The United States and world are facing a crisis of enormous magnitude if the global warming problem is not addressed properly. Every country in the world, except the current U.S. administration, supports the Paris climate agreement goal limiting the rise in global average surface temperature to 2°C (3.6°F). The consequences of failure could be a catastrophic future: Flooding from rising sea levels, more severe hurricanes/heat waves/wildfires, crop failures and droughts, and greater stress on an already aging infrastructure.
Climate scientists generally agree carbon emissions should be reduced to near zero by mid-century to avert catastrophic global warming. But the voluntary pledges of countries in the Paris agreement do not come close to meeting this objective. Countries are not even on track to meet their current pledges. In the U.S., the absence of federal leadership has led to a groundswell of non-national actors pledging to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While the current administration seeks to bolster fossil fuel production, the individual contributions of these state, local, and private actors will be aggregated and quantified by the America’s Pledge Initiative.
Each country needs a rigorous long-term strategic planning process and commitment to ensure compliance in the most cost-effective manner by mid-century. Private enterprise alone will not satisfactorily reduce emissions given that GHG pollution is currently free. The problem requires government regulation and investment as well as the implementation of multi-national policies that will enable the realization of a full clean-energy infrastructure in the relatively short time frame required. Such planning should seek to strengthen and accelerate existing momentum, and in the case of the U.S., facilitate re-engagement with, and rapid action by the federal government in the future.
Strategic planning is required in key sectors of the economy and at an overall level to ensure the GHG emissions reduction goals are being met. There needs to be a strategic plan in the electric power sector for a defined transition to renewable energy and storage from coal as well as a gradual reduction in natural gas power generation and new innovative strategies such as smart grid management. There should be a strategic plan in the transportation sector to replace gasoline/diesel vehicles with electric vehicles, including the service-station infrastructure to supply these vehicles. A future North American sustainable development agreement could promote trans-national renewable energy trade and integration policies to help facilitate these plans. A key feature of these programs is their requirement for the institution of carbon taxes to give consumers incentive to reduce emissions, potentially fund government investment in clean energy, and provide income subsidies for low-income consumers to afford the higher costs of energy.
I disagree with the premise that the U.S. faces a global warming catastrophe if it does not take immediate action. My view follows from the principle that a government must be… Read more »
Terry, your argument appears to be that governments must know for sure that a global warming catastrophe is going to occur before taking any action. A huge volume of climate… Read more »
Henry: Thanks for taking the time to reply and for sharing your view. My argument is based on the premise that in order for a regulatory agency to regulate a physical system,… Read more »
Terry, since you seem to be suggesting that it makes sense to continue to conduct a one-way climate change experiment that the best available science suggests is a very bad… Read more »
Mark; To conduct an experiment is not what I meant to suggest in my comments to Henry. What I did mean to suggest is for climatologists to install a statistical population under… Read more »
I would suggest that the 3 questions as posed do frame much of today’s thinking about climate change. Unfortunately, that thinking continues 30 years of climate change advocacy in the… Read more »
Mr. Trexler, I disagree with you that the global warming crisis is totally unlike what the world faced in World War II. Unabated global warming is a global threat with… Read more »
Henry, I’ve worked on climate change for the last 30 years, so you’re preaching to the converted when it comes to the potential implications of climate change. That’s not my… Read more »
Mark, thanks for your comments and I respect your 30-year efforts and experience in the climate change field. I agree that addressing the climate crisis is a “wicked problem”, probably… Read more »
Henry: The strong political leadership should be scientifically based but this basis does not currently exist. It appears to exist due to applications in making global warming arguments of fallacies… Read more »
Mr. Goldberg provides a good description of the existential problem we face in dealing with climate change. However, his solution to this enormous problem follows rather conventional and, sadly, inadequate… Read more »
Mr. Specter, thank you very much for your thoughtful and extensive response to my discussion prompt. Your extensive experience with New York State’s energy program and situation is informative. My… Read more »
Dear Mr. Goldberg, All that you ask for: cost, safety, and effectiveness of modern nuclear plants, is already known. There is no need to waste more years addressing these issues.… Read more »
Mr. Specter, you do bring up an interesting point about the deployments going on of South Korean nuclear power but I think there are fundamental questions the public has about… Read more »
Henry, your suggestions about nuclear power studies and pilot plants would entail years of needless delay. The USA already developed two different nuclear technologies—sodium-cooled fast reactors and molten salt reactors—that… Read more »
While the problem is on the scale (if not greater) than World War 2, the public’s concern is far less because climate change does not exhibit the same “threat indicators”… Read more »
Dan, I like your use of the term “threat indicators” of global warming as not being as high to the political leaders, media, and general public as they were in… Read more »
A few quick comments: 1. For more on the psychological blocks to comprehending climate change, I suggest you read George Marshall’s book, “DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT: Why Our Brains… Read more »
Dan, I want to respond to some of the comments that you make. I know the Republican elder-statesmen “Climate Leadership Council” endorse the carbon fee & dividend approach you propose.… Read more »
Henry: I agree with you that Fee and Dividend will not be enough and strong government regulation will also be needed. But that strong government regulation is certainly not going… Read more »
Dear Dan, If I properly understand your plan to deal with GHG, it is to redistribute money back to the public that had been collected from people/businesses that emit GHG. The larger… Read more »
Herschel: With Fee and Dividend a rising fee is placed on the CO2 content of fossil fuels and the fee is paid by fossil fuel companies at the well, mine,… Read more »
Dan: I too favor the phasing out of fossil fuels, but I am unconvinced that your scheme will work. A few examples may be helpful. (1) A friend of mine who… Read more »
Herschel: The reason we have climate change is because we already have a convoluted money transfer scheme. Right now, fossil fuel companies sell their product for an artificially low price… Read more »
Thank you for sharing your action plan on the global warming phenomenon. When we elect to impose new governmental regulations on what is nominally a free market economy there are… Read more »
Terry: What you are saying makes no sense. There is no predictive information that shows that continuing to allow fossil fuel companies to pollute the atmosphere for free will keep… Read more »
Dan Miller: The field of global warming climatology is plagued by applications of the equivocation fallacy in making arguments. These applications bamboozle policy makers into making policy on the foundation… Read more »
Terry: While it appears that you are trolling, I will respond anyway. You are claiming that climate models do not have predictive capability. All I need to do is to… Read more »
This response is to Dan Miller’s Reply to Terry Oldberg dated December 15, 2017 at 1:51 AM. The software of this blog failed to allow me to respond in the… Read more »
Terry: While I said you appear to be trolling, I did not use that in my argument, so I was not Poisoning the Well. And I did not change the… Read more »
Dan Miller: Thank your for your response of Dec. 29 at 10:09 PM. You say that “While I said you appear to be trolling, I did not use that in… Read more »
Terry: When I talk about “climate models” and “predictions”, I am using the normal English meanings for these phrases (which are the meanings you should use when you talk to… Read more »
Dan Miller: Thank you for your post of Dec. 30 at 1:10 PM. The problem that I wish to draw to your attention is not with the meanings of terms… Read more »
Terry: No. Your premise is wrong and your conclusions are wrong. There are not multiple meanings when we talk about “climate models” and “predictions”. Those terms are understood correctly by… Read more »
Thank you for your reply on Dec. 30 at 4:14 PM. My post of Dec. 14 at 11:20 AM refutes your contention. In particular “model” and “predict” are both ambiguous… Read more »
I am old enough to remember the extent of mobilization during WWII … no bikes available for little kids like me, car stickers naming how much gas you could buy,… Read more »
Jane, thank you for your perspective on the U.S. spirit that existed in WWII and sharing opportunities that currently exist to build non-governmental coalitions to address the climate change issue… Read more »
Maybe I choose the wrong words for a ‘Plan’ … What the scientists can identify are measures that need to be taken … a list, if you will, of action… Read more »
Jane, yes it is important to do effective things now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Your suggestion of climate scientists providing a scientific consensus on the priority listing of the… Read more »
Jane
The “argument” that you reference is specious.
We certainly need better, more coherent strategic thinking about how to minimize the most catastrophic risks from climate change. But first, how could we create such better thinking? A new… Read more »
Dr. Werbos, thank you very much for contributing your expertise from your energy-related career with the National Science Foundation to this discussion on strategic planning to address the climate change… Read more »
The problem is that at least in the US, strategic planning is simply infeasible. For better or worse, first you have to develop a political consensus, then you have to… Read more »
“supporting a menu of feasible measures that can be made operational now and in the new future.” A terrific way to put it … and while we do want to… Read more »
Mr. Isser, thank you for your views on what you believe are the only feasible ways to address the global warming issue. While I agree with some of your suggestions… Read more »
Henry et al, The difference between current climate efforts and WWII-type mobilization is the lack of a clear and present danger in the minds of most of the public. The… Read more »
Hank, yes I agree the Pearl Harbor analogy as the turning-point motivator for the United States to enter WWII and commit tremendous resources is a very good way of thinking… Read more »