Yes, we must reduce dependence on oil as fast as possible, but there is no way to do it instantly. There has to be a transition period else millions of people dependent on that source of energy will die. Your asking oil companies to "just stop" producing oil and convert themselves into green energy companies overnight using technologi…
Yes, we must reduce dependence on oil as fast as possible, but there is no way to do it instantly. There has to be a transition period else millions of people dependent on that source of energy will die. Your asking oil companies to "just stop" producing oil and convert themselves into green energy companies overnight using technologies that are great and improving but not yet profitable. In other words, your asking them to commit suicide.
I really don't think you understand the scale of the challenge. Your heart is in the right place on caring for the planet and the life that dependsonit, but it's been emotionally hijacked.
Although nobody wants to say it, the only real solution to the "climate emergency" is dramatic, fantastical reduction of the human population.
Because, no matter WHAT we use to power ourselves to the grocery stores and no matter what the trains/trucks use to bring food to your grocery store and no matter what tractors use to plow the fields?
The fact is, the processes of keeping 8 Billion people alive on this earth are killing the planet. IF the human population is not substantially reduced, I mean, "A LOT" as Trump might say, then, our environment will continue to be destroyed. Not even slowly.
Have you seen a Nickel mining operation?? (Nickel is key to Lithium batteries).
Have you seen Lithium mining operations? (Lithium is key to the EV transition)
EV is not ECO friendly. That is not true. Transitioning to EV? That will present other problems.
Humans need to recognize the ROOT CAUSE of the destruction of our ecosphere.
Mike, when one country with a fraction of the world's population can use natural resources at a level that exceeds that of most of the rest of the people on earth, your statement sounds pretty hollow. The US alone has contributed the bulk of what is already causing climate change that impacts most of all the people who had literally nothing to do with it but who are paying the price for our actions. I agree that EVs are not a solution: it is merely a way for people to avoid making real changes in how they live. In Greta's memorable words, it is all blah blah blah. And so is your claim that the problem is too many people. The actual problem is culture of people who do not want to give up their entitlements.
Is it not a matter of both? There are thresholds of unsuitability and both the number and size of the footprints contribute to total impact. Both the number and size of dried beans limit how many you can force into a jar.
Please keep our transportation history in mind. By the time automobiles became widely available large cities were drowning in horse manure.
The public transportation system built around trolleys and commuter rail was undone by auto manufactures and tax dollars spent on roads. That we did not evolve more available, convenient, and flexible public transport was obviously a missed opportunity in hindsight. However, the fact remains that creating those systems that could compete with consumers’ desires that automobiles fulfilled were and would be very expensive.
I’m not clear about what you consider an “entitlement.” Healthcare including pharmaceuticals, safe and plentiful food, robust education options, social/economic mobility — these things are possible only due to abundant energy resources. We won’t willingly go back to a largely agrarian lifestyle.
Breaking the plutocratic political roadblock to high speed rail would be a step in the right direction. Total travel time between some major US cities would be reduced compared to air by fast rail. Poor, unreliable Amtrak takes a backseat to freight. I got around urban and rural Japan with ease on a variety of trains, so it is not a pipedream. Modern Republicanism puts corporate profits first and public (including environmental) interests last.
I had the same experience living in Germany. I could seamlessly travel from a small village on the western edge of Germany to the Frankfurt airport. One change of trains with about a 20 minute wait. Step off the train in the basement of the airport. If we put a dollar value on the lives lost to traffic accidents, rail would look cheap by comparison without even considering the environmental costs.
But would the existing rail system be able to accommodate high speed trains? Or would an entirely new rail system be necessary, or at least wholesale replacement of existing rails?
A lot of expensive new rail infrastructure would be required. The cost to build roads in Virginia 12 years ago are in the above link. You will be shocked.
Oil certainly allowed the development of industrial level farming- which is actually one of the most energy intensive and inefficient forms of farming. I follow developments in farming closely (habit left over from my professional life), and it is encouraging that the trend is toward small farms using sustainable practices. Possible even with grain: there are a number of small grain growers in my state, and this trend is not unusual. Even larger grain farmers have swung to the same lower-input methods. All in all, higher productivity, and lower costs. Add in the increasing growth of alternative methods of delivery to consumers. We are reversing the Earl Butz approach to farming (he was the worst thing that ever happened to American farming, and by extension, destroyed traditional and efficient ways of food production all over the world).
BTW, I would posit that the promotion of industrial farming was a factor in forcing people to move to cities, among other factors. Now there are programs to enable young people who want to farm to have access to farms and markets. Including within cities, as used to be the case.
Thanks for bringing that up. I read about that the other day and eager to learn more- can't remember details now, except that it is cheaper, does not require mining, and could be readily available. Still in R&D, but promising. I still think EVs are not best use for this, but wouldn't it be great for community self-reliance, and for powering long-range public transportation?
AND new News on Hydrogen Cells for vehicles, planes, etc. 3 breakthroughs reported in 1 week. Breaking H out of a supply of ammonia (NH3) is the one I remember.
You are certainly correct that our environmental sustainability problems are ultimately a knock on effect of overpopulation, although the earth can sustain far more environmentally frugal people than profligate ones. Right now our "only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximize its profits" orientation of priorities is exacerbating our impact. Yes, we will not get through this without talking about and doing something about moderating population, voluntarily, despotically, and/or catastrophically. The population crash cycles we observe in other species certainly apply to us, and our technology can exacerbate the scale, and is doing so, although we don't call it that.
There is a known way that is very effective when applied. It is used now, but requires a rethinking of how we approach economic development. Too often, our projects end up increasing wealth gap and leaving the less well-off even less well-off - and leaving women in the dust.
But time and again it has been shown that by increasing the well-being of women, and by extension, their families, that birth rates go down, and the local economy improves. The community begins to prosper in local terms, and this has a propagating effect in the culture as women become an active part of it. Perhaps we need to stop thinking in terms of western historical patterns, and take a look at supporting local processes. In many traditional cultures, women played not only a respected economic role, but were also an integral part of the decision-making process.
When Euros came in, they replaced that with the assumption that only men could be economic and political leaders, and destabilized many cultures. We should still provide ecoomic support, especially to cultures now in distress, but we also can direct it to those most likely to be in a position to change the direction of that culture so that it accommodates their needs. Women.
There are traditional cultures right now who are taking the initiative to prepare their communities for climate change. We are starting to learn from them. When we learn how to become indigenous, we will be able to make more rational decisions about how to use the technologies we develop. A different kind of future is possible-- if we are willing to find the ways that lead to it.
I did not say that, Mike. When I wrote it, I fully expected that some would misread it. Let's turn your first sentence around to get at my point: When we learn to conduct ourselves in sync with the earth, we will again become indigenous (part of the earth), and can make decisions accordingly. That is the lesson that the people we now call indigenous can teach those who have lost touch with the fact that we are of the earth.
Yeah, whatever happened to ZPG in the 1970s? What a sound idea.
I look at the earth fotos from space at nite and think of a petri dish with a fungus spore, ever spreading, consuming the gel until it reaches the edge of the dish, then starts dying from its own waste, all that remains.
Look at that foto of the East Coast of the U.S. or Europe and see the spores growing into each other, consuming all the space.
But before we consume all of the space we will damage or destroy habitability. But yes, the same principle. Yeast dies in a wine barrel when it changes it's environment too much to be sustainable.
As a lifelong environmental activist who has spent the better part of the last 40 years working on energy policy, I must gently protest your comment, Jerry and offer a little context.
You are correct in saying we cannot convert instantly. The problem is and always has been that the federal government provides incentives to oil, gas and coal - much out of proportion to the meager incentives that are sometimes available and sometimes cancelled for wind, solar and geothermal. Oil companies have one of the best funded and most effective lobbies in D.C. and have buried policy that favors renewables so often I no longer keep track. I just continue to work on climate.
We have no oil or coal resources here in MN where I live. But. We have solar resources as good as Houston, TX and wind resources second to none on the planet. Read that again. In order for Minnesota's economy, one of the best in the nation throughout my nearly 70 years on this planet, we require energy to power it and have tried, repeatedly, to create policies that FAVOR renewables in order for wind and solar developers to be able to compete with the tax breaks the federal government continues to provide oil, gas and coal.
In 2007, we passed one of the strongest Renewable Energy Standards in the country (yes, California, as usual, was ahead of us, smart folks that they are.) North Dakota, which has both oil and coal, sued Minnesota under Interstate Commerce laws to force Minnesota legislators to reduce the incentives for renewables and continue to allow MN utilities unfettered access to ND oil and coal. Fortunately, the lawsuit failed and the RES was implemented.
The original RES goal was 20% of energy would be from renewable sources by 2020. Our biggest utility exceeded that goal by 2012 - within just five years! Not instant but about as quick a transition as could be built out, given the transmission issues with distributed energy sources such as wind turbines and solar roofs/fields (vs. a single power plant.)
I understand and respect the dangers of loss of electricity better than most - the Polar Vortex that took down the Texas grid hit us first and way harder. It was -18 below in my back yard the first morning. But because this is MN, because we understand and live through brutal winter weather often, no one here lost power. We are built to federal standards, MISO regulated transmission build outs and maintenance, wind turbines built to withstand ice storms and 80 mile per hour devastating north winds. Texas does not build or maintain to federal standards - and how many died because of that greed and hubris? Hundreds - the most vulnerable among us.
We have long had the technology and ability to build a robust renewable energy grid in this country. But oil company execs - and power company execs, who have long known about the dangers of the now emergency climate crisis, favored profits over anything else. Time to call bullshit on greed.
The theory of the "greenhouse effect" was postulated in the 1860's by Irish physicist John Tyndall. We've had more than 160 years to work on this. I'm not certain we have another 160 years to fix what we've broken. So you'll have to forgive me for being over-the-top emotional at the rates of extinction, loss of habitat, loss of arable land for food production and continually watching crises like Yemen's famine and the floods that covered more than one third of Pakistan earlier this year in standing water. Not getting emotional and acting as if this is an emergency is suicide in my opinion - but a pretty damn well informed one.
So much I didn't know here (like about ND suing MN -- with the current SCOTUS I'm afraid they would have won) -- thank you, thank you!
Last year, a project I was working on took me back to the late 1970s, especially the time around the Three Mile Island accident. I was a politically engaged adult at the time (in my mid/late 20s), but I was startled by how much information about climate change and the hazards of fossil fuels as well as nuclear power was in the popular press. We knew, goddammit, we knew -- and then the Reagan administration and its successors (look at where the Bushes came from!) pretty much shut it down. So it seems in retrospect, at least. We have lost so much time.
The "Reagan Revolution" was the political weaponization of media and the triumph of quasi-feudalistic plutocracy. Both Carter and even corrupt Nixon were environmentally oriented. Nixon established the EPA and Carter the Dept. of Energy, which Republicans since Reagan have decried and vowed to dismantle. Nixon was the last environmentally concerned Republican president:
"I hope the automobile industry's present determined effort to make the internal combustion engine sufficiently pollution-free succeeds. But if it does not, then unless motor vehicles with an alternative, low-pollution power source are available, vehicle-caused pollution will once again begin an inexorable increase... I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered, virtually pollution free automobile within five years." -Nixon
"Therefore, I urge again that the energy measures that I have proposed be made the first priority of this session of the Congress. These measures will require the oil companies and other energy producers to provide the public with the necessary information on their supplies. They will prevent the injustice of windfall profits for a few as a result of the sacrifices of the millions of Americans. " -Also Nixon. A Republican?!!
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: "Even now, man may be unwittingly changing the worlds climate through the waste products of his civilization. Due to our release through factories and automobiles every year of more than 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps air absorb heat from the sun, our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer."
Richard Carlson: "This is bad?"
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: "Well, it's been calculated a few degrees rise in the earths temperature would melt the polar ice caps. And if this happens, an inland sea would fill a good portion of the Mississippi valley. Tourists in glass bottom boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami through 150 feet of tropical water. For in weather, were not only dealing with forces of a far greater variety than even the atomic physicist encounters, but with life itself."
"Oil companies have one of the best funded and most effective lobbies in D.C. and have buried policy that favors renewables so often I no longer keep track."
My mainstream news sources regularly report that popular initiatives are blocked by one or another "powerful lobby". They also speak of lobbies writing legislation that legislators dutifully pass, all implicitly normal and acceptable, like the sun in the morning and the moon at night. But if we actually believe in governance of, by and for the people, are not we speaking here of industrial scale corruption? Are not these interventions patently anti-democratic? Patently a betrayal of the common good? If I want to write my legislators, they want me to tick off an "issue". Why is this not even an "issue"?
"Texas does not build or maintain to federal standards - and how many died because of that greed and hubris? Hundreds - the most vulnerable among us."
When we vote or not vote, we are not just expressing a personal opinion (the side of voting that public interest announcements seem to emphasize, our share of choice, but also managing our inherent share of democratic responsibility for outcomes, not only for ourselves, but for the whole society, and increasingly, the whole planet. Our selfish, or careless choices always seem to impact the already unjustly deprived the hardest. Responsible politics is not a narcissistic, competitive sport, it is about charting survival, fulfillment, and maximizing decency within our societies, ourselves included. The pages of history are filled with ugly scenes of what happens when it's not the latter. We become our species' own worst enemy.
I may be simplifying things a bit, but there's a big hulking power out there for which there are virtually no checks and balances in the Constitution: corporate and financial power. The Reagan administration managed to dismantle most of the checks put in place during and after the New Deal, and the SCOTUS has demolished most of the rest, while gutting access to the ballot in their spare time. And, as HCR points out from time to time, as soon as the subject of regulation comes up, Certain Interests are quick to cry "Socialism! Un-American! Stifling competition!" They're the ones stifling competition, but never mind: too many USians fall for it Every. Single. Time.
Virtually all of the independent grocers in my area where bought out by a big local chain, then two national corporations bought essentially all of the locally present chains, and now the two are trying to merge. Some competition.
As a child I remember when streetcars were common in St. Louis, but because of pressure from GM diesel buses were replacing them. I also remember when a Greek revival building downtown was sandblasted. It was grey and there is the grey granite, which I always thot it was made of, but it was actually pink granite. A byproduct of particulate matter from diesel buses & trucks.
You are right that Minnesota has approached this more rationally than Texas. First hand, since I live in TX and almost lost 2 family members to that cold snap. Texas politicians are currently a unique brand of stupid, and I try to vote them out each election cycle.
What you describe to have happened in Minnesota is new info to me. The politics thee are different, obviously. Why haven't those successes been exported to other states?
Jerry, read more. Please don't assume that Texas is the norm. It is regarded as well behind the curve.
Vermont produces more electricity than we use and exports the excess. Because much of what we currently produce is solar, and because we are part of a regional grid, at night we get largely hydroelectric power from the regional grid. Not all of it is hydro, though, so we end up unfortunately using electricity still produced by gas. One of the solutions: my electrical utility is actively working to build up a network of batteries located in homes and businesses to absorb that daytime excess for nighttime use. Various organizations join together to create publicly owned non-profit energy production. This is a just one example. I grew up in the Pac NW and both WA & OR have made huge strides to both reduce use of electricity and are well-along in changing to wind and solar power. Almost every week we hear more of these stories.
The people with power in some states are not so willing to make those moves. But at this point, I think there are some projects programs in place in every states, and many have regional compacts. A great many small projects are done at the community level, in every state.
It's just that we lost a lot of time through the willful ignorance and greed of people who held power. As others have pointed out, every region in the country had offices dedicated to research and development of reducing dependence on oil and other non-sustainable energy sources. We were on our way to sane environmental practices. I should add that this as also the era in which social goods were also being focused on. Reagan dismantled it all within 3 months of taking office. But our situation would be much worse if many states had not kept going, and if NGOs and individuals hadn't kept working on those issues. Because of them, we still have a chance.
It's clear you care. But it is also clear you are not aware of what has been going on for decades in states other than Texas. There are entire publications devoted to that kind of information. There are books. There are organizations (350.org comes to mind, but that is only one) who are actively working to inform, educate, organize, lobby, create.
We need you. TEXAS needs you. You have an opportunity to become a nexus of folks who want to work on things like this.
Jerry, Dr. James Hansen, the former head of the Goddard Space Center of NASA testified about the dangers of climate change in front of Congress in 1988. Not long thereafter, several national energy related agencies including the EPA, developed more stringent standards for electricity generation and included temporary, minimal incentives to developers of renewable (more about wind at that time). Taking advantage of the money and tax benefits, Texas utilized those incentives and produced more wind-generated electricity than any other state. Iowa was a close second. Farmers and ranchers could generate passive income in their fields - wind above, crops or cattle on the ground. When those incentives were dropped from the budget (by intense lobbying from the oil industry) renewable energy generation floundered. It takes big picture policy, at the federal level, to push everyone in the same direction. Incentives were critical.
Here in MN, several key individuals understood that it takes good policy to even out the playing field. Texas has oil and gas. We have wind and sun. Oil is a finite resource as well as having toxic side effects. Wind and sun are endless (if a bit more fickle). In order to keep the standard of living high, in order to keep the lights on, in order to protect the climate (agriculture is still the number one industry in MN), policy makers figured we needed to transition to renewables. Texas Republicans made the choice for oil and gas - knowing the risks.
there was bipartisan support for the RES. Perhaps it was the incentives/tax breaks for those who built it. In part, Xcel Energy, the biggest utility in MN, made the business decision that renewables were the future. Hard to bust through that in Texas, especially with George Bush as president and the oil companies lining the pockets of so many politicians nationally.
Texas has access to plenty of reasonable policy ideas regarding renewable energy. Oil $$ stand in the way.
Thanks again, Sheila B. It does put Reagan's "government is the problem" mantra in a clearer light, doesn't it? And the point you made here and elsewhere about some states and regions taking the lead on the transition is so important.
Not just oil money. A decades-long disinformation campaign amply covered by Dr. Richardson in many other posts. Enough of Texans have swallowed the b.s. whole, with local beer, that it will take more effort to turn this potentially great state Blue.
The better question is "Why haven't those successes been *imported by* other states?" And you've pretty well answered it as far as Texas is concerned, although I'm guessing that oil has at least something to do with the stupidity.
My state government (MA) is nothing to write home about, but like other states we're working on our own solutions based on our own resources. (Wind is big here too, and since we've got a lot of coastline it's hard to ignore sea-level rise or what's happening to the fisheries.)
It is ok to be emotional. Our life support systems are being destroyed and 2/3 of American males are driving pickup trucks back and forth to the car wash.
You are correct that lack of vision in government is the root cause.
Jerry, alternative renewable energy sources have been explored at least since the oil embargo of the 1970s. Back then, the Federal govt subsidized electric utilities to explore cutting edge tech like solar, wind, battery storage, pumped hydro, photovoltaics, geothermal. Research and development was extensive with shortage of oil, but when embargo lifted, and Reagan admin came to office, govt resources stopped and research petered. Conversion to alternatives is anything but “instant.” Change is slow but work has been going on for 50 years.
Not only that. In the early 1900s, you could take electric based public transportation from Boston to Philadelphia for low cost, among many places. These lines were bought and closed by men expecting to get rich selling cars...
The lithium and other metals in EV batteries can be recycled, unlike the fuel that powers combustion engines. And, as your linked article points out, EV’s cause less greenhouse gas production than fossil fuel powered vehicles in any cradle to grave analysis.
I don’t see a call to “stop instantly” in Heather’s letter. I believe what is wanted is a good faith effort and facing up to sincere truths—none of which is happening in the fossil fuel sector. Most egregious are the power plays by several state governors to punish the banks that provide the capital to finance fossil fuel projects when those banks curtail their investments in fossil fuels.
The oil companies were onto the dangers in the 1970s, but of course they covered it up. Then along came the Deregulation Administration. Jerry, I'm not sure you understand how long this has been going on. We've lost more than four decades of "transition period."
Nobody is asking oil companies to "just stop". I see that you are using logical fallacies to undermine the basic argument (over generalizing - "just stop' producing") and ad hominem ("you don't understand"). This is what the trolls do.
Margaret, I was responding to the specific language in a specific comment. I also really do believe that many of the commenter here understand only one side of the equation and dismiss the other. That is not trolling. Calling me a troll is.
Nothing happens instantly in any deal. However, the lack of cooperation and planning on the part of big oil has now made it the citizenry’s problem to drive serious policy to save ourselves. In that light, we have to get policy passed as close to -instantly - as possible because it will take time to implement the policy. Especially, if court filings from big oil stop any requests the citizenry wants.
Yes, we must reduce dependence on oil as fast as possible, but there is no way to do it instantly. There has to be a transition period else millions of people dependent on that source of energy will die. Your asking oil companies to "just stop" producing oil and convert themselves into green energy companies overnight using technologies that are great and improving but not yet profitable. In other words, your asking them to commit suicide.
I really don't think you understand the scale of the challenge. Your heart is in the right place on caring for the planet and the life that dependsonit, but it's been emotionally hijacked.
Like Trumpists that swallowed his b.s. whole.
Obviously the transition cannot take place overnight, but it is past time to start treating the climate emergency as if it were an emergency.
JL,
Although nobody wants to say it, the only real solution to the "climate emergency" is dramatic, fantastical reduction of the human population.
Because, no matter WHAT we use to power ourselves to the grocery stores and no matter what the trains/trucks use to bring food to your grocery store and no matter what tractors use to plow the fields?
The fact is, the processes of keeping 8 Billion people alive on this earth are killing the planet. IF the human population is not substantially reduced, I mean, "A LOT" as Trump might say, then, our environment will continue to be destroyed. Not even slowly.
Have you seen a Nickel mining operation?? (Nickel is key to Lithium batteries).
Have you seen Lithium mining operations? (Lithium is key to the EV transition)
EV is not ECO friendly. That is not true. Transitioning to EV? That will present other problems.
Humans need to recognize the ROOT CAUSE of the destruction of our ecosphere.
US. Too, too, too many of US.
Mike, when one country with a fraction of the world's population can use natural resources at a level that exceeds that of most of the rest of the people on earth, your statement sounds pretty hollow. The US alone has contributed the bulk of what is already causing climate change that impacts most of all the people who had literally nothing to do with it but who are paying the price for our actions. I agree that EVs are not a solution: it is merely a way for people to avoid making real changes in how they live. In Greta's memorable words, it is all blah blah blah. And so is your claim that the problem is too many people. The actual problem is culture of people who do not want to give up their entitlements.
Is it not a matter of both? There are thresholds of unsuitability and both the number and size of the footprints contribute to total impact. Both the number and size of dried beans limit how many you can force into a jar.
😊. A good summary of our challenge.
Please keep our transportation history in mind. By the time automobiles became widely available large cities were drowning in horse manure.
The public transportation system built around trolleys and commuter rail was undone by auto manufactures and tax dollars spent on roads. That we did not evolve more available, convenient, and flexible public transport was obviously a missed opportunity in hindsight. However, the fact remains that creating those systems that could compete with consumers’ desires that automobiles fulfilled were and would be very expensive.
I’m not clear about what you consider an “entitlement.” Healthcare including pharmaceuticals, safe and plentiful food, robust education options, social/economic mobility — these things are possible only due to abundant energy resources. We won’t willingly go back to a largely agrarian lifestyle.
Breaking the plutocratic political roadblock to high speed rail would be a step in the right direction. Total travel time between some major US cities would be reduced compared to air by fast rail. Poor, unreliable Amtrak takes a backseat to freight. I got around urban and rural Japan with ease on a variety of trains, so it is not a pipedream. Modern Republicanism puts corporate profits first and public (including environmental) interests last.
I had the same experience living in Germany. I could seamlessly travel from a small village on the western edge of Germany to the Frankfurt airport. One change of trains with about a 20 minute wait. Step off the train in the basement of the airport. If we put a dollar value on the lives lost to traffic accidents, rail would look cheap by comparison without even considering the environmental costs.
But would the existing rail system be able to accommodate high speed trains? Or would an entirely new rail system be necessary, or at least wholesale replacement of existing rails?
https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/gasb-roadway_values.pdf
A lot of expensive new rail infrastructure would be required. The cost to build roads in Virginia 12 years ago are in the above link. You will be shocked.
Correct. We are unlikely to return to an agrarian lifestyle.
But even that is too high of an impact.
Farming is really the root cause of global warming.
Just look at the former “Fertile Crescent” of the world where farming originated.
Desert now.
Only when humans were unvaccinated hunter gatherers were they in harmony with nature.
Ok. Rational point taken and I agree.
But. I would also argue that the high density living that occurs in all countries in cities, occurs as a result of farming.
And. Industrial farming occurs because of oil.
Oil certainly allowed the development of industrial level farming- which is actually one of the most energy intensive and inefficient forms of farming. I follow developments in farming closely (habit left over from my professional life), and it is encouraging that the trend is toward small farms using sustainable practices. Possible even with grain: there are a number of small grain growers in my state, and this trend is not unusual. Even larger grain farmers have swung to the same lower-input methods. All in all, higher productivity, and lower costs. Add in the increasing growth of alternative methods of delivery to consumers. We are reversing the Earl Butz approach to farming (he was the worst thing that ever happened to American farming, and by extension, destroyed traditional and efficient ways of food production all over the world).
BTW, I would posit that the promotion of industrial farming was a factor in forcing people to move to cities, among other factors. Now there are programs to enable young people who want to farm to have access to farms and markets. Including within cities, as used to be the case.
You use the word use loosely, it in fact should be waste. We spend a dollar to save a dime
Lithium looks like it will not be necessary much longer for EV transition....
Thanks for bringing that up. I read about that the other day and eager to learn more- can't remember details now, except that it is cheaper, does not require mining, and could be readily available. Still in R&D, but promising. I still think EVs are not best use for this, but wouldn't it be great for community self-reliance, and for powering long-range public transportation?
AND new News on Hydrogen Cells for vehicles, planes, etc. 3 breakthroughs reported in 1 week. Breaking H out of a supply of ammonia (NH3) is the one I remember.
You are certainly correct that our environmental sustainability problems are ultimately a knock on effect of overpopulation, although the earth can sustain far more environmentally frugal people than profligate ones. Right now our "only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximize its profits" orientation of priorities is exacerbating our impact. Yes, we will not get through this without talking about and doing something about moderating population, voluntarily, despotically, and/or catastrophically. The population crash cycles we observe in other species certainly apply to us, and our technology can exacerbate the scale, and is doing so, although we don't call it that.
There is a known way that is very effective when applied. It is used now, but requires a rethinking of how we approach economic development. Too often, our projects end up increasing wealth gap and leaving the less well-off even less well-off - and leaving women in the dust.
But time and again it has been shown that by increasing the well-being of women, and by extension, their families, that birth rates go down, and the local economy improves. The community begins to prosper in local terms, and this has a propagating effect in the culture as women become an active part of it. Perhaps we need to stop thinking in terms of western historical patterns, and take a look at supporting local processes. In many traditional cultures, women played not only a respected economic role, but were also an integral part of the decision-making process.
When Euros came in, they replaced that with the assumption that only men could be economic and political leaders, and destabilized many cultures. We should still provide ecoomic support, especially to cultures now in distress, but we also can direct it to those most likely to be in a position to change the direction of that culture so that it accommodates their needs. Women.
There are traditional cultures right now who are taking the initiative to prepare their communities for climate change. We are starting to learn from them. When we learn how to become indigenous, we will be able to make more rational decisions about how to use the technologies we develop. A different kind of future is possible-- if we are willing to find the ways that lead to it.
I completely agree with your astute observation that only indigenous hunter gatherers are in sync with their environment!
Brilliant. Farming is the root cause of climate change because it enables high density living.
I did not say that, Mike. When I wrote it, I fully expected that some would misread it. Let's turn your first sentence around to get at my point: When we learn to conduct ourselves in sync with the earth, we will again become indigenous (part of the earth), and can make decisions accordingly. That is the lesson that the people we now call indigenous can teach those who have lost touch with the fact that we are of the earth.
As the GOP forces birth and denies contraception.
Yes. We are currently overshooting the earths carrying capacity for the human population.
Yeah, whatever happened to ZPG in the 1970s? What a sound idea.
I look at the earth fotos from space at nite and think of a petri dish with a fungus spore, ever spreading, consuming the gel until it reaches the edge of the dish, then starts dying from its own waste, all that remains.
Look at that foto of the East Coast of the U.S. or Europe and see the spores growing into each other, consuming all the space.
But before we consume all of the space we will damage or destroy habitability. But yes, the same principle. Yeast dies in a wine barrel when it changes it's environment too much to be sustainable.
As a lifelong environmental activist who has spent the better part of the last 40 years working on energy policy, I must gently protest your comment, Jerry and offer a little context.
You are correct in saying we cannot convert instantly. The problem is and always has been that the federal government provides incentives to oil, gas and coal - much out of proportion to the meager incentives that are sometimes available and sometimes cancelled for wind, solar and geothermal. Oil companies have one of the best funded and most effective lobbies in D.C. and have buried policy that favors renewables so often I no longer keep track. I just continue to work on climate.
We have no oil or coal resources here in MN where I live. But. We have solar resources as good as Houston, TX and wind resources second to none on the planet. Read that again. In order for Minnesota's economy, one of the best in the nation throughout my nearly 70 years on this planet, we require energy to power it and have tried, repeatedly, to create policies that FAVOR renewables in order for wind and solar developers to be able to compete with the tax breaks the federal government continues to provide oil, gas and coal.
In 2007, we passed one of the strongest Renewable Energy Standards in the country (yes, California, as usual, was ahead of us, smart folks that they are.) North Dakota, which has both oil and coal, sued Minnesota under Interstate Commerce laws to force Minnesota legislators to reduce the incentives for renewables and continue to allow MN utilities unfettered access to ND oil and coal. Fortunately, the lawsuit failed and the RES was implemented.
The original RES goal was 20% of energy would be from renewable sources by 2020. Our biggest utility exceeded that goal by 2012 - within just five years! Not instant but about as quick a transition as could be built out, given the transmission issues with distributed energy sources such as wind turbines and solar roofs/fields (vs. a single power plant.)
I understand and respect the dangers of loss of electricity better than most - the Polar Vortex that took down the Texas grid hit us first and way harder. It was -18 below in my back yard the first morning. But because this is MN, because we understand and live through brutal winter weather often, no one here lost power. We are built to federal standards, MISO regulated transmission build outs and maintenance, wind turbines built to withstand ice storms and 80 mile per hour devastating north winds. Texas does not build or maintain to federal standards - and how many died because of that greed and hubris? Hundreds - the most vulnerable among us.
We have long had the technology and ability to build a robust renewable energy grid in this country. But oil company execs - and power company execs, who have long known about the dangers of the now emergency climate crisis, favored profits over anything else. Time to call bullshit on greed.
The theory of the "greenhouse effect" was postulated in the 1860's by Irish physicist John Tyndall. We've had more than 160 years to work on this. I'm not certain we have another 160 years to fix what we've broken. So you'll have to forgive me for being over-the-top emotional at the rates of extinction, loss of habitat, loss of arable land for food production and continually watching crises like Yemen's famine and the floods that covered more than one third of Pakistan earlier this year in standing water. Not getting emotional and acting as if this is an emergency is suicide in my opinion - but a pretty damn well informed one.
So much I didn't know here (like about ND suing MN -- with the current SCOTUS I'm afraid they would have won) -- thank you, thank you!
Last year, a project I was working on took me back to the late 1970s, especially the time around the Three Mile Island accident. I was a politically engaged adult at the time (in my mid/late 20s), but I was startled by how much information about climate change and the hazards of fossil fuels as well as nuclear power was in the popular press. We knew, goddammit, we knew -- and then the Reagan administration and its successors (look at where the Bushes came from!) pretty much shut it down. So it seems in retrospect, at least. We have lost so much time.
"Time to call bullshit on greed" is right.
The "Reagan Revolution" was the political weaponization of media and the triumph of quasi-feudalistic plutocracy. Both Carter and even corrupt Nixon were environmentally oriented. Nixon established the EPA and Carter the Dept. of Energy, which Republicans since Reagan have decried and vowed to dismantle. Nixon was the last environmentally concerned Republican president:
"I hope the automobile industry's present determined effort to make the internal combustion engine sufficiently pollution-free succeeds. But if it does not, then unless motor vehicles with an alternative, low-pollution power source are available, vehicle-caused pollution will once again begin an inexorable increase... I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered, virtually pollution free automobile within five years." -Nixon
"Therefore, I urge again that the energy measures that I have proposed be made the first priority of this session of the Congress. These measures will require the oil companies and other energy producers to provide the public with the necessary information on their supplies. They will prevent the injustice of windfall profits for a few as a result of the sacrifices of the millions of Americans. " -Also Nixon. A Republican?!!
An excerpt from an AT&T TV science special, 1958:
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: "Even now, man may be unwittingly changing the worlds climate through the waste products of his civilization. Due to our release through factories and automobiles every year of more than 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps air absorb heat from the sun, our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer."
Richard Carlson: "This is bad?"
Dr. Frank C. Baxter: "Well, it's been calculated a few degrees rise in the earths temperature would melt the polar ice caps. And if this happens, an inland sea would fill a good portion of the Mississippi valley. Tourists in glass bottom boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami through 150 feet of tropical water. For in weather, were not only dealing with forces of a far greater variety than even the atomic physicist encounters, but with life itself."
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/frank-capra-warns-of-global-warming-1958
So well said, thank you.
Two side points:
"Oil companies have one of the best funded and most effective lobbies in D.C. and have buried policy that favors renewables so often I no longer keep track."
My mainstream news sources regularly report that popular initiatives are blocked by one or another "powerful lobby". They also speak of lobbies writing legislation that legislators dutifully pass, all implicitly normal and acceptable, like the sun in the morning and the moon at night. But if we actually believe in governance of, by and for the people, are not we speaking here of industrial scale corruption? Are not these interventions patently anti-democratic? Patently a betrayal of the common good? If I want to write my legislators, they want me to tick off an "issue". Why is this not even an "issue"?
"Texas does not build or maintain to federal standards - and how many died because of that greed and hubris? Hundreds - the most vulnerable among us."
When we vote or not vote, we are not just expressing a personal opinion (the side of voting that public interest announcements seem to emphasize, our share of choice, but also managing our inherent share of democratic responsibility for outcomes, not only for ourselves, but for the whole society, and increasingly, the whole planet. Our selfish, or careless choices always seem to impact the already unjustly deprived the hardest. Responsible politics is not a narcissistic, competitive sport, it is about charting survival, fulfillment, and maximizing decency within our societies, ourselves included. The pages of history are filled with ugly scenes of what happens when it's not the latter. We become our species' own worst enemy.
I may be simplifying things a bit, but there's a big hulking power out there for which there are virtually no checks and balances in the Constitution: corporate and financial power. The Reagan administration managed to dismantle most of the checks put in place during and after the New Deal, and the SCOTUS has demolished most of the rest, while gutting access to the ballot in their spare time. And, as HCR points out from time to time, as soon as the subject of regulation comes up, Certain Interests are quick to cry "Socialism! Un-American! Stifling competition!" They're the ones stifling competition, but never mind: too many USians fall for it Every. Single. Time.
Virtually all of the independent grocers in my area where bought out by a big local chain, then two national corporations bought essentially all of the locally present chains, and now the two are trying to merge. Some competition.
Correct. Corporations are legal entities for which almost no laws apply.
So. If they want to build an Agent Orange plant in a black neighborhood?
No problem. Just payoff the local white politicians.
Absolutely great writing. Thank you.
Worth reading more than once! Thank you.
Thank you, Sheila! What an impressive record Minnesota has in transitioning!
As a child I remember when streetcars were common in St. Louis, but because of pressure from GM diesel buses were replacing them. I also remember when a Greek revival building downtown was sandblasted. It was grey and there is the grey granite, which I always thot it was made of, but it was actually pink granite. A byproduct of particulate matter from diesel buses & trucks.
You are right that Minnesota has approached this more rationally than Texas. First hand, since I live in TX and almost lost 2 family members to that cold snap. Texas politicians are currently a unique brand of stupid, and I try to vote them out each election cycle.
What you describe to have happened in Minnesota is new info to me. The politics thee are different, obviously. Why haven't those successes been exported to other states?
Jerry, read more. Please don't assume that Texas is the norm. It is regarded as well behind the curve.
Vermont produces more electricity than we use and exports the excess. Because much of what we currently produce is solar, and because we are part of a regional grid, at night we get largely hydroelectric power from the regional grid. Not all of it is hydro, though, so we end up unfortunately using electricity still produced by gas. One of the solutions: my electrical utility is actively working to build up a network of batteries located in homes and businesses to absorb that daytime excess for nighttime use. Various organizations join together to create publicly owned non-profit energy production. This is a just one example. I grew up in the Pac NW and both WA & OR have made huge strides to both reduce use of electricity and are well-along in changing to wind and solar power. Almost every week we hear more of these stories.
The people with power in some states are not so willing to make those moves. But at this point, I think there are some projects programs in place in every states, and many have regional compacts. A great many small projects are done at the community level, in every state.
It's just that we lost a lot of time through the willful ignorance and greed of people who held power. As others have pointed out, every region in the country had offices dedicated to research and development of reducing dependence on oil and other non-sustainable energy sources. We were on our way to sane environmental practices. I should add that this as also the era in which social goods were also being focused on. Reagan dismantled it all within 3 months of taking office. But our situation would be much worse if many states had not kept going, and if NGOs and individuals hadn't kept working on those issues. Because of them, we still have a chance.
It's clear you care. But it is also clear you are not aware of what has been going on for decades in states other than Texas. There are entire publications devoted to that kind of information. There are books. There are organizations (350.org comes to mind, but that is only one) who are actively working to inform, educate, organize, lobby, create.
We need you. TEXAS needs you. You have an opportunity to become a nexus of folks who want to work on things like this.
Thank you. I will read more.
Jerry, Dr. James Hansen, the former head of the Goddard Space Center of NASA testified about the dangers of climate change in front of Congress in 1988. Not long thereafter, several national energy related agencies including the EPA, developed more stringent standards for electricity generation and included temporary, minimal incentives to developers of renewable (more about wind at that time). Taking advantage of the money and tax benefits, Texas utilized those incentives and produced more wind-generated electricity than any other state. Iowa was a close second. Farmers and ranchers could generate passive income in their fields - wind above, crops or cattle on the ground. When those incentives were dropped from the budget (by intense lobbying from the oil industry) renewable energy generation floundered. It takes big picture policy, at the federal level, to push everyone in the same direction. Incentives were critical.
Here in MN, several key individuals understood that it takes good policy to even out the playing field. Texas has oil and gas. We have wind and sun. Oil is a finite resource as well as having toxic side effects. Wind and sun are endless (if a bit more fickle). In order to keep the standard of living high, in order to keep the lights on, in order to protect the climate (agriculture is still the number one industry in MN), policy makers figured we needed to transition to renewables. Texas Republicans made the choice for oil and gas - knowing the risks.
there was bipartisan support for the RES. Perhaps it was the incentives/tax breaks for those who built it. In part, Xcel Energy, the biggest utility in MN, made the business decision that renewables were the future. Hard to bust through that in Texas, especially with George Bush as president and the oil companies lining the pockets of so many politicians nationally.
Texas has access to plenty of reasonable policy ideas regarding renewable energy. Oil $$ stand in the way.
Thanks again, Sheila B. It does put Reagan's "government is the problem" mantra in a clearer light, doesn't it? And the point you made here and elsewhere about some states and regions taking the lead on the transition is so important.
Not just oil money. A decades-long disinformation campaign amply covered by Dr. Richardson in many other posts. Enough of Texans have swallowed the b.s. whole, with local beer, that it will take more effort to turn this potentially great state Blue.
The better question is "Why haven't those successes been *imported by* other states?" And you've pretty well answered it as far as Texas is concerned, although I'm guessing that oil has at least something to do with the stupidity.
My state government (MA) is nothing to write home about, but like other states we're working on our own solutions based on our own resources. (Wind is big here too, and since we've got a lot of coastline it's hard to ignore sea-level rise or what's happening to the fisheries.)
Very well written and thank you.
It is ok to be emotional. Our life support systems are being destroyed and 2/3 of American males are driving pickup trucks back and forth to the car wash.
You are correct that lack of vision in government is the root cause.
And. The root cause of the lack of vision?
Bought representatives by big oil.
Worth repeating everywhere!
Jerry, alternative renewable energy sources have been explored at least since the oil embargo of the 1970s. Back then, the Federal govt subsidized electric utilities to explore cutting edge tech like solar, wind, battery storage, pumped hydro, photovoltaics, geothermal. Research and development was extensive with shortage of oil, but when embargo lifted, and Reagan admin came to office, govt resources stopped and research petered. Conversion to alternatives is anything but “instant.” Change is slow but work has been going on for 50 years.
Not only that. In the early 1900s, you could take electric based public transportation from Boston to Philadelphia for low cost, among many places. These lines were bought and closed by men expecting to get rich selling cars...
I concur that the anti-green Reagan revolution was disastrous for progress.
Wow, we can’t have oil companies committing suicide, better all of us.
Jeri, it's not either/or. That rhetoric feels good to spout but has delayed constructive cooperation and real progress in greenhouse gas reduction.
And see Look at the environmental costs of producing car batteries.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries
The lithium and other metals in EV batteries can be recycled, unlike the fuel that powers combustion engines. And, as your linked article points out, EV’s cause less greenhouse gas production than fossil fuel powered vehicles in any cradle to grave analysis.
On balance and over the long term, batteries are the better choice for combatting the threatening climate changes.
Paul-thank you for providing that article!
I don’t see a call to “stop instantly” in Heather’s letter. I believe what is wanted is a good faith effort and facing up to sincere truths—none of which is happening in the fossil fuel sector. Most egregious are the power plays by several state governors to punish the banks that provide the capital to finance fossil fuel projects when those banks curtail their investments in fossil fuels.
The oil companies were onto the dangers in the 1970s, but of course they covered it up. Then along came the Deregulation Administration. Jerry, I'm not sure you understand how long this has been going on. We've lost more than four decades of "transition period."
As a liberal voter since the late 70's, I understand very well how long this has been going on.
Nobody is asking oil companies to "just stop". I see that you are using logical fallacies to undermine the basic argument (over generalizing - "just stop' producing") and ad hominem ("you don't understand"). This is what the trolls do.
Margaret, I was responding to the specific language in a specific comment. I also really do believe that many of the commenter here understand only one side of the equation and dismiss the other. That is not trolling. Calling me a troll is.
No. He just had a different perspective. He was not disrespectful.
Nothing happens instantly in any deal. However, the lack of cooperation and planning on the part of big oil has now made it the citizenry’s problem to drive serious policy to save ourselves. In that light, we have to get policy passed as close to -instantly - as possible because it will take time to implement the policy. Especially, if court filings from big oil stop any requests the citizenry wants.
The oil companies have dawdled long enough.
Well said.