Originally Posted by Danilynn

Southern Girl, I can swim. My house is 5 feet off the ground on a pillared foundation. It was built in 1872 and has withstood numerous tornadoes and close enough to the coast to have lived through several F-5 hurricanes and come out unscathed. I'm pretty sure, with 4 fireplaces in our house we won't be cold, no coal needed.

Actually, the receeding coastline is a much bigger worry. How high above sea level are you?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, the receeding coastline is a much bigger worry. How high above sea level are you?

Much higher than New Orleans, New Orleans is 2.5 hours drive from me. Gulfport is 3 hours drive away.

It will be necessary, in this climate crisis, for people to think about more than just how secure the foundation of their own house is. It does take the ability to see beyond your own nose, and have some concern for people beyond yourself and your own; to see that we are each interdependent with people all around the world, and that the whole world is our responsibility and our legacy. The climate does not respect property lines and state and national borders. Will more people in red states be able to rise to this occasion and broaden their view, beyond that of their GOP representatives today who care only about themselves and their money and power?

Brian makes a good point earlier on this thread, and endlessvegetables on the new zeitgeist thread, that we need to shift to more public transit. Brian asked how are we going to do this. I don't know for sure, but I do know that I live in one of the most car-dependent cities in the United States or the world, and in 1971 some visionary citizens joined together to form the Modern Transit Society, spearheaded by Al Spivak. I joined this group for a while, and went to some city council meetings. Some progress has been made, including construction of a light rail line. The Sierra Club has also founded Cool Cities, which I have joined too. It's aims include establishing transit boulevards. So it is possible for the people to join together and bring about a more people-friendly and climate friendly environment, even in a city as car-crazy as San Jose CA.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Right, and even when her house is flooded out, Danilynn will be screaming "where is my coal??"

That post wasn't necessary. Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That post wasn't necessary. Just sayin'.

I disagree, as usual, with your defense of her. It was completely appropo considering her previous posts.

I also didn't see you comment on her unnecessary (and insulting) posts. Oh well...

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Much higher than New Orleans, New Orleans is 2.5 hours drive from me. Gulfport is 3 hours drive away.

Stay inland. Much of the south lies too low for comfort. My son and his family live in a very nice house that is 12 feet above high tide, and close to a tidal river - too close. The area is beautiful, for now at least.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I disagree, as usual, with your defense of her. It was completely appropo considering her previous posts.

Eric, you have been down-right insulting, whether you know it or not. Danilynn isn't blameless, but you carry most of the burden.

Just agree that you will never agree on anything, and let it go.

The problem is, none of us are safe. Climate change creates severe weather conditions of all kinds. Although to a great extent the Republicans (and our compliance with them) have already pushed us past the point of no return, we can still reduce some of the effects if we start switching off of fossil fuels, and stop criticizing the EPA when they require the poor fossil fuel company execs to take now the steps they needed to take decades ago. And why are some people like Danilynn defending these creepy fossil fuel execs?

Danilynn doesn't need anyone to defend her from me.

so yeah, just let it go.

It's not about defending the oil executives. I could give a rat's behind about them. My concern is the fact that a greater portion of our electrical grid is dependent on being at a certain level year around due to either extreme heat or cold. Both of which modern society and sick, ill and small children are generally poorly able to adapt to.

Without the coal plants on line a greater strain is placed on the oh so sacred greener portion run part of our grid. Fact, this past winter all that kept the grid up and running and rates for heating somewhat affordable for all the non millionaires among us was those damn coal run power plants.

It is estimated without them, electric bills and heating bills will go way higher than most folks above, but barely above the federal poverty levels which gets them on safety net programs will have to choose food or heat. The poverty level safety nets do not account for the fast rising grocery store prices, gasoline for cars that take them to work and higher everything else.

Disposable income for a great many people is a myth.


Much worse scenario would be rolling or continuous black out or brown-outs during a winter like we had last winter.

I may be fortunate with 4 fireplaces in my home and lumber to burn, but the average home built in the mid 20th century or later was not built with that. They were built for electric or gas heating through a central unit type set-up.

try thinking about what mass black-outs would have meant last winter for a majority of the population around this country. are you really so keen on seeing people freeze or starve to death just to get rid of all the evil coal executives?

Imagine more and more people at borderline poverty (or sinking below borderline) in a deteriorating economy. Energy prices...prices for necessities...are rising. And then there is a bout of particularly harsh weather. With energy shortages-brown outs/black outs, lines at gas stations, and so on.....

Fossil fuels will have to serve as a bridge. Implementing alternatives will take time.

Actually, if the situation gets bad enough, I can see a savvy politician selling energy alternatives as a jobs program.


One thing I haven't seen is discussion in terms of practical politics.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Imagine more and more people at borderline poverty (or sinking below borderline) in a deteriorating economy. Energy prices...prices for necessities...are rising. And then there is a bout of particularly harsh weather. With energy shortages-brown outs/black outs, lines at gas stations, and so on.....

Fossil fuels will have to serve as a bridge. Implementing alternatives will take time.

It will take time. But not as much time as the deniers say.

Actually, if the situation gets bad enough, I can see a savvy politician selling energy alternatives as a jobs program.

One thing I haven't seen is discussion in terms of practical politics.

I think Obama already has done this, and discussed this; and if not him, certainly those politicians who are more progressive have done so.

It's quite practical. The Democrats generally support this change; the Republicans all oppose it. What is supremely practical, is to NOT vote Republican. I mean, if you care about this issue.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Southern Girl, I can swim. My house is 5 feet off the ground on a pillared foundation. It was built in 1872 and has withstood numerous tornadoes and close enough to the coast to have lived through several F-5 hurricanes and come out unscathed. I'm pretty sure, with 4 fireplaces in our house we won't be cold, no coal needed.

I too am a powerful swimmer (about the only athletic activity I do well), but I would never try to swim in the presence of hurricane-force winds or in whitewater. Even if one does not drown, one is at extreme risk of striking or being struck by debris that would knock one unconscious.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

It's not about defending the oil executives. I could give a rat's behind about them. My concern is the fact that a greater portion of our electrical grid is dependent on being at a certain level year around due to either extreme heat or cold. Both of which modern society and sick, ill and small children are generally poorly able to adapt to.

Fair enough. I see America's executives, first almost exclusively in the for-profit sector and increasingly the public and non-profit sectors beginning to resemble the Soviet nomenklatura, a rapacious and exclusive class of exploiters who seek to destroy competition or prevent its emergence. The big landowners and the industrialists and financiers tolerate such so long as it brings captive markets (high prices) and the immiseration of working people (low wages and brutal management).

Without the coal plants on line a greater strain is placed on the oh so sacred greener portion run part of our grid. Fact, this past winter all that kept the grid up and running and rates for heating somewhat affordable for all the non millionaires among us was those damn coal run power plants.

One winter -- and a freakish situation in the warmest January, February, and March worldwide in which a cold mass got entrenched in eastern North America. The winter of 2012 -- arguably the "Year Without a Winter" in which temperatures in the Great Lakes region reached the 80F area in March -- could be more the norm. The lack of snow cover in 2012 dried off the moisture of the soil by the summer, and the freakishly-extended growing season featured a drought that made much of the extended growing season worthless. Southern Michigan began to look like Southern California except fir the absence of mountains.

After the harsh winter of 2013-2014 we in Michigan seem to have some of the most beautiful crops that we have ever seen. We would be better off with the brutal winters because such gives us good food crops. Considering what has gone on in the western US and Australia we in the American Midwest would fare better with great crops and high utility bills. If one dislikes Michigan winters (they are stormy and depressing)... there is Florida. Give us that sort of winter and we would need the coal-fired plants. But we would be among the few. Of course we are on the fringe of the usual line for needing air conditioning before we wilt for most of the summer. Air conditioning also devours energy... but burning fossil fuels to cool houses is the ultimate futility with respect to global warming.

It is estimated without them, electric bills and heating bills will go way higher than most folks above, but barely above the federal poverty levels which gets them on safety net programs will have to choose food or heat. The poverty level safety nets do not account for the fast rising grocery store prices, gasoline for cars that take them to work and higher everything else.

Nobody can guarantee food supplies being as copious in the aftermath of global warming. Tropical forests, savannas, and grasslands of little agricultural use will expand into largely-worthless tropical deserts. Such will fail to compensate for the poleward shift of hot deserts into places with Mediterranean climates (the Mediterranean basin, coastal California, southern Australia, the Cape area of South Africa) and into some prairie zones like central Texas. Just imagine the remarkable ruins of places like Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio interspersed with sand dunes. Houston? Inundated.

Disposable income for a great many people is a myth.

Disposable income is entirely a modern phenomenon. In hard times it us a precarious concept. For that, global warming and the peonization of the American workforce that have different causes could have much the same nefarious effect.

Much worse scenario would be rolling or continuous black out or brown-outs during a winter like we had last winter.

I may be fortunate with 4 fireplaces in my home and lumber to burn, but the average home built in the mid 20th century or later was not built with that. They were built for electric or gas heating through a central unit type set-up.

try thinking about what mass black-outs would have meant last winter for a majority of the population around this country. are you really so keen on seeing people freeze or starve to death just to get rid of all the evil coal executives?

People fighting over the remaining arable land implies wars in which rolling black-outs of electrical power could be the least of our problems.

how you holding up here lately brower? I know you've had a lot going on, and some of it not so good, but I truly hope you are well and that things are turning around for you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If we are really lucky, they will also find a way to make it illegal to collect rainwater.

Bechtel (IIRC), who owned the water rights in Bolivia back in the early 00s, managed to forbid the collection of rainwater. That was one of the outrages of hyperprivatization that led to the election of Evo Morales.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Bechtel (IIRC), who owned the water rights in Bolivia back in the early 00s, managed to forbid the collection of rainwater. That was one of the outrages of hyperprivatization that led to the election of Evo Morales.

Hyper-privatization: powerful people deciding that all is for them, and that anything that gets in their way is a crime.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

It's not about defending the oil executives. I could give a rat's behind about them. My concern is the fact that a greater portion of our electrical grid is dependent on being at a certain level year around due to either extreme heat or cold. Both of which modern society and sick, ill and small children are generally poorly able to adapt to.

Without the coal plants on line a greater strain is placed on the oh so sacred greener portion run part of our grid. Fact, this past winter all that kept the grid up and running and rates for heating somewhat affordable for all the non millionaires among us was those damn coal run power plants.

Our greener portion is the sacred portion, and our Earth and climate is sacred. It will take some time to convert to solar and wind, though not as much time as skeptics say; but we need to be about doing it. That does not mean cutting people off from coal; it means transition to renewables. That's why "it" IS about defending the oil executives. THEY need to change the kind of fuels that they produce. They refuse to make the switch because it is inconvenient for them. Focus on the opportunity which green energy provides; not on the gradual but rapid elimination of outdated fuels, which make the weather much worse due to the climate change they cause. Those poor people who suffer in the extreme heat and cold, will suffer ever more as long as global warming due to fossil fuel use continues. It is for the farmers in Texas as well as residents of Massachusetts that we are concerned. More droughts and blizzards resulting from climate change will not be "affordable" at all for anyone.

It is estimated without them, electric bills and heating bills will go way higher than most folks above, but barely above the federal poverty levels which gets them on safety net programs will have to choose food or heat. The poverty level safety nets do not account for the fast rising grocery store prices, gasoline for cars that take them to work and higher everything else.

It is a fact that solar and wind are coming down in cost, and will soon be cheaper than searching in far away, deep and dangerous places for more oil and coal. Gas prices will continue to rise as long as competitive alternatives like electric and hydrogen are not available, and as long as finding gasoline sources gets more difficult and expensive.

Disposable income for a great many people is a myth.

It is a myth indeed, and the scarcity is largely due to Republican trickle-down policies that concentrate wealth.

Much worse scenario would be rolling or continuous black out or brown-outs during a winter like we had last winter.

try thinking about what mass black-outs would have meant last winter for a majority of the population around this country. are you really so keen on seeing people freeze or starve to death just to get rid of all the evil coal executives?

The evil coal executives need to be required to switch to renewables, or to eventually go out of business. New green tech business needs our support. Transition does not mean less fuel; it means different fuels.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Hyper-privatization: powerful people deciding that all is for them, and that anything that gets in their way is a crime.

That's a good definition.

I missed this entirely, so here's a late response.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

It's not about defending the oil executives. I could give a rat's behind about them. My concern is the fact that a greater portion of our electrical grid is dependent on being at a certain level year around due to either extreme heat or cold. Both of which modern society and sick, ill and small children are generally poorly able to adapt to.

This is true , but ...

Originally Posted by Danilynn ...

Without the coal plants on line a greater strain is placed on the oh so sacred greener portion run part of our grid. Fact, this past winter all that kept the grid up and running and rates for heating somewhat affordable for all the non millionaires among us was those damn coal run power plants..

... this is not. Coal is only needed in the interim. Other alternatives must displace it, and soon. As it stands, using coal -- especially conventional dirty coal -- to create electricitry in the south means more 90 and 100 degree days. It defeats the purpose. You may avoid the worst of it, but your children and grandchildren won't.

Originally Posted by Danilynn ...

It is estimated without them, electric bills and heating bills will go way higher than most folks above, but barely above the federal poverty levels which gets them on safety net programs will have to choose food or heat. The poverty level safety nets do not account for the fast rising grocery store prices, gasoline for cars that take them to work and higher everything else...

Disposable income for a great many people is a myth..

This is a different issue entirely. Salaries and wages need to rise dramatically, especially in the non-union south. Keeping coal plants going to avoid having to meet the economic challenges is futile, and, frankly, just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Danilynn ...

Much worse scenario would be rolling or continuous black out or brown-outs during a winter like we had last winter..

Transition will be decades long, so blackout/brownout isues will be no different than they are now. Once the new grid and power management regime is in place (which will vary, but assume it will be a much cleaner solution than the current one), blackouts and brownouts should be a thing of the past. A lot can be done with a governement funded program to insulate every building that uses heat and air conditioning ... and replacing all the incandesent bulbs while they're at it.

Originally Posted by Danilynn ...

I may be fortunate with 4 fireplaces in my home and lumber to burn, but the average home built in the mid 20th century or later was not built with that. They were built for electric or gas heating through a central unit type set-up.

try thinking about what mass black-outs would have meant last winter for a majority of the population around this country. are you really so keen on seeing people freeze or starve to death just to get rid of all the evil coal executives?

This is a red herring argument. In esence: the problem can't be addresssed because it already exists and addressing it may make it worse. Not addressing it is guaranteed to make it worse, so start with things that are non-controversial, like insulation and bulb replacement, and go from there.

It seems like even in red states the public is turning our way...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...o-save-planet/

Danilynn might not be typical (yet; I will be polite there's always hope).

Even so, Democrats are in trouble in these states, because of the mistaken impression (mentioned in this article) that "we have had 6 years of his policies," and the economic recovery is still sluggish. It is somewhat sluggish, but how can anyone in his or her right mind think that we have had 6 years of Obama's policies????????? Especially since the last presidential election? Or, are Americans even capable of being of right mind, politically? At least sometimes not, it appears.

Ok, I'm stepping into a hornets nest here. But I have had a question concerning the XL Pipeline that none one seems to connect the -literally connect the dots-.

How does building an oil pipeline from Canada directly to a warm water port (Houston) ensure American energy, especially if such pipelines already exists that pump oil from Canada to the US?
http://www.refinerlink.com/blog/Nort...Oil_Pipelines/

It seems that oil would bypass the American market in order to be sold world wide (ie China). I imagine shipping via the Great Lakes (and its heavy concentration of population) isn't much of an option, and building a pipeline through the Canadian Rockies isn't. That's leaves the Gulf which is already a popular port that Canadian industry uses through its rail system. I also imagine that its not an issue of nationality, religion, or energy independence for the businesses behind this operation. Rather for the transnational, its simply moving product to market.

Originally Posted by Time Mage X

Ok, I'm stepping into a hornets nest here. But I have had a question concerning the XL Pipeline that none one seems to connect the -literally connect the dots-.

How does building an oil pipeline from Canada directly to a warm water port (Houston) ensure American energy, especially if such pipelines already exists that pump oil from Canada to the US?
http://www.refinerlink.com/blog/Nort...Oil_Pipelines/

It seems that oil would bypass the American market in order to be sold world wide (ie China). I imagine shipping via the Great Lakes (and its heavy concentration of population) isn't much of an option, and building a pipeline through the Canadian Rockies isn't. That's leaves the Gulf which is already a popular port that Canadian industry uses through its rail system. I also imagine that its not an issue of nationality, religion, or energy independence for the businesses behind this operation. Rather for the transnational, its simply moving product to market.

actually this is exactly the alternative. it's called the Northern Gateways Pipelines, and yes it's about buidling trading capacity with Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridg...eway_Pipelines

Originally Posted by tg63

actually this is exactly the alternative. it's called the Northern Gateways Pipelines, and yes it's about buidling trading capacity with Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridg...eway_Pipelines

Thank you for the information tg63. That would be quite an engineering feat if they managed to pull it off. By the way if I may say, you seem to be a bit of a silent giant according to your stats (Why am I rhyming all of a sudden?).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It seems like even in red states the public is turning our way...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...o-save-planet/

Danilynn might not be typical (yet; I will be polite there's always hope).

Even so, Democrats are in trouble in these states, because of the mistaken impression (mentioned in this article) that "we have had 6 years of his policies," and the economic recovery is still sluggish. It is somewhat sluggish, but how can anyone in his or her right mind think that we have had 6 years of Obama's policies????????? Especially since the last presidential election? Or, are Americans even capable of being of right mind, politically? At least sometimes not, it appears.

But such estimates of "public opinion" do not take the massive differences in voter turnout among various age and income groups into account - just as the majority support such polls show for same-sex marriage say nothing of just how poorly spaced that support is.