The Long, Hot Summer

>Regardless of the claims made by Neocon Luddites, global climate change is a very real thing. The good news is there are specific measures that can be taken to reduce the rate of climate disruption, if not reverse, the current and future damage from decades of barely-regulated fossil fuel consumption, among other toxins.

But the requirements for reduction, and the sacrifices required, will probably fall into the "unpleasant" category for most American consumers who are slaves to a disposable lifestyle. A group of energy experts has presented a report to the United Nations detailing the steps the 15 top global economies could take to advance economically while still "protecting" the environment.

The implementation of their plan is likely an academic point. Remember the Kyoto protocols? Didn't think so. Too many science deniers in positions of power. And too many others who know the disaster is coming, but will do nothing for fear of losing their corporate support. So what happens when nothing happens? What happens when 2050 rolls around and our children and grandchildren are left with an unspeakable disaster?

The New York Times has more:

"Here's what your future will look like if we are to have a shot at preventing devastating climate change.

"Within about 15 years every new car sold in the United States will be electric. In fact, by mid-century more than half of the American economy will run on electricity. Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources. And coal's footprint will shrink drastically, perhaps even disappear from the power supply.

"This course, created by a team of energy experts, was unveiled on Tuesday in a report for the United Nations that explores the technological paths available for the world's 15 main economies to both maintain reasonable rates of growth and cut their carbon emissions enough by 2050 to prevent climatic havoc. It offers a sobering conclusion. We might be able to pull it off. But it will take an overhaul of the way we use energy, and a huge investment in the development and deployment of new energy technologies. Significantly, it calls for an entirely different approach to international diplomacy on the issue of how to combat climate change.

"The teams, one in each of the 15 countries, looked at what would be necessary to keep the atmosphere from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the pre-industrial average of the late 19th century, a target that most of the world committed to at the climate summit meeting in Copenhagen five years ago. To do so, CO2 emissions from industry and energy use would have to fall to at most 1.6 tons a year for every person on the planet by mid-century.

"That is less than a tenth of annual American emissions per person today and less than a third of the world average."

It certainly seems a reasonable plan, but it would require not only mutual agreement among the global (capitalist) power brokers, but also a complete change in US policy toward Big Oil. Hard to imagine a scenario where our utterly incompetent and criminal legislators turned their backs on the petrol lobby and focused on clean energy instead. If you think it's possible, watch (or re-watch) the film "Who Killed the Electric Car."

And, sadly, if you think we'll see meaningful change in the climate disruption policies in place in this corporate-owned country, I have some beautiful soon-to-be-sunken Gulf front property for 'ya ....