Memo to Ottawa: We can solve climate change in our lifetime
Provincial climate policy has improved drastically in recent years. Now it’s time for Ottawa to step up and do its part in Paris.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comme...-lifetime.html

This Sunday, the day before the UN climate summit begins in Paris, thousands of concerned Canadians will take to the streets of Ottawa to send a loud and clear message to our leaders: We can and must solve climate change in our lifetime.

The summit comes at a critical juncture. This year carbon pollution topped 400 parts per million in the atmosphere, above what scientists believe to be the safe limit. The earth has already warmed by one degree. Extreme weather events — droughts, wildfires, floods — have become all too common.

Action is needed and it’s needed now. We need an agreement in Paris that ensures that global warming stays well below 2 degrees Celsius.

The good news is that success in Paris is possible. The solutions to the climate crisis are at hand. The money is moving away from fossil fuels. The momentum is building.

In 2014, carbon emissions from energy sources flatlined while the global economy continued to grow, something that’s never happened in the 40 years the International Energy Agency has been tracking these statistics. The belief that economic growth must come with pollution growth is breaking down.

Fossil fuel projects are being axed. U.S. President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline. Coal mines are being shuttered in Alberta and B.C. Shell pulled the plug on an 80,000-barrel-a-day oilsands project and abandoned drilling in the Arctic.

The money is moving too. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global dropped 114 companies on climate grounds. The Church of England divested from the most heavily polluting fossil fuels. All told, investors managing US$2.6 trillion in assets are shifting their holdings away from fossil fuels. On the flip side, renewable energy investments broke yet another record last year. Over $6 trillion is expected to be invested in clean technology over the next decade.

A renewable energy revolution is unfolding before our eyes. Last year, the world added more electricity capacity from renewables than from oil, coal and gas combined. Solar panel costs have dropped by a whopping 73 per cent over the past five years, the cost of wind power has declined by 10 per cent per year for each of the last six years, and power from solar panels is now cheaper than wholesale grid electricity in 30 countries. Major companies, including Starbucks, Nike and Walmart, have pledged to shift to 100-per-cent renewable energy.

Canada is part of this revolution. We are the fourth largest producer of wind, water and solar power in the world. Canada’s clean energy sector added jobs at a greater rate than any other sector in the country. Since 2008, renewable energy has created 250,000 jobs in Ontario alone.

Meanwhile, governments around the world are accepting that there are economic, health and environmental costs associated with carbon pollution, and they’re starting to make those costs visible. Over 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and provinces have or are planning to implement carbon pricing. In a few years, more than half of the global economy will have a price on carbon. China, the world’s largest polluter, has committed to a cap-and-trade system to price emissions, and it has pledged to stop and reverse pollution growth by 2030.

Here in Canada, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and now Alberta have all put or promised to put a price on carbon. These four provinces represent over 86 per cent of the economy and over 80 per cent of Canada’s carbon pollution.

This week Alberta unveiled a historic climate plan. A cap on emissions from the tarsands, a coal phase-out, a commitment to increase renewable electricity supply and an energy efficiency program should mean that emissions in the province will soon peak and then start to decline. With this move from Alberta, there’s nothing standing in the way of Canada’s federal government from setting and reaching for a meaningful climate reduction target.

The new federal government has spoken well about the need for action on climate. It appears ready to turn the page after a decade of inaction. In Paris, Canada can shift from being a roadblock on climate progress to being an active driver of that progress.

A solution to this great challenge is possible. In fact, progress is well underway. As our federal leaders sit down in Paris to forge the way forward, they should think of the thousands who will march in Ottawa this Sunday and know that the public is behind them and the wind at their back.

Keith Brooks is director of the Clean Economy Program, Environmental Defence.

I only have one word in response to the Ottawa missive: hysteresis.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I only have one word in response to the Ottawa missive: hysteresis.

There's only one thing to do: realize the momentum is building, and get on board now! Especially considering all the evidence I have posted in this thread.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There's only one thing to do: realize the momentum is building, and get on board now! Especially considering all the evidence I have posted in this thread.

You can't prevent what is already baked-in.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You can't prevent what is already baked-in.

What is baked in, is some degree of continued global warming, because CO2 takes a long time to clear out of the air. But clearly it's possible to limit the damage by keeping the level of warming below 2C over the 1880s level. That will require changing our energy use to clean renewables as fast as the political winds and physical construction will permit.

Fossil fuel lobby seen as main threat to meaningful progress at Paris climate talks
BY NICK FILLMORE | NOVEMBER 26, 2015
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/11/fossil...-climate-talks

Pointing to the struggling world economic situation, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) says climate change is important, but it should not jeopardize economic growth.

Fossil fuel corporations have spent billions of dollars over the years funding front organizations that mislead and confuse the public by claiming that climate change is not a serious threat.

But scientists say that the human race cannot continue to function in a near-normal way unless about 80 per cent of the remaining fossil fuels are left in the ground.

The corporations oppose government regulations, and their main goal is to have the marketplace determine the amount of carbon emissions. However, public interest groups believe that industry will only serve its own profit interests.

THE TWO REVOLUTIONS THAT ARE CHANGING THE CLIMATE GAME

A series of transformations are revolutionising the fight against climate change: the initiatives of ordinary citizens determined to avert disaster, and the capacity of renewables to be rolled out on an unprecedented scale. But with the result of COP 21 all but determined, will these developments be enough to persuade negotiators to adopt an agreement with enough ambition? An interview with French Green MEP Yannick Jadot.

The COP21 is not far off. Can we describe this conference as our ‘last chance’ to fight against climate change and, if not, what would you say is really at stake?

For me, the challenge of this 21st COP is to find out whether, at last, the states will begin to catch up with those elements of society and the economy which are taking pro-climate action. I do not share the view that the processes of the United Nations are of no importance or that they are bound to fail. States have considerable responsibilities today regarding combating climate change. It is still up to them to choose which energy and transport infrastructures and what type of farming to adopt, for example. It is therefore not possible to fight climate change without the states.

Almost everywhere in the world today, there is what I call a “citizens’ revolution” occurring in the fight against climate change – citizens who are changing their behaviour, renewable energy cooperatives, consumers who want high-quality food and responsible farming. We see towns and regions with strong greenhouse gas reduction objectives. Part of public opinion is therefore already aware of climate change because they can see its effects – in some cases, personally – and another part is mobilising and is ready to take action against climate change, or has already done so.

Then there is an economic revolution. In the world today, more than half the energy infrastructures installed are for renewable energies – about 80% in Europe. Since the Copenhagen conference, the price of solar energy has probably been divided by four. Therefore, apart from the urgency, we have an economic revolution in the sphere of energy which gives us the means of taking effective action against climate change. Moreover, solar and land-based wind energies are now cheaper than gas, oil and nuclear power. So those two revolutions are on the march. However, we have some states and rulers who are prisoners of both the fossil fuel lobbies and of a concept of economics which cause them to resist this shift from the old ways to those of a new world.

So, for me, COP21 is neither the ‘last chance’ conference nor – as its organisers in Paris see it – the start of a new process. It is, alas, just another meeting where everything positive that emerges will be better than nothing, but where there will be much disappointment about the states’ capacity to hear the scientific alarm bells, and to listen to public opinion (which, as a whole, is ready), and to use the energy revolution that will enable them to combat climate change.

More: http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/201...at-cop21-about

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What is baked in, is some degree of continued global warming, because CO² takes a long time to clear out of the air. But clearly it's possible to limit the damage by keeping the level of warming below 2C over the 1880s level. That will require changing our energy use to clean renewables as fast as the political winds and physical construction will permit.

The point I was making is simple. It's a near certainty that we've already added enough CO² to the atmosphere to pass the 2^oC level sometime in the next 50 years. Short of some miracle technology, that doesn't currently exist, the world will have to deal with it.

That doesn't invalidate your point that we need to act decisively and now, but it shows just how remiss we've been.

We're way past the point-of-no-return on existing emissions, and it is unlikely that we will be able to scrub the atmosphere.

Cutting back on emissions will only be possible when enough pain has been inflicted. Like the submergence of a great deal of the southeastern US?

PS: Watch "The Making Of North America" on PBS. Fascinating stuff.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

We're way past the point-of-no-return on existing emissions, and it is unlikely that we will be able to scrub the atmosphere.

We will invent ways. Carbon sinks can be created. Geoengineering is possible.

Cutting back on emissions will only be possible when enough pain has been inflicted. Like the submergence of a great deal of the southeastern US?

We need to look beyond what conventional wisdom is possible, and have some hope. This is a 4T; no time to give up, but time to meet the Crisis. Our crisis includes global warming as a #1 priority to deal with.

PS: Watch "The Making Of North America" on PBS. Fascinating stuff.

Yes, good show, but relevance to this topic is?

Read the thread. There's lots of info posted on the progress being made, and the need for more. Now is no time to ignore the data.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The point I was making is simple. It's a near certainty that we've already added enough CO² to the atmosphere to pass the 2^oC level sometime in the next 50 years. Short of some miracle technology, that doesn't currently exist, the world will have to deal with it.

That doesn't invalidate your point that we need to act decisively and now, but it shows just how remiss we've been.

Yes indeed, and therefore we need to stop being remiss. All the more reason not to be remiss now and in the future.

And that means that you need to no longer ignore the progress being made, already posted in this thread, and no longer say that the tech doesn't exist. It does, in spades, and is being built. Stop arguing and get behind the facts. The boom is on.

The warming can be kept to 2C. Informed people would not propose that if they knew it was impossible. The fact is that it's possible to do even better than that. Only politics can stop it. We need to ditch our remiss politics.

Of course, you're right, thanks to millennials not voting in 2010, political laggardry is already "baked in" for a few more years. Put the blame for any lack of progress where it belongs: squarely on those who don't go to the polls to vote Republicans out of fu*king office.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... The warming can be kept to 2C. Informed people would not propose that if they knew it was impossible. The fact is that it's possible to do even better than that. Only politics can stop it. We need to ditch our remiss politics...

According to the real pros in the field, the current CO² levels, and the additions that are unavoidable without turning the world into a pre-modern state, will take us over the 2^oC limit. We are now in mitigation mode.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

According to the real pros in the field, the current CO² levels, and the additions that are unavoidable without turning the world into a pre-modern state, will take us over the 2^oC limit. We are now in mitigation mode.

What real pros?

I have posted a lot of linked sources from real pros. It is time to read the data, and get behind the move now. We are now just starting transition mode. But it's going to go into overdrive within 2 years.

My prediction record is pretty good. This prediction of mine goes back decades. It is starting to happen; you can't deny it. Look at the data posted in this thread already. Have you?

Here's a good article on the issues of solar power:

Eco Etiquette: How Green Are Solar Panels?
Posted: 06/28/2010 5:12 am EDT Updated: 05/25/2011 4:20 pm EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennif..._b_554717.html

Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.

It seems like a good thing that solar is getting popular, but what about all the materials that go into making the panels, recycling them, etc.? Is solar really as green as it's made out to be?

-Griffin

Alas, there's a cloud in every green lining. Just when environmentalists think we've uncovered a win-win solution to some ecological ill, it turns out there's a downside to be dealt with: Compact fluorescent bulbs reduce electricity consumption by 75 percent but come with a dash of mercury; a new Prius takes 46,000 miles of driving before paying off the energy cost of manufacturing (if you make it that far); even tofu, as it turns out, may have a higher carbon footprint than chicken.

It's not surprising, then, that solar panels also have a dark side; namely, greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals involved in manufacturing, and a lack of regulation regarding recycling. First, though, let's take a look at the big picture.

Solar far outshines electricity produced from fossil fuel sources: Per kilowatt, it offsets up to 830 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 1,500 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 217,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. What's more, because photovoltaic (PV) panels generally have a long lifecycle -- up to 30 years -- the amount of waste generated by panels past their prime is relatively small, especially when you consider the three-to-four-year turnover of other electronic waste like computers, televisions, and cell phones.

But with solar growing in popularity thanks to falling prices and various tax incentives, we could see a wave of e-waste in the next 20-some-odd years if the industry doesn't take action now: The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), which works to promote eco-friendly practices in the high-tech industry, warned in a 2009 report that "little attention is currently being paid to the potential risks and consequences of scaling up solar PV cell production. The solar PV industry must address these issues immediately, or risk repeating the mistakes made by the microelectronics industry."

(Mistakes is a nice way to put it; the United States' failure to regulate e-waste has resulted in our hazardous junk being shipped off to developing nations, where it piles up in digital dumping grounds that pollute the air and groundwater and sicken people who live nearby.)

So what are some of the issues surrounding solar? And how can solar become greener (ironic though that question may be)? Let's take a look:

Toxic chemicals. While it's nowhere near the amount produced by, say, coal-fired power plants, a number of nasty chemicals are used in solar manufacturing, including arsenic, cadmium telluride, chromium, and lead. While one immediate risk may be to the workers who construct these panels, the long-term hazard is where all these materials will go once the panels are no longer useful.

Companies in the US are working to address these concerns, implementing take-back programs like the one offered by thin-film manufacturer First Solar, which recycles over 90 percent of the materials collected from old panels. Another thin-film company, AQT Solar, is looking into safer alternatives to cadmium like zinc sulfide. "Our goal is to definitely reduce our dependence on toxic materials, and if possible, eliminate them completely," says AQT CEO Michael Bartholomeusz.

Greenhouse gases. The whole goal of solar-generated electricity may be to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere, but unfortunately, there are even more potent greenhouse gases involved before a panel is ever plugged in. The SVTC report states that sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which is 22,000 times more powerful than CO2, is used to clean the reactors used in silicon production.

Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), another global warming whopper (17,000 times more powerful than CO2), is used in the manufacturing of thin-film PV panels. This wasn't an urgent issue a few years back, when thin-film only made up a small percentage of the solar market; but thanks to cheaper manufacturing costs, thin-film is expected to double its market share by 2013. Luckily, alternatives exist: German-based startup Malibu has developed a technology that uses fluorine, a gas with zero global warming potential.

Manufacturing. It would be great if all solar panel production facilities were powered by, well, solar power, but this isn't always the case: The manufacturing side of solar can be very un-green, since its energy-intensive processes are often powered by fossil-fuel based electricity. The need to construct brand-new facilities for production also can add to a solar company's footprint.

One possible solution? Use existing (but dormant) auto-manufacturing plants to house production, a la traditional PV manufacturer Skyline Solar. The company also uses about 90 percent less silicon in its panels compared with traditional solar installations, to help minimize the high environmental cost of silicon production.

So, do any of the above disclaimers mean we should say see ya to solar? Of course not. Even with the energy and waste involved, PV power in exchange for all our fossil fuels would still reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent.

Hope this has been enlightening!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0924151401.htm

Green storage for green energy
Rechargeable battery to power a home from rooftop solar panels
Date: September 24, 2015
Source: Harvard University
Summary: Researchers have demonstrated a safe and affordable battery capable of storing energy from intermittent sources -- like rooftop solar panels -- that is suitable for the home.

(excerpt)
Hogan says net metering is one of a series of "regulatory gimmicks designed to make solar more attractive" and predicts that eventually consumers with rooftop photovoltaic panels will lose the option of exchanging electricity for discounts on their utility bills. When that happens, these homeowners have an incentive to invest in battery storage.

That's the emerging market opportunity that Tesla Motors entrepreneur Elon Musk hopes to leverage with his company's recently-announced Powerwall system. But the flow battery design engineered by Aziz and his Harvard colleagues offers potential advantages in cost and the length of time it can maintain peak discharge power compared to lithium batteries.

"This has potential because photovoltaics are growing so fast," Aziz says. "A cloud comes over your solar installation and BAM -- the production goes crashing down. Then the cloud goes away and the production goes shooting up. The best way of dealing with that is with batteries."

Watch video: How a flow battery works- https://youtu.be/4ob3_8QjmR0.

(end excerpt)

Batteries are a growing option. Reselling back to the grid needs to continue while solar is being established. Eventually though, the electric utility companies will likely be allowed to charge customers a flat fee for a hookup to the grid. That's only fair, and this might be a good deal if batteries are still too expansive. But if not, then it looks like the big electric companies may be out of luck and go out of business. It might be wise for them to go into the renewable energy and battery business instead! Either way, batteries and the grid makes solar and wind power at homes into baseload power.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

And yet some fools think climate change is not real. I guess when they sit in a comfy chair far away from the worst hit areas watching fox news ignorance is bliss to them. We cannot fix what we are divided on. Greed, corruption, lies and division. smh. It will be the death of us.

It has nothing to do with greed and corruption in each case.

It is a LIE that 97% of scientists accept AGW and the rate at which its happening. That was a fraudulent study.

There are many scientists that are UNAFFILIATED with the fossil industry that have questions about how much we actually affect the climate.

There were many times in pre-industrial history (according to ice core samples etc) that show greater warmings than we have now.

I won't waste my breath interrupting your liberal circle-jerk, because you won't listen, except to say that proposals in Paris are all proposals that the nations around the world came up with on their own. Each nation came up with their own plan to cut carbon emissions in their own
country and by the standard of your own priests (what you call climate scientists - but this is nothing but a liberal religion - there is nothing
scientific about it), the collection of plans is woefully inadequate to stem the so-called 2 degree rise that they are getting hysterical about.

The one dangerous thing in there is this proposal to STEAL $1-$2T dollars from productive nations (i.e. USA, etc) and GIVE it to freeloading
third world countries for so called "Climate 'justice'" payments.

Do you know what congress is going to do with this? (Besides laughing their ass off). They will FLUSH IT RIGHT DOWN THEIR 1.6gpf useless 'green' government-mandated toilets that never work (The ones where you have to flush three times because nothing goes down the first
or second time - wasting 3 times as much water).

No.Way.In.Effing.Hell.

Period.

So, I am watching these COP21 talks with great amusement. They will amount to nothing of substance.

In the mean time - here is the real truth about the Climate Hustle


Climate Hustle - Are they Trying to Control the Climate, or you??

This film opened at a well-attended gala red carpet event IN PARIS this week.

(fyi When I lived in Detroit, home owners used to pay extra to have a plumber go over the ambassador bridge or Windsor tunnel to
Canada to buy a real toilet that worked. It was quite the joke).

Originally Posted by takascar2

It has nothing to do with greed and corruption in each case.

It is a LIE that 97% of scientists accept AGW and the rate at which its happening. That was a fraudulent study.

There are many scientists that are UNAFFILIATED with the fossil industry that have questions about how much we actually affect the climate.

There were many times in pre-industrial history (according to ice core samples etc) that show greater warmings than we have now.

I won't waste my breath interrupting your liberal circle-jerk, because you won't listen, except to say that proposals in Paris are all proposals that the nations around the world came up with on their own. Each nation came up with their own plan to cut carbon emissions in their own
country and by the standard of your own priests (what you call climate scientists - but this is nothing but a liberal religion - there is nothing
scientific about it), the collection of plans is woefully inadequate to stem the so-called 2 degree rise that they are getting hysterical about.

The one dangerous thing in there is this proposal to STEAL $1-$2T dollars from productive nations (i.e. USA, etc) and GIVE it to freeloading
third world countries for so called "Climate 'justice'" payments.

Do you know what congress is going to do with this? (Besides laughing their ass off). They will FLUSH IT RIGHT DOWN THEIR 1.6gpf useless 'green' government-mandated toilets that never work (The ones where you have to flush three times because nothing goes down the first
or second time - wasting 3 times as much water).

No.Way.In.Effing.Hell.

Period.

So, I am watching these COP21 talks with great amusement. They will amount to nothing of substance.

In the mean time - here is the real truth about the Climate Hustle


Climate Hustle - Are they Trying to Control the Climate, or you??

This film opened at a well-attended gala red carpet event IN PARIS this week.

(fyi When I lived in Detroit, home owners used to pay extra to have a plumber go over the ambassador bridge or Windsor tunnel to
Canada to buy a real toilet that worked. It was quite the joke).

What is it like living in denial? I have some prime real estate on a Pacific atoll you can have for dirt cheap.

Originally Posted by takascar2

It has nothing to do with greed and corruption in each case.

It is a LIE that 97% of scientists accept AGW and the rate at which its happening. That was a fraudulent study.

There are many scientists that are UNAFFILIATED with the fossil industry that have questions about how much we actually affect the climate.

Baloney; there are many such studies that show all or virtually all scientists who actually study this issue agree that humans are causing global warming, and that's dangerous. There was nothing at all flawed with that 97% study. That's a conservative figure. What the blowhard deceivers and deniers emphasize is the fact that some of those studies didn't take a position, and they are not in the 3% of opponents. But the purpose of those non-committal studies was not to take a position anyway.

There were many times in pre-industrial history (according to ice core samples etc) that show greater warmings than we have now.

No, there has not been greater warming than about a million years at least. But some deniers quote measurements that have no relevance, like measurements from satellites of the atmosphere where there's no greenhouse effect possible anyway. And yet these deniers keep citing those "measurements" even after this is pointed out to them.

And the fact that the misinformation is funded by the fossil fool barons is well-documented even on this thread.

Don't worry, I have lots of practice debunking deniers like you on facebook. Practice makes perfect!

I won't waste my breath interrupting your liberal circle-jerk, because you won't listen, except to say that proposals in Paris are all proposals that the nations around the world came up with on their own. Each nation came up with their own plan to cut carbon emissions in their own country and by the standard of your own priests (what you call climate scientists - but this is nothing but a liberal religion - there is nothing scientific about it), the collection of plans is woefully inadequate to stem the so-called 2 degree rise that they are getting hysterical about.

The one dangerous thing in there is this proposal to STEAL $1-$2T dollars from productive nations (i.e. USA, etc) and GIVE it to freeloading third world countries for so called "Climate 'justice'" payments.

Very necessary. We need to do this if we are going to get those countries to do things differently than we did, and switch to green clean energy on the way to development and not afterward. We polluting nations are the ones who created this mess; we have to pay to clean it up more than the third world countries who did not.

Do you know what congress is going to do with this? (Besides laughing their ass off). They will FLUSH IT RIGHT DOWN THEIR 1.6gpf useless 'green' government-mandated toilets that never work (The ones where you have to flush three times because nothing goes down the first
or second time - wasting 3 times as much water).

No.Way.In.Effing.Hell.

Period.

So, I am watching these COP21 talks with great amusement. They will amount to nothing of substance.

We'll see, but progress is happening so far.

US Congress? Forgit it. Congress today is a bunch of neanderthal flakeheads.That's because younger Americans who have a stake in the future don't know how to vote in midterm elections or down ballot.

In the mean time - here is the real truth about the Climate Hustle


Climate Hustle - Are they Trying to Control the Climate, or you??

This film opened at a well-attended gala red carpet event IN PARIS this week.

(fyi When I lived in Detroit, home owners used to pay extra to have a plumber go over the ambassador bridge or Windsor tunnel to
Canada to buy a real toilet that worked. It was quite the joke).

Efforts to "control the climate" (meaning transition to clean energy and deforestation so we stop ruining it) has zero relation to efforts to control "you." The ones who need controlling are the ones who are already controlling us: the fossil fool barons who force us to buy outdated and dirty fuels that pollute the planet. They need to be put out of business. If that's "control," then so be it. If you want to be hustled by this bought-and-paid for disinformation campaign, that's your choice. But government is necessary at times to rein in runaway greed. That is what's happening in the efforts to control climate change.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, good show, but relevance to this topic is?

"No landscape is forever"- Kirk Johnson, "The Making Of North America"

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What real pros?

I have posted a lot of linked sources from real pros. It is time to read the data, and get behind the move now. We are now just starting transition mode. But it's going to go into overdrive within 2 years.

My prediction record is pretty good. This prediction of mine goes back decades. It is starting to happen; you can't deny it. Look at the data posted in this thread already. Have you?

Actions from decades past and present will not be fully reflected for some time ... 2 to 3 centuries for return to stasis. That's the point. Feel free to use the IPCC website as a reference, though the information is technical enough to make discussion on a forum like this difficult at best. 2^oC is baked in ... perhaps even more.

The U.K. Is Testing Electric Highways That Would Charge Your EV As You Drive
This could solve the charging problem that has been slowing electric car adoption for years (if it works).
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049836/t...v-as-you-drive


Brits are getting into electric cars more and more. Sales jumped up 366% in the first quarter of 2015. Still, when the U.K. government surveyed consumers and businesses, they found the chicken-and-egg problem that haunts EVs elsewhere. Some consumers don't want to buy an electric car without a full infrastructure for charging in place. But the business case for building that infrastructure is weak without more EV drivers on roads.

The U.K. plans to add plug-in chargers every 20 miles along highways, so drivers don't have to worry about getting stranded on a road trip. And the country does already have thousands of chargers in place. But now they're testing out something new to make driving an EV even easier: Electric highways that can wirelessly charge cars as they drive.

If the tests go well, the new highways would add to the existing network of plug-in chargers, and make it even simpler to fuel up a Tesla than a standard gas-guzzling car. "This has the benefit of saving time and improving the distance that electric vehicles can travel," says Nic Brunetti, a spokesman for Highways England. "The combination of both types of charging technologies could help to create a comprehensive ecosystem for electric vehicles."...................

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actions from decades past and present will not be fully reflected for some time ... 2 to 3 centuries for return to stasis. That's the point. Feel free to use the IPCC website as a reference, though the information is technical enough to make discussion on a forum like this difficult at best. 2^oC is baked in ... perhaps even more.

In Paris they are debating a goal of 2C or 1.5C warming.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In Paris they are debating a goal of 2C or 1.5C warming.

I'd rather they spend their time on action rather than more words. We've had a surplus of words.

This time around the US and China may be a bit more ready to act. We'll see.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The U.K. Is Testing Electric Highways That Would Charge Your EV As You Drive
This could solve the charging problem that has been slowing electric car adoption for years (if it works).
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049836/t...v-as-you-drive

Brits are getting into electric cars more and more. Sales jumped up 366% in the first quarter of 2015. Still, when the U.K. government surveyed consumers and businesses, they found the chicken-and-egg problem that haunts EVs elsewhere. Some consumers don't want to buy an electric car without a full infrastructure for charging in place. But the business case for building that infrastructure is weak without more EV drivers on roads.

The U.K. plans to add plug-in chargers every 20 miles along highways, so drivers don't have to worry about getting stranded on a road trip. And the country does already have thousands of chargers in place. But now they're testing out something new to make driving an EV even easier: Electric highways that can wirelessly charge cars as they drive.

If the tests go well, the new highways would add to the existing network of plug-in chargers, and make it even simpler to fuel up a Tesla than a standard gas-guzzling car. "This has the benefit of saving time and improving the distance that electric vehicles can travel," says Nic Brunetti, a spokesman for Highways England. "The combination of both types of charging technologies could help to create a comprehensive ecosystem for electric vehicles."...................

That infrastructure would do a lot to make an all EV usable for a person like me who doesn't have a garage for charging and parks on the street. that is a big one.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That infrastructure would do a lot to make an all EV usable for a person like me who doesn't have a garage for charging and parks on the street. that is a big one.

Solving the battery issue (in this case by getting around it) would be a game changer. Generating sufficient amounts of electricity sustainably is physically feasible.

Solving grid scale storage is still on the agenda.