"we have about 10 years to put into effect the DRACONIAN MEASURES needed to curb CO2 emissions"

A new report (excerpt below) compiled by a very distinguished panel of climate experts is putting out the big warning: we need to drastically reduce CO2 emissions or ELSE. The report indicated that our actions need to be DRACONIAN and they need to happen NOW. It indicated that CIVILIZATION hangs in the balance.

In response to this, the Congress just passed a new Energy Bill. The bill called for two key measures to address global warming and to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. One measure was an increase in CAFE standards from 26 to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020; the other was a requirement to obtain 15% of our energy from renewables by the same year.

I've posted my analysis previously of just how impotent these measures are but will repeat it here. All numbers below indicate millions of barrels of oil used per day in the US.

Projected US usage in 2020........26.0 million
.....Savings from CAFE................3.0 million
.....Savings from Renewables.......3.5 million
Projected usage after Energy Bill.19.5 million
Current US usage......................20.0 million
Net Reduction by 2020...............00.5 million (2.5% over 13 years or about .2 of 1% per year)

Does the Energy Bill the Democrats just pushed through the Congress, a bill that will help reduce CO2 emissions by 1/5 of 1% per year, sound like DRACONIAN cuts in CO2 emissions to you??? The problem with the bill and the problem with our entire political process is that it is so controlled by big money and so controlled by wanting to "WIN" that it is NOT able to do what needs to be done no matter how great the risks we face are. If Democrats had made an effective case for the DRACONIAN cuts in CO2 emissions WE HAVE TO HAVE and then the republicans voted against them, that would have been one thing. But that is NOT what happened. Instead we had clowns like Levin and Stabenow protecting the auto industry. A worthy cause to be sure but hardly sound policy given the crisis we face. Again, the criticism is not that Democrats should pass legislation if they don't have the votes; the criticism is that they have NOT pushed the harsh conservation measures WE HAVE TO HAVE. Democrats need to push CONSERVATION and wake up Americans to the dire situation we face. They just have NOT done so and are NOT likely to do so. What kind of political system do we have that doesn't put this clear and present danger on the front page of every presidential campaign? This is a deadly serious business and the silence has been deafening.

The program we should start implementing today would lead to DRACONIAN MANDATORY REDUCTIONS in auto use. No, it will NOT be politically popular. What's the alternative????? Winning elections and destroying civilization in the process????? To achieve a meaningful reduction in auto use, we need to build wide-scale efficient mass transit. We need to start re-engineering our entire society. We need to rethink how we live and how we work. The clogging of freeways by people commuting to work in cities has to stop. We need to subsidize neighborhood and backyard wind and solar installations. Money has to be pulled from the defense budget and directed like a laser at this deadly enemy we face. Having the best arsenal of 21st century weaponry is NOT going to protect us from the imminent threat of global warming.

Each of us needs to do much more than we're doing. Changing to efficient light bulbs will NOT be sufficient; we need to change our political institutions that seem unable to call for the DRACONIAN measures we so desperately need. When you see people focused on political campaigns that say little or nothing about these civilization-saving measures, these DRACONIAN conservation measures, know that they are doing all of us a disservice.

isn't going to win any points with the public. And they're the ones who have to live with the cuts (or else vote the people who voted for "draconian" anything out, and put people in who will reverse them, climate change be damned.)

Just sayin'.

what's important is the underlying program. what sort of ribbons and bows would you suggest we package a 50% reduction in auto use in?

it's time to demand a political process that starts telling the American people the truth. I'm sick and tired of this "marketing department" pretense that we have to somehow "trick" people into taking their medicine. It's leading us to a disaster of epic proportions.

maybe if we had a little confidence in the American people and showed them a little respect, they would stop giving Congress 13% approval ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_%28lawgiver%29

I'm not arguing with your underlying premise...but "draconian" doesn't tell the people the truth, either. It implies that they will be punished severely for their current way of life. Not saying we need ribbons and bows -- not saying we need to call it the "free puppies and kittens" act like Bush would, but "draconian" gets a knee-jerk reaction of the wrong kind, even here. People wouldn't look past that and would automatically reject it.

The abstract and pdf are here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html

edit to add a quote from the pdf:

"We conclude that a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a
means of extracting GHGs from the air. Development of CO2 capture at power
plants, with below-ground CO2 sequestration,may be a critical element. Injection of
the CO2 well beneath the ocean floor assures its stability (House et al. 2006). If the
power plant fuel is derived from biomass, such as cellulosic fibres5 grown without
excessive fertilization that produces N2O or other offsetting GHG emissions, it will
provide continuing drawdown of atmospheric CO2."

first-- although the planet is obviously warming and there is a known link to CO2, there is no proof as of yet that reducing emissions will actually solve the problem.

And then-- at no time in history that I am aware of has any society willingly sacrified its convenience or wealth for some ethereal future goal. Getting 6 billion people and the governments and industries they are involved with to agree on a program is an impossible dream.

At some point we will be in a crisis and then, as always, we will find a way to deal with the crisis.

And, as always, dealing with that crisis when iot happens will be far more painful than dealing with it now.

We humans don't always find a way to deal with a crisis, so far we've always managed to survive crisis, at least some of us, but there's no guarantees.

We're doomed because we're far too efficient a predator to survive.

You know the history of the sabre-tooth tiger? It's a simple mutation really, so simple it's occurred six times that we know of. Six completely unrelated lines of STT, all extinct because they're way too effective at predation and reproduction.

Our cooperative intelligence and technologies are our version of really big teeth.

We'll hunt our territory until there's no more prey to be found and then we'll turn on each other.

I went on a campus visit to Michigan Tech with my son several years ago. Some of the students were working on a project to dramatically increase gas mileage on an SUV. One of the first things they did was to remove the seats!!! As far as I can see, one of the problems with that is that the seats are specifically designed to be safety features. If we are to increase CAFE standards, is there any way to do it without sacrificing human lives?

there are perfectly safe cars on the road today that get over 50MPG ... why do we have to wait until 2020 to raise the standard to 35 MPG ???

if removing seats is what they're teaching at Michigan Tech, it might be worth looking at other schools.

it is absolutely true that subcompacts, with less dead weight to accelerate, can get better mileage per person-mile because more of the gas is burned doing something useful. Aside from technology advances in fuel efficiency, energy storage (hybrid techniques like batteries, flywheels) that is the primary way to improve overall mileage. More little cars/fewer massive iron monsters.

And little cars don't always protect in an accident as well as behemoths. Take it a step further - motorcycles are even MORE efficient. And protect even less.


Those are unassailable facts, but not reasons to fight CAFE standards. Reducing the comingling of 18-wheelers and cars, really cracking down on drunk driving, providing express commuter lanes for the "bugs", etc. are all efforts that should be undertaken to SUPPORT teh increased CAFE standards, rather than just saying "can't do it, give me my hummer"

Unless you build LOTS more roads, they have to travel the same routes.

with lane controls, rush-hour limits

the real biggie is to increase trailer-on-flatcar exponentially

get the big rigs out of the long-haul business. sure there's cost, but think forward 50, 100 years... we GOTTA get to a different transportation paradigm somehow...

and of course an suv can get pretty well smashed by a big rig as easily as can a beetle - its more psychological than anything else

Sure, removing seats will help (because it removes weight for the fuel to carry)...so will making the car out of cardboard. Removing the radio, getting rid of the a/c, keeping the windows closed, all would help. Doesn't mean the student project was at all realistic.

There are ways to make cars more fuel efficient without sacrificing things like seats -- I would imagine lighter, though safe, metals could be developed...and hybrids and diesels get better mileage right now. There are even hybrid SUVs out there -- they don't get great mileage but it's still a marked improvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate

Sulphate aerosol

Sulphate aerosol has two main effects, direct and indirect. The direct effect, via albedo, is to cool the planet: the IPCC's best estimate of the radiative forcing is -0.4 watts per square meter with a range of -0.2 to -0.8 W/m² <7> but there are substantial uncertainties. The effect varies strongly geographically, with most cooling believed to be at and downwind of major industrial centres. Modern climate models attempting to deal with the attribution of recent climate change need to include sulfate forcing, which appears to account (at least partly) for the slight drop in global temperature in the middle of the 20th century. The indirect effect (via the aerosol acting as cloud condensation nuclei, CCN, and thereby modifying the cloud properties) is more uncertain but is believed to be a cooling.

http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/12424/first-drive-2008-volkswagen-jetta-tdi.html

First Drive: 2008 Volkswagen Jetta TDI - Previews

1 | 2
Volkswagen’s 50-state-compliant Jetta TDI will be among the cleanest diesels in the U.S.
BY JARED GALL, February 2007

Amid the looming hordes of European luxury automakers planning a North American compression-ignition invasion in the next couple years, humble Volkswagen has announced its plans to return the Jetta TDI to the diesel dogpile in the spring of 2008. Powered by a new 2.0-liter four-cylinder making 140 hp and 236 lb-ft of torque, and either a six-speed manual or DSG automated manual transmission, the 2008 Jetta TDI will be cleared for sale in all fifty states.

Some of the earlier diesels to make it to our shores over the next few years will only be available in 45 states; California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont have all adopted stricter emissions regulations for diesels that bar some vehicles from entry. Using technology developed under the BlueTec cooperative formed by Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, the Jetta TDI will slip by these stricter regulations without resorting to a urea-based exhaust treatment, as many BlueTec labeled models will.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are, along with particulate emissions (soot), the biggest hurdles facing diesels in the U.S. Most BlueTec vehicles will control NOx by injecting a urea-based solution called AdBlue into the exhaust system upstream of a catalytic converter that specifically targets NOx. In that catalytic converter, the ammonia in the urea reacts with the NOx in the exhaust gas and neutralizes it into nitrogen and water.


Volkswagen’s Jetta TDI will manage without a urea injection system by using a NOx-storage catalyst. Like the particulate filters in place on this car as well as other diesels, this catalyst is basically a trap that temporarily holds the offensive emissions. Periodically, the engine will switch to an air-fuel mixture that will burn off the material in the traps.

MORE

My car runs on the home-grown and home-made fuel biodiesel. Not one cent from the sale of it goes to the Bush, Cheney, or bin Laden families. Biodiesel is far, far cleaner than petroldiesel, which is what I assume you're referring to. (Was that supposed to try to inspire a guilt trip or something?)

Furthermore, I am helping start the Milwaukee Biodiesel Co-op. We are working to bring this wonderful fuel to the mainstream in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a city with a very large, soot-spewing industrial base that is just begging to get cleaned up. And with biodiesel, we have the way to do it!

smaller vehicles, great mass transit and high gas costs...

until we have real mass transit, high gas prices can have a devastating and disproportionate impact on the poor and the middle class.

i'd prefer to see rationing by quantity (e.g. each driver is allocated some number of gallons per week).

I'd rather see rationing by car size.

Big SUV -- very little gas...

Prius -- All ya' want...


On Edit: I'd also like to see HUGE tariffs and taxes on all low mileage vehicles and huge tax credits for solar replenished electrics.

the logic of your idea is great ... why not encourage through our policies the behavior we want and discourage the behavior we don't want. thus, big SUV? you only get a little gas. Prius? all ya' want.

but not so fast there ... the problem I was citing in my previous post was one of affordability. gas, for many, is a necessity. some people either can't get to work without it or would have to spend hours using mass transit. and some of those people cannot afford to by a Prius. It sort of reminds me of the time that Reagan reused the famous Kennedy quote that "a rising tide lifts all boats." The retort to that was that "yeah, but President Reagan, not everyone can afford a boat."

My real campaign is for a 50% mandatory reduction in auto use. Yeah, that will fly ... The reality is, in the long run, we may not have a choice ...

are going to make it past the year 2200 A.D.

I think Homo Sapiens is too fucking stupid...

But that's just me...

Hopefully by then we've mastered space travel and not all humankind's destiny will be floating on one blue marble.