Why we should listen to the 97%

[Abraham3]

Just as happened with the release of the CRU's stolen emails, the opinion's of the world's climate scientists, re AGW, to 15 years or significantly reduced warming... have not budged. By an overwhelming majority, they still see dangerous warming, they still GHGs as the cause and they still see humans as the source of increased atmospheric GHG levels.

The process whereby the Earth traps more solar energy than it reradiates has not changed. The process by which the Earth transports and sequesters that energy, internally, has changed. The oceans have always been the repository of most of that energy and now that fraction has grown. Sea level rise has always been one of the more significant risks we faced, but people laughed at the observed rate. Well, now, just as predicted (though from a new and heretofore unknown process), that rate is increasing. And the positive feedbacks already known - the shrinking Arctic ice, decreasing our albedo, and the loss of ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica accelerating their ice sheets slide into the ocean - will make certain that rate will continue upward.

It is long past time to act. It has been the only sensible choice for decades. The only reason we have so far failed to take the action we need to take has been a fear of change. But we are, in general, a brave and determined species. We are being sold down the river, however, by those among us whose fear has pushed them to forget their morals, their ethics. Whose fears have convinced them that lying to the public - that fooling them into taking a dark and rutted road that will undoubtedly hurt our children and our children's children - is JUSTIFIED. They have rated the continuation of THEIR creature comforts above the safety, health and well-being of nearly everyone inhabiting this planet for the next thousand years.

Speak up. Tell them what they do is wrong. Because it really... truly... is.

 

[PMZ]

Just as happened with the release of the CRU's stolen emails, the opinion's of the world's climate scientists, re AGW, to 15 years or significantly reduced warming... have not budged. By an overwhelming majority, they still see dangerous warming, they still GHGs as the cause and they still see humans as the source of increased atmospheric GHG levels.

The process whereby the Earth traps more solar energy than it reradiates has not changed. The process by which the Earth transports and sequesters that energy, internally, has changed. The oceans have always been the repository of most of that energy and now that fraction has grown. Sea level rise has always been one of the more significant risks we faced, but people laughed at the observed rate. Well, now, just as predicted (though from a new and heretofore unknown process), that rate is increasing. And the positive feedbacks already known - the shrinking Arctic ice, decreasing our albedo, and the loss of ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica accelerating their ice sheets slide into the ocean - will make certain that rate will continue upward.

It is long past time to act. It has been the only sensible choice for decades. The only reason we have so far failed to take the action we need to take has been a fear of change. But we are, in general, a brave and determined species. We are being sold down the river, however, by those among us whose fear has pushed them to forget their morals, their ethics. Whose fears have convinced them that lying to the public - that fooling them into taking a dark and rutted road that will undoubtedly hurt our children and our children's children - is JUSTIFIED. They have rated the continuation of THEIR creature comforts above the safety, health and well-being of nearly everyone inhabiting this planet for the next thousand years.

Speak up. Tell them what they do is wrong. Because it really... truly... is.

Very well said.

There is still an awful lot unknown. Much science to do. Many solutions to engineer and build. The next 100 years will be consumed dealing with new sustainable sources of energy, massive reductions in the waste of energy and mitigation of the consequences of fossil fuels.

Perhaps it will keep us focused enough to stay out of war.

I personally think that the first frontier will be transportation, currently the most wasteful sector of energy consumption. While we will be stuck for many decades with some oil use we can extend the life of the the oil that we have several fold with pretty much existing technology.

Just moving to plug in hybrids will be huge. 50 to 100+ mpg compared to 20 to 30. Wind and solar powered charging stations with free charging when fuel less energy is available will promote using millions of car batteries to level demand.

CNG for trucks and trains. Not the best, but better until everything but planes is electric.

Steady progress, relentlessly pursued. Confidence in what we are capable of. Leadership expected from, and rewarded for in government, not stasis.

 

[Abraham3]

An interesting point about cars and trucks. Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km). Then start looking at typical consumption numbers. There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving). Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment. It's also far easier to accomplish.

 

[Snookie]

An interesting point about cars and trucks. Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km). Then start looking at typical consumption numbers. There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving). Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment. It's also far easier to accomplish.

We need more motor scooters. 100 mpg.

 

[Snookie]

fyi from epa.

[quote
CONTACT:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 25, 2013


TODAY: EPA Chief Begins Three-State Tour Highlighting Climate Action Plan

EPA Administrator visits New York, Wisconsin, and Michigan to discuss climate change, power plant announcement

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy will begin a three-day trip where she will speak to students, businesses and other stakeholders on EPA's recent carbon pollution standards proposal for new power plants, and President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon pollution. She will also discuss her vision for EPA and challenges the agency will face going forward.

On Wednesday, Administrator McCarthy will speak to Clinton Global Initiative attendees during a panel discussion titled, “Making the Case for Environmental and Sustainability Education.” She will be joined by representatives from the Captain Planet Foundation, Children’s Environmental Literacy Foundation, African Wildlife Foundation and Earth University. On Thursday, she will travel to Ann Arbor, Mich. to deliver a keynote address to students, faculty and members of the public attending the Michigan Environmental Law and Public Health Conference at the University of Michigan Law School. Friday in Madison, Wis., Administrator McCarthy will join Madison Mayor Paul Soglin to highlight EPA’s work with local communities to advance sustainability efforts through the MPower Business Champion Program. She will also deliver a keynote address at the Trout Unlimited Annual meeting.

*** These events are open to members of the media. Interested press should contact [email protected] ***


R166
You are subscribed to News Releases: Headquarters for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

][/quote]

 

[PMZ]

An interesting point about cars and trucks. Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km). Then start looking at typical consumption numbers. There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving). Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment. It's also far easier to accomplish.

There is no question that economics is what will ultimately be the death of fossil fuels. That’s why big oil is so committed to kill alternatives. They want to ride reduced supply and increased global demand to the last BTU. That can't happen if consumers have choices.

The way that we can hasten the end of all of the known and hidden costs of fossil fuels is to raise their prices and lower sustainable prices.

Making investments in wind and solar capability advantageous, leverages public and private resources and prepares us for the inevitable day when electricity is the majority fuel on roads and tracks.

After all, sustainable energy is almost all capital investment, and fossil fuel creates high capital and operating and waste disposal costs, but the capital equipment is largely in place. Our goal ought to be to make the transition from fossil to electric transportation without spending another nickle on fossil fueled capital, while steadily reducing the percent every year of new cars and trucks and trains that demand it.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom. We need gentle put relentless pressure, to increase our progress.

 

[Snookie]

The people here who do not believe in science or global energy are the same type of people who caused "Popular Science" to remove its comments link.

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An interesting point about cars and trucks. Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km). Then start looking at typical consumption numbers. There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving). Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment. It's also far easier to accomplish.

There is no question that economics is what will ultimately be the death of fossil fuels. That’s why big oil is so committed to kill alternatives. They want to ride reduced supply and increased global demand to the last BTU. That can't happen if consumers have choices.

The way that we can hasten the end of all of the known and hidden costs of fossil fuels is to raise their prices and lower sustainable prices.

Making investments in wind and solar capability advantageous, leverages public and private resources and prepares us for the inevitable day when electricity is the majority fuel on roads and tracks.

After all, sustainable energy is almost all capital investment, and fossil fuel creates high capital and operating and waste disposal costs, but the capital equipment is largely in place. Our goal ought to be to make the transition from fossil to electric transportation without spending another nickle on fossil fueled capital, while steadily reducing the percent every year of new cars and trucks and trains that demand it.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom. We need gentle put relentless pressure, to increase our progress.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom.

No matter how many people it kills.

 

[Snookie]

An interesting point about cars and trucks. Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km). Then start looking at typical consumption numbers. There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving). Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment. It's also far easier to accomplish.

There is no question that economics is what will ultimately be the death of fossil fuels. That’s why big oil is so committed to kill alternatives. They want to ride reduced supply and increased global demand to the last BTU. That can't happen if consumers have choices.

The way that we can hasten the end of all of the known and hidden costs of fossil fuels is to raise their prices and lower sustainable prices.

Making investments in wind and solar capability advantageous, leverages public and private resources and prepares us for the inevitable day when electricity is the majority fuel on roads and tracks.

After all, sustainable energy is almost all capital investment, and fossil fuel creates high capital and operating and waste disposal costs, but the capital equipment is largely in place. Our goal ought to be to make the transition from fossil to electric transportation without spending another nickle on fossil fueled capital, while steadily reducing the percent every year of new cars and trucks and trains that demand it.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom. We need gentle put relentless pressure, to increase our progress.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom.

No matter how many people it kills.

Link?

 

[PMZ]

An interesting point about cars and trucks. Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km). Then start looking at typical consumption numbers. There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving). Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment. It's also far easier to accomplish.

There is no question that economics is what will ultimately be the death of fossil fuels. That’s why big oil is so committed to kill alternatives. They want to ride reduced supply and increased global demand to the last BTU. That can't happen if consumers have choices.

The way that we can hasten the end of all of the known and hidden costs of fossil fuels is to raise their prices and lower sustainable prices.

Making investments in wind and solar capability advantageous, leverages public and private resources and prepares us for the inevitable day when electricity is the majority fuel on roads and tracks.

After all, sustainable energy is almost all capital investment, and fossil fuel creates high capital and operating and waste disposal costs, but the capital equipment is largely in place. Our goal ought to be to make the transition from fossil to electric transportation without spending another nickle on fossil fueled capital, while steadily reducing the percent every year of new cars and trucks and trains that demand it.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom. We need gentle put relentless pressure, to increase our progress.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom.

No matter how many people it kills.

How many people will higher CAFE standards kill? How?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no question that economics is what will ultimately be the death of fossil fuels. That’s why big oil is so committed to kill alternatives. They want to ride reduced supply and increased global demand to the last BTU. That can't happen if consumers have choices.

The way that we can hasten the end of all of the known and hidden costs of fossil fuels is to raise their prices and lower sustainable prices.

Making investments in wind and solar capability advantageous, leverages public and private resources and prepares us for the inevitable day when electricity is the majority fuel on roads and tracks.

After all, sustainable energy is almost all capital investment, and fossil fuel creates high capital and operating and waste disposal costs, but the capital equipment is largely in place. Our goal ought to be to make the transition from fossil to electric transportation without spending another nickle on fossil fueled capital, while steadily reducing the percent every year of new cars and trucks and trains that demand it.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom. We need gentle put relentless pressure, to increase our progress.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom.

No matter how many people it kills.

Link?

CAFE Standards Kill | National Review Online

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no question that economics is what will ultimately be the death of fossil fuels. That’s why big oil is so committed to kill alternatives. They want to ride reduced supply and increased global demand to the last BTU. That can't happen if consumers have choices.

The way that we can hasten the end of all of the known and hidden costs of fossil fuels is to raise their prices and lower sustainable prices.

Making investments in wind and solar capability advantageous, leverages public and private resources and prepares us for the inevitable day when electricity is the majority fuel on roads and tracks.

After all, sustainable energy is almost all capital investment, and fossil fuel creates high capital and operating and waste disposal costs, but the capital equipment is largely in place. Our goal ought to be to make the transition from fossil to electric transportation without spending another nickle on fossil fueled capital, while steadily reducing the percent every year of new cars and trucks and trains that demand it.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom. We need gentle put relentless pressure, to increase our progress.

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom.

No matter how many people it kills.

How many people will higher CAFE standards kill? How?

Too many. Lighter cars are less safe.

 

[Snookie]

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom.

No matter how many people it kills.

Link?

CAFE Standards Kill | National Review Online

Wow that website is worse than world nut daily.

Using that reasoning we should ban all eighteen wheelers and big trucks.

Gee I didn't think you cared,

We should also outlaw bikes, motorcycles, and motor scooters.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Link?

CAFE Standards Kill | National Review Online

Wow that website is worse than world nut daily.

Using that reasoning we should ban all eighteen wheelers and big trucks.

Gee I didn't think you cared,

We should also outlaw bikes, motorcycles, and motor scooters.

Make cars lighter, what could go wrong?

Idiot!

 

[westwall]

An interesting point about cars and trucks. Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km). Then start looking at typical consumption numbers. There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving). Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment. It's also far easier to accomplish.

We need more motor scooters. 100 mpg.

When the weather is nice I ride a bicycle. When it's not I drive a Outback....it gets pretty nasty on mountain roads in the snow...

 

[Snookie]

CAFE Standards Kill | National Review Online

Wow that website is worse than world nut daily.

Using that reasoning we should ban all eighteen wheelers and big trucks.

Gee I didn't think you cared,

We should also outlaw bikes, motorcycles, and motor scooters.

Make cars lighter, what could go wrong?

Idiot!

You tell me, pud master.

 

[PMZ]

CAFE Standards Kill | National Review Online

Wow that website is worse than world nut daily.

Using that reasoning we should ban all eighteen wheelers and big trucks.

Gee I didn't think you cared,

We should also outlaw bikes, motorcycles, and motor scooters.

Make cars lighter, what could go wrong?

Idiot!

Your link was written by a member of the Hoover Institute funded by:

''The Hoover Institution is funded by multiple sources. It receives nearly half of its funding from private gifts, including corporate charitable foundations, and the other half from its endowment.[27]''

''Past corporate donors have included:''

''Archer Daniels Midland Foundation
ARCO Foundation
Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
Chrysler Corporation Fund
Dean Witter Foundation
Exxon Educational Foundation [28][unreliable source?]
Ford Motor Company Fund
General Motors Foundation
JFPI Corporation
J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
Procter & Gamble Fund
Rockwell International Corporation Trust
Transamerica''

So, American car companies and big oil object to being forced into solving the fossil fuel problems that they created. However, that's why we, the people have a democratic government. To solve problems when each company operating under the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others, leads companies to make more money, and we, the people to waste more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow that website is worse than world nut daily.

Using that reasoning we should ban all eighteen wheelers and big trucks.

Gee I didn't think you cared,

We should also outlaw bikes, motorcycles, and motor scooters.

Make cars lighter, what could go wrong?

Idiot!

Your link was written by a member of the Hoover Institute funded by:

''The Hoover Institution is funded by multiple sources. It receives nearly half of its funding from private gifts, including corporate charitable foundations, and the other half from its endowment.[27]''

''Past corporate donors have included:''

''Archer Daniels Midland Foundation
ARCO Foundation
Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
Chrysler Corporation Fund
Dean Witter Foundation
Exxon Educational Foundation [28][unreliable source?]
Ford Motor Company Fund
General Motors Foundation
JFPI Corporation
J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
Procter & Gamble Fund
Rockwell International Corporation Trust
Transamerica''

So, American car companies and big oil object to being forced into solving the fossil fuel problems that they created. However, that's why we, the people have a democratic government. To solve problems when each company operating under the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others, leads companies to make more money, and we, the people to waste more.

You think that the corporate donors somehow fool the physics of a collision?

 

[Snookie]

Make cars lighter, what could go wrong?

Idiot!

Your link was written by a member of the Hoover Institute funded by:

''The Hoover Institution is funded by multiple sources. It receives nearly half of its funding from private gifts, including corporate charitable foundations, and the other half from its endowment.[27]''

''Past corporate donors have included:''

''Archer Daniels Midland Foundation
ARCO Foundation
Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
Chrysler Corporation Fund
Dean Witter Foundation
Exxon Educational Foundation [28][unreliable source?]
Ford Motor Company Fund
General Motors Foundation
JFPI Corporation
J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
Procter & Gamble Fund
Rockwell International Corporation Trust
Transamerica''

So, American car companies and big oil object to being forced into solving the fossil fuel problems that they created. However, that's why we, the people have a democratic government. To solve problems when each company operating under the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others, leads companies to make more money, and we, the people to waste more.

You think that the corporate donors somehow fool the physics of a collision?

Indirectly they do. Without them there would be no collisions.
damages. For example if a bar owner gives a drunk too much to drink they are liable for l

 

[PMZ]

Make cars lighter, what could go wrong?

Idiot!

Your link was written by a member of the Hoover Institute funded by:

''The Hoover Institution is funded by multiple sources. It receives nearly half of its funding from private gifts, including corporate charitable foundations, and the other half from its endowment.[27]''

''Past corporate donors have included:''

''Archer Daniels Midland Foundation
ARCO Foundation
Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
Chrysler Corporation Fund
Dean Witter Foundation
Exxon Educational Foundation [28][unreliable source?]
Ford Motor Company Fund
General Motors Foundation
JFPI Corporation
J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
Procter & Gamble Fund
Rockwell International Corporation Trust
Transamerica''

So, American car companies and big oil object to being forced into solving the fossil fuel problems that they created. However, that's why we, the people have a democratic government. To solve problems when each company operating under the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others, leads companies to make more money, and we, the people to waste more.

You think that the corporate donors somehow fool the physics of a collision?

There are many ways to design and build safe fuel efficient cars. We are much smarter than thinking that you have to compromise one to get the other. Mankind has made huge strides in safety over my life because we, the people directed our government to insist on it.

The auto and oil companies feeding think tanks in order to excuse themselves from public responsibility is a very old and tired game. It was the main reason for Detroit's failure to thrive against foreign competition for decades.

We should insist in the marketplace on better. And we have.