of climate change and sustainability hardened the coal, oil, and gas industries to the point of never admitting wrong?
I mean, what's the logical response to an investigation of a technique that might have as many as 1,000 cases of contamination? You stop doing it until you can find out if it's harming anyone. If it is, you either modify the method or stop doing it. Period.
But that's not what we're seeing.
Let's be clear: I don't know anything about the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, but clearly there's concern from people who do. There are investigations (on multiple stages of the process) and allegations, and that should maybe give you some pause, as a company.
...Or, you know, as an elected official.
Again, I don't know whether fracturing is a dangerous thing. But here's the kicker - neither does anyone else. And that should give a United States Representative pause.
I'm not saying that the oil/gas/coal/whatever business is an evil supercorporation with shady government ties. I don't want to say that our elected officials are obsessed with the seasonal buzzword "jobs". I don't want to get into a trading-out-green-jobs thing.
I just want someone to make a realistic decision. Forget the baggage. If information comes to light that one of your industrial practices might be a health risk, then you put a hold on it until you can investigate it.
But, hey, those liberals are babbling about climate change again. We've gotta stand by our guns, am I right?
In this case, we're talking about hydraulic fracturing, a process where pressure is built up in the hole that we've drilled to the point where the surrounding rock formation starts to crack. The point being that then, gas and liquids can flow to the hole better, and you get increased yields.
So, that's fine. And tree-hugging, gaia-wounding protests aside, there have been (very specific) uses of fracturing that have passed the EPA.
Enter this little controversy, thanks to Grist and ProPublica.
I'm less concerned about the issue at hand - as horrible as it perhaps is, it's short-term. What's a little more concerning is the industry's reaction.
So here's the question: have the issues of climate change and sustainability hardened the coal, oil, and gas industries to the point of never admitting wrong?
I mean, what's the logical response to an investigation of a technique that might have as many as 1,000 cases of contamination? You stop doing it until you can find out if it's harming anyone. If it is, you either modify the method or stop doing it. Period.
But that's not what we're seeing.
When asked about the record of Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s largest independent gas producer, Mike John, a vice president of government relations for Chesapeake, told the committee that “I would emphasize that in my experience we have not seen any problems with hydraulic fracturing in my career.” John did not mention the recent Louisiana case in which 16 cattle died after allegedly drinking spilled fracturing fluids at a Chesapeake well site – a case that is still under investigation.
Let's be clear: I don't know anything about the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, but clearly there's concern from people who do. There are investigations (on multiple stages of the process) and allegations, and that should maybe give you some pause, as a company.
...Or, you know, as an elected official.
“I am proud that I am supported by the oil and gas industry because they employ a lot of people in my state and I am going to stick up for them,” said Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK). “I am sick and tired of a lot of folks in my own caucus coming after the largest employer in my state.”
Again, I don't know whether fracturing is a dangerous thing. But here's the kicker - neither does anyone else. And that should give a United States Representative pause.
I'm not saying that the oil/gas/coal/whatever business is an evil supercorporation with shady government ties. I don't want to say that our elected officials are obsessed with the seasonal buzzword "jobs". I don't want to get into a trading-out-green-jobs thing.
I just want someone to make a realistic decision. Forget the baggage. If information comes to light that one of your industrial practices might be a health risk, then you put a hold on it until you can investigate it.
But, hey, those liberals are babbling about climate change again. We've gotta stand by our guns, am I right?
24.5.09
Technology Revisited
There's a great post by coby of A Few Things Ill Considered on The Energy Grid about the origins of our current mess. The basic problem is essentially politics, by which he means organizations of people. As groups of people, we haven't looked forward enough.
Which, while a simple and poignant way to put it, isn't anything new. The really interesting ground is where he goes next - why can't technology save us?
And it's true, humanity has always shown an ability to leap the natural hurdles that usually constrain growth. And that's a good thing - I don't think any of us, other than a very small minority, want the human race to go extinct, so if we can buck nature's rule that all species die off then hey, go us.
But at the same time, we may be hastened extinction - or, at least, a catastrophic loss of quality of life - just because we are so unconstrained.
And that's the key, the way coby puts it. The analogy he chooses is building a new bridge to alleviate congestion, and how that doesn't work - more capacity between A and B leads more people to drive, build houses at point A, work at point B, take A and B instead of going around to point C to dodge traffic, etc.
So isn't it the same thing with energy usage? Even if we discover futuristic technology - or just finally get around to making Fusion work - will it actually help us in the long(ish) run?
His answer is no, and I'd tend to agree. Unless regulated by some sort of negative pressure - governmental regulations or societal pressures - we'd just take the energy and grow until even that energy isn't enough. In fact, from the right way around, a limitless source of energy is actually far more frightening than an energy collapse - who knows if we'd be able to stop our expansion.
So what's the point?
The point is that we need to learn to regulate ourselves - and that maybe we all need to do some deep soul searching to decide if that's even possible.
Which, while a simple and poignant way to put it, isn't anything new. The really interesting ground is where he goes next - why can't technology save us?
And it's true, humanity has always shown an ability to leap the natural hurdles that usually constrain growth. And that's a good thing - I don't think any of us, other than a very small minority, want the human race to go extinct, so if we can buck nature's rule that all species die off then hey, go us.
But at the same time, we may be hastened extinction - or, at least, a catastrophic loss of quality of life - just because we are so unconstrained.
And that's the key, the way coby puts it. The analogy he chooses is building a new bridge to alleviate congestion, and how that doesn't work - more capacity between A and B leads more people to drive, build houses at point A, work at point B, take A and B instead of going around to point C to dodge traffic, etc.
So isn't it the same thing with energy usage? Even if we discover futuristic technology - or just finally get around to making Fusion work - will it actually help us in the long(ish) run?
His answer is no, and I'd tend to agree. Unless regulated by some sort of negative pressure - governmental regulations or societal pressures - we'd just take the energy and grow until even that energy isn't enough. In fact, from the right way around, a limitless source of energy is actually far more frightening than an energy collapse - who knows if we'd be able to stop our expansion.
So what's the point?
The point is that we need to learn to regulate ourselves - and that maybe we all need to do some deep soul searching to decide if that's even possible.
A major step forward
So either we learn to live sustainably or we find a way off this rock, right?
Well, both possibilities took major steps forward in feasibility on May 20th, when two astronauts and a cosmonaut proved that not only does their urine-to-water recycler work, it actually tastes great.
Imagine the possibilities!
Well, both possibilities took major steps forward in feasibility on May 20th, when two astronauts and a cosmonaut proved that not only does their urine-to-water recycler work, it actually tastes great.
Imagine the possibilities!
23.5.09
Stating the Issue Simply
More and more, sources of climate change denial are shifting from outright, tobacco-industry-esque denial combined with fake science to the view that we might be shifting the climate but we either don't know or can't do anything about it.
Well, we do know and we can do something about it.
And as this post on RealClimate about the recent issue of Science spells out pretty clearly, we need to act.
So the question is whether we act now or later to achieve a target like 450 by 2050.
Let's imagine both possibilities: we start working gradually now, following the general scientific consensus. We start moving away from coal quickly, we move on automobile emission regulation, and we start rebuilding electrical grids to work better and provide better information to the end user - the people using the power in the first (last?) place.
Added to that is global technological and professional outreach - helping to develop countries power and transportation infrastructure to make sure they don't repeat our mistakes.
It's a lot of work, but it's nothing that far out of the ordinary. In the United States, our lives will remain largely unchanged. Consumer habits will shift, but the bulk of the shift will be the young generation that grows up with an environmental conscience (I mentioned expanded education, yeah?). We put money into research, development, and construction, but that just creates companies that do the work - not a fundamental change. The government mandates different automobile regulations, but they already do. Again, not much of a change.
Clearly, it could end up being turbulent in the details, but on the whole it's business as usual - in the fundamental sense, even if we are breaking new ground in energy and infrastructure innovation.
But what if we squander the next thirty years before discovering, as a world, that we do have to do something?
I can't claim to be able to paint that broad a picture - my knowledge of international economics and relations is just not that great; and to be honest, the sort of shift that would need to overtake the world is, in its specifics, beyond anyone's predictive power.
Assuming that the world still reaches the same goal - because we have to - it would entail nothing more than a wartime effort - rationing, public work projects, and conscription. There'd probably be widespread disruption as the infrastructure is rapidly replaced - both power and transportation. What's worse, if we continue to build coal plants, they'll all have to shut down - or we'll have to find a way of making this stupid, stupid idea of injecting carbon dioxide into underground caverns actually work.
The international level could be even worse - for all the possible disruption a fast change in infrastructure could bring to the developed world, trying to green newly-developed nations like China, India, and Brazil could result in some nasty results.
There are a lot of possibilities. The point is, it's going to be expensive either way - but one of the ways is much, much more stable. Aren't republicans supposed to favor stability?
On the other hand, I've met very few people who aren't procrastinators at heart - and that's a little worrying.
Well, we do know and we can do something about it.
And as this post on RealClimate about the recent issue of Science spells out pretty clearly, we need to act.
Comparing the two papers is obscured by the different units; mass of carbon versus mass of CO2 (moles, anyone? Is there a chemist in the house?). But chugging through the math, we find the papers to be broadly consistent. Both papers conclude that humankind is already about half-way toward releasing enough carbon to probably reach 2°C, and that most of the fossil fuel carbon (the coal, in particular) will have to remain in the ground.
So the question is whether we act now or later to achieve a target like 450 by 2050.
Let's imagine both possibilities: we start working gradually now, following the general scientific consensus. We start moving away from coal quickly, we move on automobile emission regulation, and we start rebuilding electrical grids to work better and provide better information to the end user - the people using the power in the first (last?) place.
Added to that is global technological and professional outreach - helping to develop countries power and transportation infrastructure to make sure they don't repeat our mistakes.
It's a lot of work, but it's nothing that far out of the ordinary. In the United States, our lives will remain largely unchanged. Consumer habits will shift, but the bulk of the shift will be the young generation that grows up with an environmental conscience (I mentioned expanded education, yeah?). We put money into research, development, and construction, but that just creates companies that do the work - not a fundamental change. The government mandates different automobile regulations, but they already do. Again, not much of a change.
Clearly, it could end up being turbulent in the details, but on the whole it's business as usual - in the fundamental sense, even if we are breaking new ground in energy and infrastructure innovation.
But what if we squander the next thirty years before discovering, as a world, that we do have to do something?
I can't claim to be able to paint that broad a picture - my knowledge of international economics and relations is just not that great; and to be honest, the sort of shift that would need to overtake the world is, in its specifics, beyond anyone's predictive power.
Assuming that the world still reaches the same goal - because we have to - it would entail nothing more than a wartime effort - rationing, public work projects, and conscription. There'd probably be widespread disruption as the infrastructure is rapidly replaced - both power and transportation. What's worse, if we continue to build coal plants, they'll all have to shut down - or we'll have to find a way of making this stupid, stupid idea of injecting carbon dioxide into underground caverns actually work.
The international level could be even worse - for all the possible disruption a fast change in infrastructure could bring to the developed world, trying to green newly-developed nations like China, India, and Brazil could result in some nasty results.
There are a lot of possibilities. The point is, it's going to be expensive either way - but one of the ways is much, much more stable. Aren't republicans supposed to favor stability?
On the other hand, I've met very few people who aren't procrastinators at heart - and that's a little worrying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
