Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This seems to be the final alarm bell. It is time to STOP saying that infrastructure "can't" be changed, and require that it be changed. It is time to STOP saying it can't be done, and start doing it. It is time to STOP THE REPUBLICANS and demand that the president act.

I've heard it said that a people can't get a better government than they deserve. In that spirit, I don't know that Obama is going to go where most of the people aren't ready to go. You and I, sure, we'd applaud decisive movement. The people as a whole? I'm not so sure. If the democrats tried to push an aggressive enough program to make a difference, would they do well in the 2014 elections? This being the case, Obama isn't willing to put the rest of his program at risk.

He's not that sort of leader.

I wish it were otherwise, but...

By all means keep pushing, though.

My guess is that the next generation of prophets as they come of age are going to realize they have been royally screwed by their elders. I'm guessing they might be the Green Generation. I'll say again, the Millennial - Green generation gap is apt to make the GI - Boomer thing seem like a mild disagreement.

The new issue of New Scientist has an article about how everything is happening faster than even the worst-case predictions of the last IPCC report.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I've heard it said that a people can't get a better government than they deserve. In that spirit, I don't know that Obama is going to go where most of the people aren't ready to go. You and I, sure, we'd applaud decisive movement. The people as a whole? I'm not so sure. If the democrats tried to push an aggressive enough program to make a difference, would they do well in the 2014 elections? This being the case, Obama isn't willing to put the rest of his program at risk.

He's not that sort of leader.

I wish it were otherwise, but...

By all means keep pushing, though.

My guess is that the next generation of prophets as they come of age are going to realize they have been royally screwed by their elders. I'm guessing they might be the Green Generation. I'll say again, the Millennial - Green generation gap is apt to make the GI - Boomer thing seem like a mild disagreement.

I called that generation the Green Pioneers in my book, published in 1997. So it appears you and I are on the same page. Still, we only have a few years to reverse course. Millies DO support action now, so we can take advantage of that.

True about Obama; and yet he has said he is concerned, so some pushing might help. All he can do is lean on the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Unless the people wake up and throw out the Republicans, no congressional action is possible. Obama needs to use the bully pulpit to wake up the people. It will be a legacy issue for him.

Firedoglake, a notoriously blue biased source, is reporting that Senate Democrats Seek Climate Change Vote in Defense Authorization Bill.

It's mostly a symbolic thing. The language requires the Pentagon to plan for possible security problems related to crop failures, water shortages and similar effects. The Pentagon was already doing this. The US military haven't been considering climate change to be a hoax for several years now.

It's conjectured that it's being done to put the Republicans on record as denialists. As such, it is just a minor media play, but it might reflect the start of a democratic policy of putting pressure on the Republicans on the issue. I consider this a significant given how little global warming was mentioned during the 2012 campaigns.

CNN writes on How severe weather impacts global food supply.

Originally Posted by B Butler

CNN writes on How severe weather impacts global food supply.

The Mississippi is so low right now, that barges are finding it difficult to get their cargo to their destinations. One idea is to blow up the rocks down the center of the river to clear the way for travel.

China pledges 'due contribution' on emissions cuts
Head of Chinese delegation at Doha climate talks says developed countries must do more

Fiona Harvey in Doha
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 December 2012 13.59 EST


China has pledged to make its "due contribution" to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and tackling climate change, but said developed countries must do more.

Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation at the Doha climate talks, said: "We are working together with other countries on global climate change, and we will make our due contribution to that end. If different countries have different situations, that is understandable, but we are seeking common ground."

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, said: "The climate change phenomenon has been caused by the industrialisation of the developed world. [It is] only fair and reasonable that the developed world should bear most of the responsibility."

Ministers prepared to move into the final stage of negotiations at the UN talks, aimed at producing a continuation of the Kyoto protocol and a new agreement to be signed by all countries in 2015 and to come into force from 2020.

China's contribution to future emissions cuts looks set to become a major issue for the next three years, as countries work towards the deadline. A research paper by Lord Stern, the former World Bank chief economist, found that China – the world's biggest emitter – and other rapidly industrialising nations would have to make substantial cuts in their carbon output if the world was to avoid dangerous levels of climate change. China has resisted this, saying developed countries bear more responsibility.

"Climate change is due to unrestricted emissions by developed countries in their process of industrialisation," Xie said. "Developing countries are the victims of climate change."

He said China had already invested 2 trillion yuan (£200bn) between 2005 and 2010 in cutting emissions, excluding renewables, and would invest double that amount from 2011 to 2014 if renewable energy was taken into account. He said China had created 28m jobs as a result, and that would rise to 40m.

"If we want to devise a long-term goal on emissions reduction by 2015, it is inevitable that we will have to find a way to allocate emissions. But these allocations must be equitable. It's very important therefore to talk about equity."

Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, signalled that the US was prepared to have such a discussion. "Let's provide a thorough opportunity for all parties to discuss all critical issues, including the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities," he told the conference. "The US would welcome such a discussion, because unless we can find common ground on that principle … we won't succeed."

His words surprised some because of an impression that the US was unwilling to talk about these issues. However, by initiating such a discussion Washington is able effectively to call Beijing's bluff – because as China is the world's biggest emitter, and set to be the world's biggest economy within a few years, it may be expected to take on a greater share of emissions cuts.

These issues will not be solved at the Doha conference, which is scheduled to finish on Friday evening. Another key issue – that of finance from developed countries to help developing countries cut their emissions and adapt to the effects of global warming – is also likely to be left hanging.

Three outcomes are hoped for from this year's talks: a continuation of the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012, when its current commitment period ends; an end to the "twin track" of negotiations that was insisted on by President George W Bush; and the drawing up of a work programme to set the timetable for the talks to 2015.

Stern said progress had been made on these fronts. However, in some of the negotiations there have been setbacks as some countries have insisted on reinstating passages of text removed in previous days.

Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate chief, said the discussions on the future of the Kyoto protocol – which only the EU, Australia and a handful of other developed countries are joining – were "moving forward". She said the EU had been leading the way on finance, pointing to announcements made by the UK, Germany and the European commission, among others.

Green campaigners have said much of the money promised by rich countries – supposed to amount to $30bn over the past three years – is not new but has been announced at previous talks, and some comes from existing aid budgets or in the form of loans. They want to see more pledges on finance to be provided after the end of this year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...emissions-cuts

In a rare media appearance at the U.N. climate talks in Doha, U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing is questioned by Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman about the United States’ failure to do more to cut emissions and to save the planet from catastrophic climate change. Meanwhile, U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern has held just one press conference here in Doha. He was scheduled to hold another one today, but if you look at today’s conference list online, the event is the only one marked in red: The press conference was canceled.



PART OF THE INTERVIEW:


AMY GOODMAN: Earlier today, I had a chance to question U.S. chief climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing.

AMY GOODMAN: Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! Civil society groups are extremely frustrated here. President Obama, in his first speech after he was elected, said that he didn’t want his—he didn’t want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. Yesterday, a number of civil society groups held a news conference, and they said at that news conference—Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace International said, "Todd Stern and Jonathan Pershing have come to Doha with their needles stuck in the groove of obstructing the U.N. process, an art they have perfected." And he said that it is "disrespectful of President Obama to inflict on us two negative negotiators who act as if the comments he made after his election were never made. Obama should pick up the phone and tell his delegates to follow his lead, or, alternatively, call them back to Washington." That’s what Kumi Naidoo said. Jonathan Pershing, are you following President Obama’s wishes? And how do you respond to civil society groups who are saying that the U.S. is the lead obstructor to any kind of negotiated deal here in Doha?

JONATHAN PERSHING: I have no comment on the first part of that. On the second piece, I think the United States’s role is very much one of engaging actively and constructively in the discussion. We are one of the significant contributors to the intellectual thinking in the process. We have been. We will continue to try to do that. It doesn’t mean that we will agree with everyone on everything. This is, after all, a negotiation. We’re looking to participate in an outcome that will lead to a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. We’re looking at an outcome that will be acceptable to all parties. We’re looking at an outcome that will be effective in the time frame that we’ve set for ourselves to move forward.

RONALD JUMEAU: Yeah, I just want to make a comment. The world that President Obama doesn’t want American children to live in is already here, and it’s only going to get worse. I guess the most frustrated people on earth now must be scientists. There’s all this talk about, all this waffle about, "We have to do things according to the science," and everybody seems to—while the talks may be moving at a snail’s pace—as I said, the Doha caravan is lost in a sandstorm—everybody seems to be breaking their neck to get as far from the science as possible. So, the world is already here. And whether the U.S. or any other country, including my own, fears their children living in it, they are living in it. And I would hope maybe their kids should turn around and tell their parents, "Dad, haven’t you noticed? We’re already there."


Entire interview: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/12/..._us_negotiator

Citigroup to Cut 11,000 Jobs

Posted on Dec 5, 2012


Citigroup’s new chief executive, Michael Corbat, who replaced Vikram Pandit in October, expects the cuts to shave $1.1 billion a year in costs starting in 2014. Most of the jobs will come from the company’s consumer banking office, which handles the everyday work of neighborhood branches. The bank did not say how many jobs will be cut in the United States.The megabank announced the slashing of 4 percent of its workforce as a report telling of Hurricane Sandy’s negative impact on economic growth was published.


The announcement comes one year after Citigroup said it would let 4,500 workers go.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...jobs_20121205/

I visit Realclimate regularly, as an easy way of keeping up with the science side of the global warming problem. They are covering the recent AGU (American Geophysical Union) fall meeting, making available videos of some of the more sharable presentations. Anyone interested in the state of the debate from the science side might want to visit. The AGU is also putting up a good number of the less sharable presentations.

Paul Krugman: 'Chinese Growth Is A Wonderful Human Success Story That Could Kill Us All'

Paul Krugman considers China a mortal threat in one key respect: climate change."If you worry about climate change and stuff like that, then China is -- Chinese growth is a wonderful human success story that could kill us all," the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist said at the New York Times DealBook conference on Wednesday.
He also noted, "To some extent actually, we are hurt by Chinese growth. ... There are scarce natural resources, and we are in fact competing for limited supplies of oil, minerals, etc."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...541,b=facebook

And the irony is that China is now doing far more to change their energy sources than the USA is, although people in the USA use China as an excuse for the USA not doing more.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And the irony is that China is now doing far more to change their energy sources than the USA is, although people in the USA use China as an excuse for the USA not doing more.

Economic reality will force that. The Chinese leadership cannot hide air pollution and cannot defy resource depletion. Eventually green (or at least "greener") energy will be lower in cost than the coal that China heavily uses in its industries.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Economic reality will force that. The Chinese leadership cannot hide air pollution and cannot defy resource depletion. Eventually green (or at least "greener") energy will be lower in cost than the coal that China heavily uses in its industries.

There is another element of the China / India contributions that I bring up from time to time, which bears repeating. Humans are releasing greenhouse gasses, such as CO2 and methane. There are other particulates (sulfides, black carbon) which contribute to global dimming. They encourage cloud formation and reflect incoming light. The more particulates released, the greater a cooling effect. From a global warming perspective, there are some who propose deliberately releasing particulates, deliberately using global dimming to fight global warming.

The problem with this is black soot and sulfides present a health problem. Does everyone remember seeing pictures of Pittsburg during its heyday as a steel city? Lots of stacks releasing lots of black smoke? London in Victoria's time was bad as well. It was not healthy. It was vastly cost effective and quality of life effective to demand scrubbers on stacks that cut way back on the release of lung clogging poisons. The costs to the dirty power using industries was far outweighed by the public health issues.

India and China are rapidly figuring this out. They have every reason to do what the West did decades ago, require scrubbers on stacks for public health reasons. This will cut back on global dimming while doing nothing to stop global warming. You can put magic ponies on a stack to stop the soot, but they don't do CO2.

I'm not sure how many of the models and projections take this into account.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There is another element of the China / India contributions that I bring up from time to time, which bears repeating. Humans are releasing greenhouse gasses, such as CO2 and methane. There are other particulates (sulfides, black carbon) which contribute to global dimming. They encourage cloud formation and reflect incoming light. The more particulates released, the greater a cooling effect. From a global warming perspective, there are some who propose deliberately releasing particulates, deliberately using global dimming to fight global warming.

Soluble sulfides are almost as deadly as cyanide. Sooty particulates hurt lungs. We are wiser to keep natural sinks for carbon dioxide. One way is to transform the inner-ring suburbs with their aging and decrepit single-family houses and dead malls into garden cities with tower apartments and 'forest preserves'. It may be ironic, but denizens of New York City have 'greener' habits than people in any other large city -- let alone rural areas. Is New York City some Hell? Not according to the crime stats.

The problem with this is black soot and sulfides present a health problem. Does everyone remember seeing pictures of Pittsburg during its heyday as a steel city? Lots of stacks releasing lots of black smoke? London in Victoria's time was bad as well. It was not healthy. It was vastly cost effective and quality of life effective to demand scrubbers on stacks that cut way back on the release of lung clogging poisons. The costs to the dirty power using industries was far outweighed by the public health issues.

Soot and limestone dust are distressing. This was deadly, and it is likely to arise where and when political leaders desperate for some economic improvements or quick jobs to solve a nexus between unemployment and electoral failure to be had only if they allow a race to the bottom on environmental practices. In view of the callousness of a near-majority of American politicians such will happen here. The elites do not themselves compete, but they can compel everyone else to beg for everything.

India and China are rapidly figuring this out. They have every reason to do what the West did decades ago, require scrubbers on stacks for public health reasons. This will cut back on global dimming while doing nothing to stop global warming. You can put magic ponies on a stack to stop the soot, but they don't do CO2.

I'm not sure how many of the models and projections take this into account.

We had better force a drastic reduction in both the greenhouse gases and the pollutants. Soot, sulfur compounds, nitrogen oxides, arsenic, and fluorine pose their own hazards.

A couple of brief blurbs from RealClimate...

The heat is on in West Antarctica While there has been a good deal of instrumentation on the Arctic Peninsula indicating warming there, West Antarctica has not been instrumented. The lack of data indicating warming resulted in an assumption that there was no warming. This is changing. It seems West Antarctica is warming at a rate comparable to the peninsula.

Then there's A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success. Some among the denialists have attempted to make interstellar cosmic rays a significant factor in the climate problem. The theory is that cosmic rays help cloud formation, and the more clouds, the more radiation is reflected into space. Thus, warming might be blamed on cosmic ray level changes rather than greenhouse gasses. Continued attempts to find a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation have been failing. The theory has not been confirmable through observation.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

China pledges 'due contribution' on emissions cuts
Head of Chinese delegation at Doha climate talks says developed countries must do more


China has pledged to make its "due contribution" to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and tackling climate change, but said developed countries must do more.

[...]

It's not emissions which are the source of the problem. If global warming, as a result of increased atmospheric CO2, is a real problem, then the additional carbon is the problem. The source is the drilling and mining which brings carbon to the surface, which as been sequestered deep in the earth for millions of years. You will only be able to stop the problem if you stop the drilling of oil and mining of coal.

Originally Posted by SnowDog

It's not emissions which are the source of the problem. If global warming, as a result of increased atmospheric CO2, is a real problem, then the additional carbon is the problem. The source is the drilling and mining which brings carbon to the surface, which as been sequestered deep in the earth for millions of years. You will only be able to stop the problem if you stop the drilling of oil and mining of coal.

It is less the mining of it, than the burning of it to produce energy, which releases emissions. Of course it is mined only in order to be used as fuel. Yes, it needs to stop.

Originally Posted by SnowDog

It's not emissions which are the source of the problem. If global warming, as a result of increased atmospheric CO2, is a real problem, then the additional carbon is the problem. The source is the drilling and mining which brings carbon to the surface, which as been sequestered deep in the earth for millions of years. You will only be able to stop the problem if you stop the drilling of oil and mining of coal.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is less the mining of it, than the burning of it to produce energy, which releases emissions. Of course it is mined only in order to be used as fuel. Yes, it needs to stop.

There seems to be a minor glitch in language. I understand CO2 to be an emission. There are many many emissions. Black carbon and sulfides both poison the lungs and cause global dimming. These are also emissions, though they cause very different problems.

While CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, it is without doubt the most important. While there is some talk of sequestering the CO2 after burning fossil fuels, most notably the supposed 'clean coal' initiative, the technology has big problems. Right now, not burning fossil fuels seems easier than containing the resultant CO2. Still, we are so addicted to cheap power that the idea of not burning fossil fuels triggers massive values lock. It is essentially unthinkable. At a deep down core values level, we're very much into burn, baby, burn.

Which we will, of course.

People still take this doomsday porn seriously? I thought the zombie craze was silly, but green stuff just keeps getting further and further out there. Such is the way of religion though.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

People still take this doomsday porn seriously? I thought the zombie craze was silly, but green stuff just keeps getting further and further out there. Such is the way of religion though.

You mean the facts get more and more serious, and the deniers get further and further from reality. And the results of ignoring the "green cliff" get more and more catastrophic every day.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

People still take this doomsday porn seriously? I thought the zombie craze was silly, but green stuff just keeps getting further and further out there. Such is the way of religion though.

What can I say? People who are values locked to the point that they will throw out entire fields of science -- be it evolutionary biology or climate science -- just are not reality based enough to be worth trying to communicate with them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You mean the facts get more and more serious, and the deniers get further and further from reality. And the results of ignoring the "green cliff" get more and more catastrophic every day.

Doomsday porn or not, out here in New Mexico it is a truth generally acknowledged that we are getting warmer and dryer, with devastating effects on agriculture.

Sorry. Crop failures trump ideology any day of the week.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

People still take this doomsday porn seriously? I thought the zombie craze was silly, but green stuff just keeps getting further and further out there. Such is the way of religion though.

If you asked someone in AD 409 that the Western part of the Roman Empire was about to disintegrate they would think you were crazy. People were so mentally commited to the permanence of the Empire that they were blind to what was happening, even as Goths, Vandals, Alans, and Suevi were rampaging around Gaul. The Goths would sack Rome the next year.

Deniers are the same way.

2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental US, surpassing 1998.

Note, both years are near the peak heat for the 11 year solar cycle. 1998 was a big el-nino year. This solar cycle is somewhat less intense than the last one, but 1012's extra decade worth of greenhouse gas boosted heat more than 1998's el-nino and stronger solar cycle, though there are other factors, such as the melting arctic.