Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
Sci Tech

Is the Big Insane Ask easier?

Quicklink Submitted By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Scott Baker     Permalink    (# of views)   1 comment

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags

Valuable 2   Must Read 1   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H4 10/13/18

Become a Fan
  (80 fans)

Reduction of BlackCarbon (soot) could have better, near-term effects than CO2 reduction
(Image by Next Big Future)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

The Next Big Future (NBG) Sceince & Technology blog has come up with a low carbon plan that is vastly cheaper and more effective, especially in the short run, in reducing black carbon, meeting SDGs, improving health. Current proposals are 'insanely expensive' & aren't working already. Paris agreement goals are not/cannot be met. It's not enough either, but a much better start.
Read the rest of the story HERE:



- Advertisement -

Valuable 2   Must Read 1   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Scott Baker is a Managing Editor & The Economics Editor at Opednews, and a blogger for Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Global Economic Intersection.

His anthology of updated Opednews articles "America is Not Broke" was published by Tayen Lane Publishing (March, 2015) and may be found here:

Scott is a former President of Common Ground-NYC (, a Geoist/Georgist activist group. He has written dozens of articles for (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Comments Image Post Quicklink Comment

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.
Connect with Facebook     Connect with Twitter            Register with Facebook     Register with Twitter


You can enter 2000 characters. To remove limit, please click here.

Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.

Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.
First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments  Post Comment

Scott Baker

Become a Fan Follow Me on Twitter

(Member since Oct 25, 2008), 79 fans, 281 articles, 1210 quicklinks, 3335 comments, 38 diaries

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

  New Content

The only other major things I wish the article had covered were:

1. Tax Shifts: entirely off of Profits, Building, Sales, and Wages and onto: Pollution - including Carbon, Land/Air/Water; Extractive actions, e.g. Severance taxes for oil/gas and coal; Site Values, to discourage hoarding and inefficient building. This tax shift from goods to Bads will be enough because we can make it be enough by simply deciding to collect the same in taxes from the latter. This will be an equally powerful incentive to produce and innovate as it would be to reduce pollution and resource and land use.

2. More about how growing seaweed (kelp?) can eliminate 97% of cattle methane when mixed with feed. This was already shown in a previous NBF article.

3. Enhanced technological pushes for:

- Thorium nuclear and other safe nuclear previously covered by NBF

- Solar Windows on all large buildings. A company called Solar Windows says up to 50% of electricity can be generated by replacing all normal windows with equally transparent Solar Windows(tm).

- Increased R&D towards more efficient Solar (currently only ~20% efficient), battery technology (must have for all renewables when sun/wind not available).

What else? Current IPCC reports only state problem, no solutions except in broad negative terms, e.g Phase out Coal. There is no international agreement on how to get to carbonless world, and spending asks are way to high, higher than world military budgets, and higher than stated because figures are old and already unmet, so inflation and shortened time frame makes everything more expensive already.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 13, 2018 at 8:43:14 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)

Want to post your own comment on this Quicklink? Post Comment