Young Climate Activists Sue Obama Over Climate Change Inaction (cnn.com)

EmagGeek writes A recent lawsuit against Obama alleges he has a legal duty to act against climate change, and young climate activists, including 15-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh, are taking him to task on it. CNN reports: "Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh became a climate change activist at age 6 when he saw an environmental documentary. He asked his mom to find a way for him to speak at a rally. Now 15, the long-haired, hip-hop-savvy Coloradan is one of 21 young activists joining climate scientist James Hansen in suing the Obama administration for failing to ditch fossil fuels. 'It's basically a bunch of kids saying you're not doing your job,' he told me here at the U.N. COP21 climate change summit in Paris. 'You're failing, you know. F-minus. We're holding you accountable for your lack of action.'"

Comments

15 years old?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?

Re:15 years old?

[jedidiah]

...and even then, you can only do what's feasible. "Environmentalists" really get nasty when you rain on their parade with things like facts. If you have (or are getting) a STEM degree, you are likely to get shunned. They don't even like people with a proper science or engineering background at the EPA.

People with an agenda don't want to be bothered with pesky issues like reality.

Re:15 years old?

[jedidiah]

...and another thing: the kid also has to have a cause of action for his lawsuit. You aren't just limited by the laws of physics when it comes to being an environmental crusader. You are also limited by the laws of man.

Re:15 years old?

[ganjadude]

they see all these kids in college acting like fools, taking over, yelling at teachers, having no respect for any one or any thing, and they think they can join in on the "fun"

this kid should be laughed at, and nothing more

Re:15 years old?

[presidenteloco]

"If you have (or are getting) a STEM degree, you are likely to get shunned" (by environmentalists)

Rubbish.
Most environmental concern is BASED on the findings of science,
whereas lack of environmental concern is based on either ignorance or selfish greed.

Re:15 years old?

[Trailer Trash]

I see this and his age, and I can only think, "does he realize that, while Obama can make some action, the majority of such a thing has to come from Congress?"

I can only see him as being a brat trying to make a name for himself targeting a well targeted person.

The biggest thing on his table politically about climate change recently, might have been Keystone, which he didn't let go through

WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.

So tired of this mindless repetition of "facts" from partisans on both sides.

Re:15 years old?

[Waffle Iron]

People with an agenda don't want to be bothered with pesky issues like reality.

As your posts nicely demonstrate.

Re:15 years old?

[NotDrWho]

Because he's an ACTIVIST!!!

Or more accurately, he's like 99.99% of activists out there--in that he wants someone else to fix the problem while he pats himself on the back for making no real sacrifice whatsoever.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

The solutions proposed are not, however, based in reality...

We aren't all going to stop driving gas powered cars, turn off our AC, or move into 1,000 sqft houses.

All things that we'd have to do, and do rather quickly, to "solve" the problem.

The truth is, we're going to go barreling past 2 degrees C, and probably past 3 degrees C.

We'd be far better off to just prepare for that, rather than make a vain attempt to stop it.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.

Nothing, it actually just means that MORE oil will be burned moving the Canadian oil, rather than less.

Stopping the pipeline actually HARMS the environment.

Re:15 years old?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Four out of the last 11 (YTD) months have been the hottest on record (in the US). The ocean's temperature is rising. The ocean's acidity is rising.

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

We can indeed stop driving gas-powered cars, and power them and your house from carbon-neutral energy sources. Talk about defeatism...

Re:15 years old?

[Dins]

Exactly this. It's too late to realistically stop it. You going to get China and the rest of the developing world on board with not emitting as much carbon? Good luck. Our best bet right now is to study the effects and learn to mitigate them or adapt to them. THAT is a good use of our time and money in addressing the issue.

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

At 15 years old he'll have to live most of his life with the effects of climate change, unlike the mostly old-fart climate conspiracy theorists who don't care what happens after they die.

Re:15 years old?

[mspohr]

Here's something that's real that you can do with only a minor inconvenience...
You could stop eating meat. It would improve your health and help the environment. Eating meat has the environmental impact equivalent to all of the driving you do.
www.cowspiracy.com

Re:15 years old?

[crow_t_robot]

They don't even like people with a proper science or engineering background at the EPA.

What?? Is it true that they really dislike someone JUST because of their degree or is it they don't like some corporate shill sneaking in their that coincidentally has a STEM degree?

Re:15 years old?

[ClickOnThis]

"Environmentalists" really get nasty when you rain on their parade with things like facts. If you have (or are getting) a STEM degree, you are likely to get shunned. They don't even like people with a proper science or engineering background at the EPA.

Citations please.

Re:15 years old?

[SeaFox]

If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?

Maybe the mess he will have to deal with over the next 50-60 years of his life?

Re:15 years old?

[jafiwam]

Here's something that's real that you can do with only a minor inconvenience... You could stop eating meat. It would improve your health and help the environment. Eating meat has the environmental impact equivalent to all of the driving you do. www.cowspiracy.com

Better yet, don't have children. You should do both.

Re:15 years old?

[Solandri]

Most environmental concern is BASED on the findings of science,
whereas lack of environmental concern is based on either ignorance or selfish greed.

Your statements and his are not mutually exclusive. The bulk of people who are environmentalists or who think climate change is bunk form their positions on these issues for philosophical or economic reasons, not rational reasons. I'm an engineer and I spend a lot of time "educating" them. If you don't know the difference between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours (as most of these people don't), you have no business trying to influence energy policy. It's completely obvious you're basing your opinion on things other than facts.

The environmental scientists who research this stuff do so with a fairly neutral approach. A lot of engineers are environmentally conscientious as well because it correlates with energy efficiency, and engineers love optimizing for efficiency. But they're realistic about it. That's why such a large segment of slashdot readers are both pro-environment and pro-nuclear. They're realistic enough to realize that although nuclear has its drawbacks, the drawbacks of opposing it resulting in continued use of coal and oil are much, much worse (because wind and solar technologies are not yet capable of taking over base load, and probably won't be for another 20 years). Go ahead. Ask anyone who's pro-solar how many square meters of solar panels they'll need on average to charge their EV every night (using batteries as interim storage). Most of them have no clue, and wouldn't even know how to start figuring it out. Heck, most of them don't even have the faintest concept of how big a solar panel it takes to light a light bulb. How can you compare a technology to alternatives and come to a decision to advocate it if you don't even understand these basic things?

Re:15 years old?

[codeAlDente]

Ha ha, man, if a comment like this comes from ganjadude, I'm inclined to believe that something ain't right with them college kids

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

You saying we can, and actually being able to do it, are two different things.

A whole lot of people still drive 10 year old cars, a whole lot of people are not going to put solar up, and a whole lot of people aren't going to move.

Our way of life using the energy we use, from the sources we use, isn't sustainable long term, but it can't be changed in the short term either.

Will it change? Yes.

Will it change in the timeframe required to hold global average temp below the 2 degree level? No.

That is really the key. It'll change over time, but not fast enough to matter. We passed the point of no return decades ago, we're just coasting now.

We'd have to cut 75% of the total energy use in the US, tomorrow, to actually stop the climb of CO2. For many reasons, that just isn't going to happen.

Re:15 years old?

[Nyder]

If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?

Maybe he doesn't want the environment to be even more fucked up when he's 50. Maybe he wants his kids to be able to enjoy a better earth. Maybe the kid is concerned about the future.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

The irony is that even if China does stop their carbon climb, even if they cut total output by 20% from current levels, it wouldn't be enough.

When I look at the actual numbers, the total amount of CO2, we would have to cut the total worldwide output of CO2 by more than 50%.

Not cut "the climb", but the TOTAL number.

And we have to do it in the next 5-10 years.

For many reasons, that simply is not going to happen.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

Sure, but that doesn't change the outcome.

That is the problem with all the ideas and suggestions, they don't actually make a real difference to the end game.

The numbers are massive, and people just love to say "well if we all do our part". But that is crap. The amount we ALL would have to do is FAR more than most people will do.

The US would need to cut total energy consumption by 75%, total fossil fuel consumption by 90%, and need to do it quickly, within 5-10 years.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

At 15 years old he'll have to live most of his life with the effects of climate change, unlike the mostly old-fart climate conspiracy theorists who don't care what happens after they die.

My children are younger than he is, I care very much about the world they will grow up in.

I just know that you can't make the changes required, in the time left to do them in. The changes needed to start 30 years ago, we are far, far, far past the point of no return, time to prepare for the new world that is coming.

I've looked at the CO2 numbers, the pages NASA has published. The idea of stopping before 2 degrees C is a fantasy, I don't think we'll stop before 3 degrees. It'll be interesting to see if we hit 4. There are fancy announcements that leaders make at summits, then there is the real world.

Re:15 years old?

[mspohr]

Many people would consider not having children as more than a "minor inconvenience". However, if we stopped eating meat, we could support about 10x the current earth population so if you want children, just stop eating meat. The greenhouse gas saved by not eating meat can support a large family.
50% of climate change gasses (methane and CO2) come from the production of meat.

Re:15 years old?

[erapert]

Yes, let's disregard what someone has to say based not upon flaws in the evidence that they bring forward but upon who that person works for or based upon the conclusions that they reach (that we don't like).

Re:15 years old?

[nightfire-unique]

50% of climate change gasses (methane and CO2) come from the production of meat.

So, food is (mostly) a closed cycle. While the chemical reaction that creates methane is a problem (as methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2), all of the CO2 released by us and the animals we eat comes from, ultimately, CO2 captured by plants.

Cows eat grass (or corn.. sigh), and new grass grows, capturing CO2.

Re:15 years old?

[phantomfive]

In this case, it's James Hansen. He is both scientific, and favors replacing all coal plants with nuclear.

Re:15 years old?

[nightfire-unique]

Not that I agree or disagree, but I've heard this argument advanced: by building a pipeline, you increase overall production cost efficiency; the supply and demand curve meet at a lower pricepoint, and oil is consumed at a higher rate.

Re:15 years old?

[crow_t_robot]

I believe that the Earth is warming and that it is man-made but regardless of your position on that if you think that China or India or anyone else will give up gas and coal then you have lost your fucking mind. It would even be impossible to get them to stop at their current usage today without growing it. And if you disagree then tell me how you would stop them. Making a fucking petition on some bullshit website or painting a message on a sign on a stick?

Re:15 years old?

[crow_t_robot]

http://i.imgur.com/c5eCS3J.jpg

Re:15 years old?

[mspohr]

Cows produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
The produce lots of methane... more than any other source of methane.
Get rid of cows and you get rid of most of the methane.
www.cowspiracy.com

Re:15 years old?

[GodelEscherBlecch]

Whenever the stark reality of data flies in the face of warmists agenda they get hostile and to ad hominem.

That was quite masterful the way you used satire to demonstrate the same logical fallacy you were decrying. And with a dash of strawman thrown in, too - are you a former Colbert writer?

I also love the way you use ridiculous hyperbole to lampoon the layman who thinks he knows so much about such a vastly complicated issue that he is fully confident in calling it black or white, and calling anybody an idiot who does not agree with the stark color of his vehemently stated but argumentatively void comments.

The more I read your post, the more I think you might just be this century's Voltaire - a true master. I mean you lit this fucker up like a winning bingo card:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

I'm truly impressed. A+.

Re:15 years old?

[kellymcdonald78]

Not overnight. Even if tomorrow the US banned the sale of gas-powered cars, the average age of the US passenger vehicle fleet is 11 years. So even in 2026 only half the vehicles on the road would be electric. You would have also increased US electric consumption by 30%. To look at this challenge another way, there are 250 million cars on the road in the US today, even if we directed the entire global output of the auto industry to replacing these with electric vehicles, it would take 7 years to do so. There are 1.2 billion vehicles on the road word wide (cars and commercial vehicles) which would take 27 years to replace. It shouldn't be a surprise that the auto industry is sized to accommodate natural replacement of vehicles and growth in new markets. Again its the whole "unicorn farts" vs. reality.

Re:15 years old?

[wyHunter]

Don't forget: * While using a mobile phone * Driving an import car * Buying high carbon food (i.e. food that has traveled a long distance by air) etc.

Re: 15 years old?

[crow_t_robot]

Let's see the evidence.

Re:15 years old?

[riverat1]

If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?

Maybe if you only look at the atmosphere. But if you look at the oceans they have continued to warm without pause and over 90% of the climate warming is going into the oceans anyway. But you're going to have to retire that "no significant warming" meme after the end of this year because 2015 is going to blow the old records out of the water.

Re:15 years old?

[JimSadler]

The intention of piping oil is to burn it in the end. We need to discourage the burning of fossil fuels and not encourage it. Tonight scientists reported that due to mercury contamination we need to eat less fish from the Indian river. The river is vast and quite long. dolphins are absorbing mercury as well. We burn no coal here at all so this is most likely mercury from coal burning in the more northern states.

Re:15 years old?

[FrozenGeek]

Theoretically, perhaps, you are correct. However, to do so on very short order, you need to build a vast quantity of infrastructure:

• Replace gas-stations with charging stations
• Replace existing non-carbon-neutral power stations with carbon-neutral power stations
• Update the power grid
• Replace all of the hydro-carbon-based vehicles with electric vehicles

All of those things require a great deal of money. All of those things required time. All of those things will pollute. And it all assumes that Joe Average can afford to replace his car and his natural-gas (or whatever) furnace. And it assumes that Joe Politician believes he can get re-elected pushing all of these things on his electorate. Given how hard it is for my government to accomplish far simpler tasks, I don't see it happening.

Re:15 years old?

[currently_awake]

We need to stop using Oil as a fuel to stop giving money to middle east extremists and to prepare for the end of affordable oil. Abandoning oil and coal to preserve the environment would require massive international cooperation that historically just doesn't happen until things get really bad.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

We will stop using oil, but not in our lifetime... Oh sure, I expect to see it slowly decline as a percentage of the fuel used to move vehicles, but that doesn't mean it will go away...

It will slowly decline as the cost to extract it goes up and the taxes on it rise, but we aren't going to just shut off the oil wells and call it a day.

Re:15 years old?

[currently_awake]

Most of the worlds meat production is done using land unfit for crops, and therefore eliminating it doesn't increase food supply. Eliminating "western/grain fed" meat production would increase arable farm land but not food production as we deliberately limit food grown so as to avoid depressing agriculture profits. Going vegetarian is just saying you value some life (animals) higher than others (plants).

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

You of course are correct...

Given time, we will slowly move to something other than gas burning cars. But it will take a lifetime to see happen.

I'll be shocked if the EV percentage in the US is more than 10% in 20 years, and that is new vehicle sales, not total vehicles on the road. I'm not sure if I'll see 10% of the total vehicles on the road be EV in my lifetime (about 40 more years).

My children, who are between 5 and 10 years old, may see it, and may even see 20%... but by that time we'll be far past 2 degrees C and perhaps 3...

The timeframe we have left to make the changes and the time it will take to make them, simply don't match up.

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

Well good news! People don't eat uranium, carbon fiber or semiconductor materials, so my plan won't starve people! I was thinking about nuclear, wind and solar rather than running the planet on ethanol. You know what will starve people though? The droughts and floods that come with climate change. Those and other natural disasters HURT PEOPLE.

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

We can roll back the point of no return through carbon sequestration - I think the "point of no return" concept is doing more harm than good. It makes people accept inevitability rather than take action. Carbon harvested from the atmosphere combined with renewable power can also be used to produce carbon-neutral synthetic gasoline for those old cars.

People won't have to put solar up, power companies will gladly build solar farms and sell you solar electricity for the madly expensive price of about what your electricity currently costs.

Re:15 years old?

[mspohr]

Most meat production is done in industrial facilities (feedlots, chicken houses, pig barns) using corn and soy as feed with a conversion ratio of about 20 to 1. Stop producing meat and you free up 20x the calories of corn and soy for human food (as well as stop deforestation of the Amazon, etc.) and stop most of the human caused methane production. You can't say you care about the environment and still eat meat.

Re:15 years old?

[ksheff]

Some apparently think that since Obama has bypassed Congress via executive orders before that he should be able to do similar actions with climate change as well.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

We are no more going to replace coal with nuclear than we are going to replace it with solar.

Should we? Perhaps, but the anti-nuclear crowd is currently winning that debate.

In fact, the people currently demanding a solution in general are largely against all specific solutions that might actually do something.

Their answer seems to be "wind and solar solve everything", which is absurd, but they don't want to hear it.

Re:15 years old?

[losfromla]

Localized food and energy production are the answer. Sure, if you want to continue with hauling food across vast distances it requires tremendous energy but otherwise, not so. We can each grow a bit of food and reduce the load. But you're an AC so probably won't even read this.

Re:15 years old?

[phantomfive]

We are no more going to replace coal with nuclear than we are going to replace it with solar.

Maybe not, but at least it's a position that is reasonable from a scientific perspective. Replacing coal with nuclear is a solution we can use right now, at relatively little cost. Solar and wind, on the other hand, are not viable solutions with current technology.

Of course, then we still have the problem of getting rid of gas cars. That's a tougher problem, but becomes more viable every day.

Re:15 years old?

[reboot246]

Localized food production? Like how are you going to grow enough food to feed New York City by growing in or near New York City? Not much arable land and a short growing season add up to not much food.

I'm all for buying locally grown produce, but I live in a mostly rural state that grows a LOT of food. There's a reason that most food is grown in areas with low populations - it takes a lot of space to grow crops.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

Of course, then we still have the problem of getting rid of gas cars. That's a tougher problem, but becomes more viable every day.

Yes, it does... but the question is, does it become viable in the timeframe required?

I can see a time, perhaps around year 2100 or so, when EVs become standard and gas cars look as silly as steam powered cars.

But by that time, the damage will have been done, the temps will have risen by 3-4 degrees, and the change will have come far too late.

Even if we throw everything we have at it, it would take decades to replace even 50% of the cars on the road with EVs. People who promote EVs as a solution to climate change simply haven't done the math.

Re:15 years old?

[GerryGilmore]

Err...I doubt you recognize the irony of your statements, so let me try to help here. You said: "They don't even like people with a proper science or engineering background at the EPA." (Which is so obviously, inherently untrue as to be a very bizarre statement, one likely to only be uttered by someone with an agenda.) Immediately followed by: "People with an agenda don't want to be bothered with pesky issues like reality." My jaw remains open that you could not see that before clicking "Submit". Cheers!

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

We can roll back the point of no return through carbon sequestration

That sounds great... when posted on Slashdot... if it were that easy, don't you think it would be done?

It can be done at small scale, the trick is doing it at the scale required. And that isn't so easy.

I think the "point of no return" concept is doing more harm than good.

At what point in the sinking process should the Captain of the Titanic have accepted that the ship was beyond the point of no return and was going to the bottom of the ocean?

People won't have to put solar up, power companies will gladly build solar farms and sell you solar electricity for the madly expensive price of about what your electricity currently costs.

I can't even buy wind power for the price of coal power, please pass what you're smoking...

Solar power is really expensive.

Re:15 years old?

[GerryGilmore]

Because, they (a private corporation) wanted to use the right of eminent domain to seize the land needed. I'd say that should give the government to have some kind of input into the process, wouldn't you say?

Re:15 years old?

[khallow]

As for the climate change issue, I think this is a pretty good stance: http://www.gocomics.com/joelpe...

It's a profoundly ignorant stance, both of the economic consequences of screwing with the world's energy and transportation infrastructure, and of hopelessly misunderstanding the opposition to climate change mitigation.

Re:15 years old?

[pipingguy]

"We'd be far better off to just prepare for that, rather than make a vain attempt to stop it."

Yeah, but "Never waste a good fabricated crisis".

Re:15 years old?

[Jack Griffin]

You saying we can, and actually being able to do it, are two different things.

Part of the issue seem to be a lot of people sitting on their fat arses waiting for someone else to do something.
I can't speak for anyone else, but me personally I've started adapting already. I'm sourcing most of my supplies from local stores that I can cycle or walk to. I have a scooter for longer trips (uses about 5 litres of fuel a week), which I can either use for work or catch the bus, and the car is now reserved for special occasions and touring.
My house of 5 people uses about 11-13kwh of energy per month, which the power company tells me equivalent to a 2 person household. My car has done 5000kms in the last 12 months down from 15000.
If everyone did something similar we'd be done (I realise not everyone is in the same position as me, but this is without solar power or an EV, so everyone should be able to put in some effort).
The funny part is my life has improved since making the changes. I find I'm getting out more, engaging more in my local neighbourhood, being more active, and spending more time outdoors which is generally free. Winning!

Re:15 years old?

[pipingguy]

"...he wants someone else to fix the problem while he pats himself on the back for making no real sacrifice whatsoever."

You forgot "while complaining about everything and everyone". This is obviously virtue-signalling and making enough noise so that his own flaws don't get pointed out.

Re:15 years old?

[Xyrus]

The solutions proposed are not, however, based in reality...

We aren't all going to stop driving gas powered cars, turn off our AC, or move into 1,000 sqft houses.

All things that we'd have to do, and do rather quickly, to "solve" the problem.

The truth is, we're going to go barreling past 2 degrees C, and probably past 3 degrees C.

We'd be far better off to just prepare for that, rather than make a vain attempt to stop it.

Oh, they're realistic. But in order to pull that off we'd actually have give a shit about the future. We'd have to step out of our greed fueled little lives and put a concerted effort into making the world a better place. That simply will not happen because we're too damn stupid and greedy. As long as we can keep kicking the can down the road, we will. As long as someone stands to profit from the status quo, it will be maintained. This is how humanity has operated throughout history, and the so-called "modern age" is no different.

Why the hell do you think Exxon et al. deliberately ignored and buried the science from their own research departments? Because the cost of snow jobbing the public was a lot less then proposing and implementing actions to address the issues. A few million to the same propoganda firms that held up action on smoking, asbestos, leaded gasoline, etc.? Pssh. Pennies, but more than effective to keep the profits rolling in. Pay for the FUD, stall any meaningful action, and you can keep the profit gravy train running for another few decades. And by the time even the biggest idiots in the public finally realize there is a problem, the solution will be so painful to the general public that they'd never sign on to it.

Mission accomplished.

Now here we are, some 35 years later and NOW the problem is "too big/unrealistic to solve". Well no fucking shit. If we had started taking actions 35 years ago then we wouldn't be in this situation. It's like a doctor saying you have the beginning stages of cancer then waiting until you have stage 4 cancer to do anything about it.

Now the only "realistic" course of action is adaptation. Oddly, no one wants to pay for that. Not like we could if we even wanted too considering we've spent the past 35 years paying trillions to maintain our addiction to the economical morphine known as oil. These "climate conferences" and such? Worthless. With the global economy the way it is, all the unrest, and the big bad boogeyman of terrorism no one is going to make any serious commitments to doing anything.

As always, nothing meaningful will be done until the shit really hits the fan. By then it will be far too late, of course. If we don't destroy ourselves in resource wars, we might end up learning a valuable lesson.

Re:15 years old?

[Jack Griffin]

Here's something that's real that you can do with only a minor inconvenience... You could stop eating meat.

Not feasible. A more realistic option would be growing meat in a lab, which doesn't sound too far away...

Re:15 years old?

[Jack Griffin]

Birth rates in the West are generally sustainable, it's the poor who seem to breed like rabbits that need controlling.

Re:15 years old?

[riverat1]

I'll be shocked if in 20 years the percentage of new vehicles being sold that are electric isn't greater than 50% and it wouldn't surprise me if it's more like 80%.

Re:15 years old?

[riverat1]

In the long run the only way to stop the problem is to reduce net carbon emissions to zero. If we don't it probably means the end of our complex worldwide civilization within 100 years. Yes we're a long way from zero carbon emissions but as they say the longest journey starts with the first step.

Re:15 years old?

[riverat1]

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas but it's also relatively short lived in the atmosphere. Most of it oxidizes to CO2 in 10 or 20 years.

Re:15 years old?

[riverat1]

Over half of the mercury in the environment in Oregon comes from coal burning in China.

Re: 15 years old?

[Anonymous Coward]

"it takes a lot of space to grow crops"

No, it doesn't. There are plentiful examples of massive indoor hydroponic operations that output vastly more vegetables per square foot than row crops. Fully organic, no soil needed, no pesticides, no herbicides, faster growth.
This company makes small modular systems
Easy to fill a building with those and provide food for a whole city.
Even without hydroponics, row crops are pretty much the most inefficient use of soil to grow food. The only reason we do it that way is for the benefit of the tractors.

Re:15 years old?

[dryeo]

Depends on how you define local. My Provincial government has defined local as the distance across the Province, about a 1000 miles, which in the other direction includes California. Now being dependent on California for food, so we can pave over some of the best farmland in the country is stupid as the raising prices show, my previous Federal government was fine with the idea of getting all our food from China, which really seems stupid. Especially with a government that doesn't believe in food inspection as the market will sort it out.
It's also amazing how much food does currently come from China. Chinese carrots, wtf.
If New York City can get a good amount of food from 500 or even a thousand miles away, it still seems like an improvement from shipping it half way around the world from countries that really don't give a shit about the environment and probably think that lead is great as it increases the weight of the product.

Re: 15 years old?

[KenHansen]

solar power is really expensive

Not after you figure in the government subsidies and the premium price utilities have to pay me for any solar-generated power my panels generate that I can't use... /sarcasm

Re:15 years old?

[losfromla]

I agree with the other replies, and this: a small permaculture operation growing a variety of crops all at the same time in the same space can be vastly more productive than a commercial monocrop corporate "farm". Read the book "Eaarth:Making a Life on a Tough New Planet" for examples on how this is being done and what all is going wrong and other things like the new kind of infrastructure we'll need to build out.

Re:15 years old?

[Applehu Akbar]

"Most environmental concern is BASED on the findings of science,"

If that were true, climate scientists would be suing to open up Yucca Mountain.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

In the long run the only way to stop the problem is to reduce net carbon emissions to zero.

That is where the 50% total worldwide cut comes from.

From the information on NASA's web site, about half the CO2 being emitted is being absorbed by the planet, the other half is going into the air.

So we have to cut 50% (at least) of our current total CO2 production.

I just don't see that happening, not even close. That is why I'm suggesting the ship has sailed and we have to prepare for a new world that is coming.

Re:15 years old?

[ganjadude]

have you seen the demands? they dont even make sense

one of them was along the lines of. "have a group for black sudents... and if there already is one give it more money"

now... i dont know about you, but if you dont know if there is a group or not... how can you even make demands when you have no clue what you are talking about?

Re:15 years old?

[riverat1]

It doesn't work that way. In the carbon cycle there are three great reservoirs of carbon, the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere/soil. The distribution ratio of carbon between them remains about the same regardless of the total amount of carbon in the cycle (at least so far). If we reduce emissions by 50% the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will slow but the increase in the oceans and biosphere/soil will also slow by equivalent amounts. So atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase, just at half the current rate. The only long run answer is to reduce net anthropogenic carbon emissions to zero.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

Part of the issue seem to be a lot of people sitting on their fat arses waiting for someone else to do something.

I'm happy to take action, if I thought that action would be effective.

I can't speak for anyone else, but me personally I've started adapting already. I'm sourcing most of my supplies from local stores that I can cycle or walk to.

That isn't adapting, that is kidding yourself. You're doing something so you're patting yourself on the back. But it won't make enough of a difference to change anything.

If everyone did something similar we'd be done

But they won't, and that is the reality that you miss.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

Fair enough... one of us is going to be shocked then...

I suspect it will be you, but we'll see :)

Re:15 years old?

[NoOneInParticular]

Ever heard of a country called the Netherlands? Size of Maryland, population 17 million, one of the densest in the world? Also happens to be consistently it the top-3 of agricultural exporters in the world, and most of that stuff is grown in the middle of the densest part of that country. Feeding 17 million people, with enough to spare to feed half of Germany.

Re:15 years old?

[dave420]

It's more a case of presenting the changes as impossible in order to relieve oneself of the duty of actually having to change. It's easy to absolve oneself of the blame of screwing it up if you've painted the solution as impossible. The problems are largely not technical, but stubborn, self-entitled human nature.

Re:15 years old?

[thegarbz]

That's called "Slacktivism". Now excuse me while I go pour a bucket of ice over my head so I don't need to part with $20.

Re:15 years old?

[thegarbz]

The old farts in the world are generally the ones who understand that people are mobile. My own parents moved to the other side of the world primarily because they didn't like having to take the bins out in the cold.

Re:15 years old?

[thegarbz]

Hardly. We're playing out your exact scenario right now with refineries going balls out to try and capture profits from cheap oil across the entire world. The end result is our ability to store crude and finished products are the things under most stress. People aren't going and and saying fuck it I'll run the oil generator rather than the solar panels. The retail rate is generally quite fixed and relies very little on the price of oil and far more on the general economy (transport due to people buying things, mining equipment, etc)

Re:15 years old?

[thegarbz]

We can indeed stop driving gas-powered cars

I can't. But I'm willing to. Will you donate me 174 bitcoins please. Oh what you won't? Well how am I supposed to be able to afford an expensive electric car then?

Re:15 years old?

[dave420]

Those examples of adaptation don't count because you don't want them to count? You are usually a very intelligent person, but on this topic you are indistinguishable from the lunatics - your arguments shift constantly and you are confusing your opinion with fact. Such a defeatist attitude held by someone so intelligent is sickening.

Re:15 years old?

[Jack Griffin]

That isn't adapting, that is kidding yourself. You're doing something so you're patting yourself on the back. But it won't make enough of a difference to change anything.

If you didn't selectrively snip my post you will know that it already changed something. I'm fitter and more active and enjoying a new way of doing things.

But they won't, and that is the reality that you miss.

If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right.
You must be real fun at parties.

Re:15 years old?

[rioki]

I would be shocked if in 20 years time any EV (as we know them now) are sold at all. The key issue is that batteries are stupid and they aren't that eco friendly once you account for disposal (or material reclaiming). I would rather think that a good number of cars will run with internal combution engines, just powered by bio diesel and gasoline from CO2 sequestration. Both are technologies that work, just need to be scaled up and made economically feasible. (Carbon tax on fossil fuels and subsidy for C02 neutral sources.) This requires no change on the end of the consumer or automotive technology.

Re:15 years old?

[khallow]

The developed world already had clean water and air. That's not something that changes when you reduce CO2 emissions. The developing world in exchange for these measures becomes poorer which tends to correlate with population growth and more pollution.

Re: 15 years old?

[elmer at web-axis]

I think you're looking for the term 'cherry picked'

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

They sure are mobile, look at the Syrian refugee crisis. That's the first taste of the kind of mobility that will be needed on greater and greater scales with climate change.

Re: 15 years old?

[DigiShaman]

Of course he is, as they should be conflated. Nitrogen fertilizer production is tied directly to natural gas. Take away natural gas production and billions will starve!!!

http://grist.org/article/2010-...

Re: 15 years old?

[Asha2004]

Your whole message is a statement without any kind of backing...

"In that time the world population increased from about 680 million to 890 million and that's being very generous towards the amount of people that can be fed, clothed and housed without relying upon fossil fuels. "

Really?

Re:15 years old?

[sabbede]

More important (legally), is the question of whether a 15 year old has standing (stake in or harm from a law or action), or if there is a case/controversy and that it can be remedied by some action from the courts and the courts have jurisdiction to do so.

Here, there is no real controversy as the Administration agrees with the plaintiff and wants to do more. Nor is this an issue in which the court can involve itself: The Administration does not have the authority to do any more than it already is (and even that is in question elsewhere), anything more would have to go through Congress and necessarially involve political issues. So, in the end, it's a political question in which no court can or will involve itself.

His case will be tossed rather quickly. Even if he can show harm, is allowed to file suit (only 15 after all), and takes it to a court that can issue a writ of mandamus to the White House, the courts will say, "That's not up to us, take it to Congress or the voters."

Re:15 years old?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I eat meat and I do care about the environment. The big difference is that I don't eat the meat you describe, it is either meat I hunt for, or it is the half a cow I split with my father which comes from a local farmer he has known for almost 40 years. The beef isn't anything like normal beef as it is a small herd (12-14 head) on 40 acres fed a proper diet (they produce much less methane this way), and when butchered has a wonderful dark red almost purple color and glorious aroma (not too different from venison or bison).

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

Carbon sequestration hasn't been done yet because the technology is new, the need for it is fairly new, and more importantly, because too many people share your viewpoint.

There's no good situation/bad situation breakover point with climate change. It's a sliding scale that gets worse as we go further from pre-industrial conditions. The 2C mark is just a target on that scale that looks achievable. 3C+ will be significantly worse than 2C, and 1C (where we are now) is worse than zero. The ship isn't sunk until the planet is completely uninhabitable, so you're yelling to abandon ship not long after a survivable hull breach.

Wind power is already the cheapest in some countries and solar is close behind, and closing in fast.

I guess you could say I'm smoking knowledge, and I encourage you to light up a nice fat joint of it ;-)

Re:15 years old?

[Trailer Trash]

Not that I agree or disagree, but I've heard this argument advanced: by building a pipeline, you increase overall production cost efficiency; the supply and demand curve meet at a lower pricepoint, and oil is consumed at a higher rate.

The rate doesn't really matter. The looney left needs to come to grips with the fact that every drop of oil that humans can find is going to be dug up and either burned or turned into something else. Every lump of coal that humans can find is going to be dug up and burned. This is reality. Trying to delay it isn't going to do anything except harm economies in the short term.

But, then, the actual point is heavier regulation, so I guess it works out for them.

Re:15 years old?

[Trailer Trash]

Are you truly so ignorant as to not be able to make the connection between the Keystone pipeline and climate change? The keystone pipeline represents a massive investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, at a time when it has become blatantly obvious that the US needs to instead invest in alternate clean energy technology. If the US is to continue to be a leader in technological progress they - as Obama right decided - need to take a bold stand against the entrenched Oil and Coal lobby and reinvest in new energy sources. Does it cost more in the short term? Yes. No matter what, there is going to be a painful and expensive period where we transition away from fossil fuels, but that process has already begun to happen, albeit slowly.

No, it hasn't. Energy use is expanding and will for the foreseeable future, particularly abroad. Moving to electric cars simply means we burn coal instead of oil.

It doesn't have to be that way. If lunatic leftists would quit getting in the way of nuclear power we could have clean, dependable energy.

Re: 15 years old?

[jblues]

It depends where you live - wind power reached grid parity (equal to fossil sources) in the mid 2000s in Europe and around the same time in certain parts of the USA. Solar reached grid parity prior to 2014 in Australia and a few other places. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re:15 years old?

[dywolf]

A) no it doesn't

and

B) the company that owns both the existing Keystone pipeline, the proposed XL expansion, and the tar sands they were looking to transport has halted operations in this tar sands deposits because they aren't currently profitable, and haven't been for some time.

even if the pipeline had been approved, and built, it would not have been utilized.
it would have sat there as an investment in the future should oil prices increase again.
but given the current forces driving them down that is likely to be several years.

that tar sands oil isn't going anywhere right now.

so once again, you are wrong and misinformed.

Re:15 years old?

[dywolf]

because coal is the only option....

Re:15 years old?

[mspohr]

Sounds like your beef is better than most but you are still part of the problem... methane, CO2 and land use are all not sustainable for any meat production.

Re:15 years old?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Luckily, your average McMansion has 5-8 bedrooms, and thus, can easily house a small assistd living center.

Re:15 years old?

[codeAlDente]

They seem to demand racial equality, in that the percentage of black students at their university should not be less than the percentage of black students in their state. They further demand that the percentage of black administrators shall not be less than the percentage of black people in their state. There have been demands to increase participation in STEM fields as well. The idea is that these disparities result from the historical white repression of blacks, and reducing these disparities would improve the academic success of the black race. The point is: I've seen the demands, and I do have some appreciation for the rationale. That being said, blacks were also traditionally excluded from athletic programs. The time demands on student athletes, as well as the athletic culture that values athletics over academics, puts them at a disadvantage in an academic environment, and at a disadvantage for jobs that require academic achievement. There are significantly more blacks in athletics than would be expected by the population average, but surprisingly there are no demands to racially equalize this particular subgroup of university students. Even Nate Silver at 538 completely ignores this effect in his statistical analyses. As such, their demands would indeed provide more money to black people, but they should not be expected to improve equality. Even ganja-smoking hippies stumbling around looking for their lost signature (no offense ;) are now noticing this, and this is a step backward for people of all races imo.

Re:15 years old?

[khallow]

I graciously accept your surrender.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

If you didn't selectrively snip my post you will know that it already changed something. I'm fitter and more active and enjoying a new way of doing things.

Ok, fair enough...

But we're not talking about you, we're talking about climate change. Your actions won't change that.

If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right.

It isn't about what I think or don't think, it is about observing the world and understanding human behavior.

There are just some things that are truths, one of them is that the majority of people aren't going to make the changes required to move the needle by enough to matter.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

There's no good situation/bad situation breakover point with climate change. It's a sliding scale that gets worse as we go further from pre-industrial conditions.

I've read otherwise... at some point you end up with runaway global warming that builds on itself...

The 2C mark is just a target on that scale that looks achievable. 3C+ will be significantly worse than 2C

I don't think 2 degrees C is remotely achievable, but time will tell. I think we'll pass 3 degrees C without too much trouble. The problem is for all the improvements, more and more people are rising up from poverty and joining the middle class, they all have a larger carbon footprint every year.

Tripling wind and solar is nice, but if you grow coal use by 20% in the same time, you haven't really accomplished much, if the goal was to cut carbon by 50%.

I guess you could say I'm smoking knowledge, and I encourage you to light up a nice fat joint of it ;-)

I could say the same back to you. I've spent hours reading various sites with data on the rise in CO2 levels, and the more I read the less I like. But the changes that are being proposed won't actually stop the climb.

Slowing the climb by 20% sounds nice, but it doesn't solve the problem.

Re: 15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

Well sure, if you tax the crap out of other power sources, wind and solar will look better by comparison, but that just hurts the poor.

Australia is actually an example I know about, since I have family that lives there. Yes, solar has taken off there due to the crazy electric prices they pay. My brother-in-law in Brisbane pays over 25 cents per kWh, so solar looks interesting at that price.

I recently signed a contract for power for my office. 7.2 cents per kWh. If I wanted 100% wind power, it would have been just over 10 cents per kWh.

At those prices, solar makes zero sense.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

Actually, I'm quite well informed, because I understand economics...

The pipeline simply lowers the price at which pulling the oil out of the tar sands makes sense...

If oil rose back to $150 barrel tomorrow, they'd start pulling it out, even if they had to drive it by truck.

It all comes down to the question of profitability, pipeline or no pipeline. Refusing to build it just raises the point where the oil becomes profitable, it doesn't change the desire to pull the oil out in any respect.

Re: 15 years old?

[jblues]

Actually the incumbent government of Australia is backed by the The Institute of Public Affairs, a "think tank" representing the interests of, mostly, oil companies. So in recent times, they've been subsidizing coal - "Direct Action", and putting barriers up against other sources. They even appointed a $200K per year part-time, 'Wind Farm Commissioner' who's sole role is to dig up dirt on Wind Power and disseminate it. Nonetheless, renewable sources continue to become more and more competitive.

Re:15 years old?

[SuperfluousWit]

You want to make the world better? Let's start with some critical thinking.

Number of times the end of the world is prophesied? Silly question, no way to know for certain, but this is a large number.
Number of times the end of the world is realized?... well you get the picture.
Heuristic? If someone or some group is suggesting alarmism, especially in a complex system, assuming bullshit is the only safe bet.

How did the earth of times past support such a huge number of herbivores?
Take a look at Allan Savory's work. Carbon sequestration through cattle. De-desertification through cattle. Feeding the masses... yep you guessed it, using cattle; cattle properly subsisting on grass, not grain. Cattle are the answer. Government grain subsidies are the problem.

Vegetarians care about the number of animal lives taken? Bullshit. The number of rodents and reptiles killed in grain production far outweighs the number of cattle we could possibly consume feeding people. Vegetarians are just meat murderers of smaller animals.

Additional reading?
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

Those examples of adaptation don't count because you don't want them to count?

They don't count because they don't move the needle, they won't change the outcome. Even if everyone did them they wouldn't change the outcome.

If you're trying to avoid the lion, climbing a 3 foot tree won't help, the lion is 6 feet tall on his hind legs, you're still dinner.

If the goal is to stop global warming before we hit 2 degrees C over pre-industrial times, those efforts won't be enough.

Such a defeatist attitude held by someone so intelligent is sickening.

It isn't being a defeatist, it is being a realist. You have to know when you've got a chance and when you don't. Now if you want to make proposals for stopping climate change before it hits 2 degrees C, I'm all ears. Actually, you don't have to do it, it has been done.

The answer is that the US would have to reduce its energy consumption by 90%, that story was published here on Slashdot a few months ago.

We aren't going to do that. I'm a realist, I understand humans well enough to know that you just aren't going to get most people to do that.

Because of that, we have to accept that we're going to pass 2 degrees C, likely 3 degrees as well, regardless of the efforts we do. This doesn't mean we should do nothing, we should. But we also have to start preparing for the long term effects of a warmer planet.

Re: 15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

That doesn't explain why power costs over 25 cents per kWh there vs. 7.2 cents here.

Re:15 years old?

[riverat1]

You really need to do some more research into the subject. In no way is ocean warming incompatible with "the CO2 driven greenhouse gas hypothesis". The oceans and atmosphere are pretty closely coupled and what happens in one affects the other.

Re:15 years old?

[uninformedLuddite]

I'll be shocked if I see 2C warming by 2100

Re:15 years old?

[jwhitener]

These engineer-minded people who are pro-environment and pro-nuclear are correct about a lot of the pro's and con's of different sources of energy, but they sure as heck are not realistic about it.

(removed some comments on cost effectiveness.. I don't want to derail the main point:) NIMBY/Fukishima, etc... means it is a non-starter. It doesn't really matter how attractive the technology is at this point, waiting 20-30 years to change public opinion and finalize research on things like Thorium reactors or mini-buried-reactors, and another 20-30 years to even see the first new reactors completed, is just too late.

I know it is drastically disappointing that most of the American public is afraid of something they shouldn't be afraid of...but that is reality. Recognizing that fact is as realistic as it gets.

Solar/Wind/Geo/Wave/Pumped Storage/Batteries/Molten Salt reactors may not be as perfect as nuclear, but it is very realistic that it can help start mitigating climate change NOW. Not 20 years. Now. It can also create jobs, lots of jobs that regular/semi-skilled people can do. Just grunt work.

Re:15 years old?

[mspohr]

Wow... I haven't heard anyone dredge up Eric Hoffer for many years. His rants are against the Nazis and the Communists were tenuous at the time and pretty much irrelevant now.
Your logic on government, herbivores and vegetarians murdering small animals is interesting. Do you have a newsletter which fills in some of the huge gaps in your "critical thinking"?

Re:15 years old?

[SuperfluousWit]

What argument of Hoffer's did you find tenuous? Which are irrelevant now?

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

I've read otherwise... at some point you end up with runaway global warming that builds on itself...

I'd hate to think we'd cause enough global warming to get near those points. Certainly we don't need to worry about runaway warming within plausible scenarios of <4C.

I don't think 2 degrees C is remotely achievable, but time will tell. I think we'll pass 3 degrees C without too much trouble. The problem is for all the improvements, more and more people are rising up from poverty and joining the middle class, they all have a larger carbon footprint every year.

They won't need to recreate past first-world mistakes to join the middle class - they should be able to skip straight to contemporary forms of power and transportation like the middle-class can afford in other places. The poor in many places harvest trees for fuel, which isn't a fossil fuel release, but it delays and reduces the capacity for natural carbon storage (and some European countries are unfortunately using wood-burning power stations as well these days). If they're not poor anymore they can stop doing this.

Tripling wind and solar is nice, but if you grow coal use by 20% in the same time, you haven't really accomplished much, if the goal was to cut carbon by 50%.

Why would coal grow by 20%, especially as it becomes one of the most expensive and disliked power sources?

Re:15 years old?

[MercTech]

Just go diesel.
Otto von Diesel had renewable sources of fuel in the initial design in the 19th century. A farmer could grow crops to power his farm machinery. Making bio-diesel is actually very easy.

One of the things I grumble about with those that tout electric cars is that electric cars burn more fossil fuel than gasoline cars when you factor in that most of electric generation is done with fossil fuel burning generators. (.28 power factor in both generators and motors)

Re:15 years old?

[MercTech]

Rather than mixing ethanol into gasoline; it would be more useful making bio-diesel.

Vegatable oils + Ethanol + Potassium Hydroxide (recoverable catalyst) = Cetane + water
Dewater and you have bio-diesel.

If you have methanol (wood alcohol) you need NaOH as the catalyst but the end product is still diesel fuel.

    Converting to diesel only is quite do-able. U.S. DoD has already gone that way for logistics with their "single fuel logistics" already.

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

That sounds like a massive oversimplification, I doubt all generators are piston engines or have similar efficiency. Turbine generators are almost 90% efficient. It's a massive win in terms of CO2 and other emissions either way, unless you're charging the EV from a nearly all-coal power source without up-to-date emissions equipment.

Furthermore, producing fuel for ICE vehicles requires more electricity than EVs need to run. So even if more fossil fuel were being used "directly" the supply chain gains should make up for it.

Re: 15 years old?

[WindBourne]

Where are you getting Chinese carrots from?

Re:15 years old?

[david_thornley]

The courts have always been extremely reluctant to rule on government policy, except when it violates the Constitution. Congress is free to make laws, as long as they're constitutional, and the President has a great deal of latitude in discharging his duties, and the courts will not deal with that. (If the President is violating the law, the courts can slap him down.) The remedy, if you don't like what's happening, is to try to get somebody else elected.

Re:15 years old?

[HairyReptile]

It's the end of the world.

Re: 15 years old?

[dryeo]

The local grocery store, "The Real Canadian Superstore", owned by Loblaws. They have some very large carrots (bulk) which are Chinese. Most of the carrots are American or Canadian. I see other produce from China as well such as garlic. Haven't looked at everything in the produce section as the place of origin is usually in small print which is harder to read with age. Noticed a few cans and bottles also originating from China, much more then I'd expect.

Re:15 years old?

[SuperfluousWit]

Your points sir? Or was it simply name calling you were after to begin with.

Re:15 years old?

[sabbede]

Hence the "political question" doctrine.

Of course, how the Court rules on government policies depends on the type of policy (economic, social, civil rights, etc.) and how that particular court tests those policies - under "strict scrutiny" or "rational relation". Basically, it comes down to how much latitude the Court grants policy makers regarding various issues. For example, the Roberts Court took the rational relation approach to the ACA, and strict scrutiny in the Citizens United case.

Re:15 years old?

[mspohr]

The discussion has strayed quite a bit from "climate change". My post was a suggestion of something everyone could easily do to help reduce climate change.
I should not have replied to your troll post which attacked me and others with an off-topic rant about vegetarians murdering small animals and I was surprised that you even threw in Eric Hoffer as your "inspiration".
Sorry for feeding the troll but I will stop now.
Good day to you sir.

Re:15 years old?

[SuperfluousWit]

And I suggested that you were mistaken with your suggestion. You are the one who failed to respond in any meaningful way to any of the points I made. Instead you claimed irrelevance and tenuousness and called me a nut, and now a troll.

The fact is I presented points of an argument countering your position and you simply engaged in denigration without the slightest hint of substantiation. I find your response quite archetypal of a True Believer, not a critical thinker, and certainly not someone who should be handing out suggestions for life changes to others.

Re:15 years old?

[hawkfish]

I see this and his age, and I can only think, "does he realize that, while Obama can make some action, the majority of such a thing has to come from Congress?"

I can only see him as being a brat trying to make a name for himself targeting a well targeted person.

The biggest thing on his table politically about climate change recently, might have been Keystone, which he didn't let go through

WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.

Not if those different routes are blocked too. The next choice is across tribal land in BC, and the tribes are opposing it.

Re: 15 years old?

[WindBourne]

That is fucking scary.
there is a REAL reason why rich Chinese eat imported western food when they can afford it.

Do yourself a favor and switch grocery stores.
I have to admit that in our stores, I have seen edamame, ginger and fish from China, and I simply do not buy it. From what I am told, many customers will complain about that as well.

Re: 15 years old?

[dryeo]

I'd rather shop at the store that at least labels where produce originates then Walmart which just seems scummy and treats their employees like shit. Loblaws at least understands that if you don't want to deal with unions, treat your employees well. Besides Chinese stuff seems to be everywhere.

Re: 15 years old?

[WindBourne]

Not in food, though I am told that Walmart has a lot from there, which I refuse to shop at ( and target ).

Re: 15 years old?

[dryeo]

You're probably American with a government that understands the importance of not being dependent on foreign sources of food and hasn't sold the farm yet in a free trade deal with China. Our previous government signed a deal with China that allows them to sue us for lost profits if we refuse to carry their goods for stupid reasons such as it being poisonous. Need to give 30 years notice to cancel the deal as well while most trade deals need 6 months to a years notice. Considering the Billions that we've had to pay out to American companies for similar reasons due to NAFTA, we're probably stuck with Chinese goods everywhere including the grocery store.
At least the one I use labels everything so it is easy to not buy Chinese, at least as long as there are choices.

Re: 15 years old?

[WindBourne]

I am American, but let me point out several things:
1) I agree with you about CHina. They are a total disaster for North America. They manipulate their money, which prevents an eqalization from occuring; they dump on our markets, which is criminal; they push inferior products that would be considered illegal down in Mexico, let alone in America or Canada; In addition, when Clinton-China went through, there were 90 tariffs. Now, there are over 500 tariffs directed specifically at the west. Agreements with china need to be stopped, or they need to be enforced.

2) that NAFTA has been overall a good deal for North America, but Canada has actually done the best at it.
If anything, Canada has seen the strongest gains among the three NAFTA countries, though, again, it is difficult to attribute direct causation, particularly given that Canada and the United States had a free-trade deal that predated NAFTA. Canada is the leading exporter of goods to the United States, U.S. and Mexican investments in Canada have tripled, and Canada has added 4.7 million new jobs since 1993. Canadian manufacturing employment held steady, though the "productivity gap" between the Canadian and U.S. economies wasn't narrowed: Canada's labor productivity stood at 72 percent of U.S. levels in 2012 despite Canada's highly educated work force [PDF].
Here is another assessment of many.

3) we need to STRENGTHEN NAFTA, not weaken it. In Particular, I would like to see us require similar labor and environmental laws that Canada has. And if we are going to do more FTAs, it should be done not by individual nations (i.e. mexico, canada, or america), but by NAFTA as a whole, since 1 FTA impacts the other.

4) Considering how important climate change is, I would love to see NAFTA implement a tax on ALL manufactured goods based on where the worst sub-part comes from. It should be a tax that starts low, but increases every year (or more). And it should be done as a %. Likewise, the data needs to be real verifiable numbers, not guess work, or based on what govs report. As such, it should be based on OCO2. Finally, it should be normalized on a sane metric, not per capita, but emissions per GDP. By having NAFTA do this, it would quickly cause all nations to lower their emissions since if they have high emissions per $ GDP, it will cause their goods to be expensive and manufacturers will quit using their sub-parts.

Xiuhtezcatl ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Xiuhtezcatl .......wow....what a name

Re:Who cares

[avandesande]

He's hip hop savy. That makes it important.

Our descent into the bowels of fascism and decay..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't they suing Congress? The people's reps decide the nation's laws. Or do we now live in a dictatorship, much like Russia, wherein one tyrant pretty essentially crafts all the rules?

So much for the representative Republic, then.

And to think George Lucas thought it died on George Bush's watch.

Not doing his job?

[fahrbot-bot]

Hmm... I checked The Constitution and it doesn't say anything about it being the President's job to "ditch fossil fuels". Heck, it doesn't even mention "climate change". Perhaps this kid should take a Civics / Government class and learn that it's Congress that passes these things called "laws"...

Re:Not doing his job?

[Major Blud]

Not to mention that I'm sure we can find over a dozen activities this kid takes part in that negatively impact the climate.

Re:Not doing his job?

[Trailer Trash]

Not to mention that I'm sure we can find over a dozen activities this kid takes part in that negatively impact the climate.

Let me help you:

"Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh... hip-hop-savvy Coloradan...,' he told me here at the U.N. COP21 climate change summit in Paris.

I'm guessing he didn't row a boat to Europe.

Re:Not doing his job?

[Ichijo]

You are correct that somebody needs a civics lesson, to learn whose job the U.S. Constitution says is to "recommend to [Congress'] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient".

Re:Not doing his job?

[fahrbot-bot]

You are correct that somebody needs a civics lesson, to learn whose job the U.S. Constitution says is to "recommend to [Congress'] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient".

Ya, I know that and Obama has "recommended" many things to Congress during his term. How'd that work out for him with this Congress filled with people that don't want to say anything but "no" and, apparently, do little else? In any case, as I said, it's the job of Congress to actually pass laws. Perhaps, *someone* needs a lesson in "reading".

Re:Not doing his job?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I would proffer it's even more important for Congress to know when it should NOT pass laws... Often the proper answer is "no", especially when it comes to political winds and short term trends.

Re:Not doing his job?

[Matheus]

Even if he did he'd probably be breathing pretty hard spewing CO the whole damn time... hypocrite!

Re:Not doing his job?

[fahrbot-bot]

I would proffer it's even more important for Congress to know when it should NOT pass laws... Often the proper answer is "no", especially when it comes to political winds and short term trends.

Agreed and good point, but I'm pretty sure this Congress has other agendas with their liberal (no pun intended) reliance on "no" as their governing mantra. At least one Republican has been quoted as say they should deny Obama any achievements during his tenure.

Re:Not doing his job?

[tsqr]

??? row boats do not produce coal gas

True. But human respiration produces CO2.

Re:Not doing his job?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Unfortunately, it's not true they just say "no". They say "no" to big stumbling blocks, not everything. In fact, the record shows plenty of laws passed. Somewhere upwards of 95%. But on big issue items, where the two parties have fundamentally different approaches/solutions, there is nothing moved forward. As it should be.

Re:Not doing his job?

[fahrbot-bot]

Unfortunately, it's not true they just say "no". They say "no" to big stumbling blocks, not everything. In fact, the record shows plenty of laws passed. Somewhere upwards of 95%. But on big issue items, where the two parties have fundamentally different approaches/solutions, there is nothing moved forward. As it should be.

Indeed. On the other hand, of the ~260 "laws" on that list there was plenty of BS (cursory review below). So I'm not saying that what Congress does could be done by semi-trained monkeys, just (at least) 31% of what they do.

• 63 (24%) - were to name Post Office buildings
• 10 - were to (re)name other things
• 5 - to (re)appoint people to the Smithsonian Board of Regents
• 1 - to "facilitate the hosting in the United States of the 34th America's Cup by authorizing certain eligible vessels to participate in activities related to the competition, and for other purposes"
• 1 - "Amends the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 to express the sense of Congress that the President should continue to support radio, television, and Internet broadcasting to the people of Belarus in languages spoken in Belarus"
• 1 - "To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept a statue depicting Frederick Douglass from the District of Columbia and to provide for the permanent display of the statue in Emancipation Hall of the United States Capitol."

Re:Not doing his job?

[riverat1]

You really need to get over that exhaling CO2 thing. The CO2 you exhale comes completely from CO2 that plants absorbed not too long before you ate them (or ate the animals that ate them). Now there may be fossil fuels used in processing and delivering the food to you but that's not a requirement. The CO2 and methane you emit from your body has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.

Re:Not doing his job?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I think just making all laws sunset after 10 years would be sufficient. If it's a good law, it would sail through without issue. Otherwise - rework or expire.

Re:Not doing his job?

[Penguinisto]

Dear Ideologue Mod: You can mod me down with "Overrated", but you can never be un-butthurt.

Kisses,

Re:Not doing his job?

[dywolf]

perhaps you should take one, instead of spouting typical "literal reading" ignorance.

From Article II of the U.S.C., skipping Section 1, the rules for choosing the President:

Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient ; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers ; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Re:Not doing his job?

[fahrbot-bot]

instead of spouting typical "literal reading" ignorance

(a) You chastise me about that then provide cut/pasted excerpts from the Constitution - which is *literally* a literal reading? Talk about irony. (b) I know all that, and it was mentioned by another poster (to which I replied as in (c)), so you're late and short. (c) Doesn't change my point that Congress passes the laws in this country - treaties and "recommendations" to Congress not withstanding. (d) You're (obviously) a pedantic dumb-ass.

Cheers, have a nice day! :-)

This is great news!

[timholman]

Now that the precedent has been set, I'm looking forward to suing all of these students twenty years from now for their terrible career choices which have made them unemployable, thus depriving me of the tax revenue needed to support my Social Security and Medicare.

Re:This is great news!

[erapert]

Considering how asinine his action against Obama is I'm willing to bet on what kind of degree this guy is going to pursue.

Re:This is great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through...

Re:This is great news!

[Coren22]

15+20=35. I would hope he has a degree by 35 if he intends to have one at all.

Re:This is great news!

[14erCleaner]

You could sue him now for the climate impact of his jet flight to Paris.

Idiot

[MBGMorden]

I guess he hasn't gotten to the class in school yet explaining that the Executive branch can't enact laws . . .

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

> Executive branch can't enact laws

Someone should tell the President that. Here's a list of 2,200 new regulations this fall:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_LIST&currentPub=true&agencyCode=&showStage=active&agencyCd=0000

And, that list is not inclusive. There's actually about three times that many if my son, who is an intern for Sanders, is correct.

Re:Idiot

[jedidiah]

...and even if he unilaterally enacts a regulation, or one of his subordinates enacts a regulation, good luck getting that enforced as the other party and offended corporate interests will descend and object in a variety of ways.

Re:Idiot

[rmdingler]

He doesn't care. This is attention-seeking behavior.

He's fifteen. The long hair, the hip hop activism, and the impossible suit are means to an end for him.

He's probably getting laid for this shit.

Re: Idiot

[Notorious G]

That's the point, you can't. If everyone is a criminal then everyone can be controlled...

Re: Idiot

[erapert]

Gee whiz, you don't suppose that all those crazy right wingers nattering on about "limited government" and other such foolish notions might have something of a point do you?

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

You know things wouldn't heat up if not for that glowing thing in the sky. This kid should try suing the sun, he may have more success ;)

Re:Idiot

[CaptainLard]

He's probably getting laid for this shit.

Perhaps we can all learn something from him after all....

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

This kid started giving speeches and organizing rallies at 6. He's the creation of an adult. It took a while to figure out who, because they changed his name from Roske-Martinez to something Aztec. His mother is executive director of Earth Guardians and her name is Tamara Roske. If you Google her, you can see she's the activist behind all of this. Oh, and she wants you to pay for his high technology. Maybe they should get him some more vegetable scraps for his compost pile instead.

Re:Idiot

[erapert]

Love the signature. Here's my attempt at a haiku:

Some are shut, others open.
A dog always waits at the door.
He's on the wrong side.

Re:Idiot

[k6mfw]

He's probably getting laid for this shit.

Perhaps we can all learn something from him after all....

this should be noted as "Insightful" instead of "Funny"

No standing

[selectspec]

In order to prove standing, he will have to prove that he's sustained damages. He will find that hard to do. The kid might as well sue for having his financial future mortgaged to a hilt while he is at it. At least in that case, he could document how he is being royally screwed.

 

James Hanson

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the same James Hanson who warned us in Jan 2009 that there were "only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world"? That if we fail, all will be lost? Because we busted that deadline in Jan 2014. And the world hasn't exactly ended yet.

Re:James Hanson

[KGIII]

It's funny how we criticize terrorists for hiding behind a wall of children and using them as shields. I wonder how much manipulation has been done here. :/ Ah well...

I do have a few reports to read - I'm trying to learn more about this global science thing so I can more accurately opine on the mathematics in use but there's a lot to digest and, frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in the maths involved. There is not only not one standard, they appear fond of not publishing what they tried before reaching their results. It is greatly beneficial to see what was tried and failed or, in my case, what the results were that they considered failing and then what changes to data or modeling were chosen as well as why. I'm not sure if I don't have access to this or if it's not published anywhere.

There are a myriad of models in use, some of which I'm familiar with conceptually, but they've all got their own individual tweaks (as they should) but something isn't adding up - alas, I don't have the domain knowledge to spot it yet. It's chaotic and a lot to figure out. I may have bitten off more than I can chew but I am being entertained and learning stuff.

Oddly, it was a Slashdot poster who gave me this challenge. Heh... I thought it would be a little quicker but there's a lot and I'd really dislike giving a poor reply to a question posted seemingly without bias and with a scholarly intent.

Re:James Hanson

[khallow]

Oddly, it was a Slashdot poster who gave me this challenge.

It's not odd at all. This is a common ruse on Slashdot. Read this 800+ page report and only then shall you know enough to agree with me. But oddly enough, the person laying down this ridiculous challenge usually hasn't done that task either.

Re:James Hanson

[KGIII]

They seemed genuinely interested and asked because they didn't seem to know a whole lot either - enough to email me for it. There's a HUGE amount of data to digest and process. I kind of want to get some source material, build out something close to spec (I've got time), and run some of these models myself. The data is scattered around, all over the place, and my contacts with the journals haven't been forthcoming. I'm likely to pay for some papers out of curiosity or wait until I'm home and have the University access.

Hmm... New thought... I know some admins at the Uni. Maybe I can get access from them.

Re:James Hanson

[riverat1]

Here's a link to a climate model you can run on a desktop computer: EdGCM

Re:James Hanson

[uninformedLuddite]

Don't read too much it's the path to skepticism and not the path to drum circle nirvana

Re:James Hanson

[KGIII]

That might be worth setting up a Windows VM or buying a Mac for. I'll take a peek at it some more but it's not really answering my question - I can model the climate (with enough time and effort) if I need to. I need to find out which modeling is being done, what predictive models are in use, what the data is being altered to (and why), and why the variables are excluded in some models. I'm a mathematician and working with large data sets is why I'm retired today but my area of expertise is in traffic modeling. I'm not really interested in the output from the models. I am aiming to actually understand the models and how/why the data is massaged. (Data is *always* massaged when you model chaotic systems. I've no problem with that - I'm not stupid. I want to know how and why and I want to find the deterministic methods in use.)

Re:James Hanson

[KGIII]

I'm okay with that. I've already been called a skeptic even though I'd said nothing of the sort and I had asked something about why some of the data had been excluded if the margin of error was no higher than other data that was included. If you refresh this particular thread, someone offered me a link that will help me model the climate but I'm not sure that they actually understand what I'm doing. I modeled traffic - I can model the climate if I've enough time and interest. I don't. I want to see what the models are doing, why they are doing it, how the data is massaged, why it is massaged, what algorithms are used to massage the data, what has been tried and what has "failed." as well as what the outcome of those predictions were and how close they matched the existent data.

Some of this information seems to be squirreled away or is poorly indexed or outright not included. I'm past the 'first blush" stage but I'm going to use that phrase. At first blush, it appears that they are not very approachable and I am not surprised that people are skeptical. I'm of the opinion that healthy skepticism is a good thing, I'm not entirely sure why this is seen as a bad thing. Are they conflated with those who are in denial?

I can state that there are some certainties. I am certain that the climate is changing. I am certain that some percentage of this change is due to human activity. I am certain that we should limit our harm.

I am not sure that the predictions are accurate (so far, I'm going with they don't appear that certain either). I'm not certain what percentage is due to human activity. I'm not sure that we have the power to repair it - or even if we could stop the natural projection. I am not sure why they've excluded certain data points. I'm not sure about data collection techniques and their accuracy. I'm not sure that the data being entered into the models is giving an accurate output - I'm sure it's following the model exactly but I need to see what the model does to even begin to comment on it. And I don't mean physically see it, I need to read the model itself and see what "tweaks" have been applied, how, why, and what failed and what the results of those failures were.

Anyhow, I've sent out about two dozen emails now and had nary a single reply. I'm okay with that and I'd buy journal papers for the material but the papers that I've come across that are free don't actually appear to cover the information that I need. You can tell me how you built a table but that doesn't let me know what you tried and failed at and then understand the process you used to truly create your fine table. I've got bandwidth and compute cycles. I'll happily crunch the numbers and submit the results, methodology, and data to the facilities. I'll even write the code so long as you don't need me to make pretty graphics. I can *see* the normalization values, for example, but I don't see why those are in use and what process they used to get them.

Re:James Hanson

[KGIII]

I don't even "need" to know that. I want to know, as much as possible, the maths involved and, honestly, I'm a bit disappointed with the non-contact that I've had and the inability to find the raw research data. They say there's plenty of data available for free and online. This is true. It isn't the data I need. Yes. I can find their models and the outputs of those models, that's readily available. I don't want the results of the research, I want access to their research. That is what I want. It is also what I need if I want to make an informed opinion.

Re:James Hanson

[uninformedLuddite]

http://technocracy.news/index.... -- I will message you privately some other stuff you may find of interest as if I post it here I will end up dealing with those afflicted with climatic religious zeal. if you don't want to be messaged just let me know and I wont.

Re:James Hanson

[KGIII]

My email address is posted for a reason. ;-) Feel free to use it. I'll review your link either later or in the morning. I'd not do it justice by reading it right now so I can't opine on it. Meh, we're this far back from the front page... Why not?

I left Maine, back in September, due to some conversation here on this site. I have been lucky in some ways which means there are consequences. I headed out on the road to just travel around, seemingly at random. I did so in a car that's not too fancy. I stay(ed) at mid-range hotels and not in the best suites.

This had the results that met my goal, in part, where I bumped into a very young female and she stuck. We wrapped up some business and she's joined me on my journey and will, almost certainly, be returning to my home with me when I do return. But, this has meant distractions.

Over the weekend, I'd been in Buffalo since we bumped into each other, I finally meandered down to D.C. with her in tow. We spent today at the Smithsonian (we did the Air and Space) and had a good time but I am mentally exhausted and physically drained. I'd expected the trip here to energize me but it's had the opposite effect and I'm a bit disappointed.

Why do I mention that? Well, it is for that reason that I have simply thrown your link into my "read this" bookmark folder. I prefer, when possible, to take some things serious and with a scholarly bent. Not everything, mind you, but some things. This is a serious subject where I have no specific domain knowledge. I may, also, publish my findings even if it's only available for peer review by personal publication and not in a reputable journal. I'm a mathematician and not a climate scientist, after all.

As I've mentioned, I've a great deal of experience modeling things that are chaotic in nature (pedestrian and vehicular traffic) and was on the cusp of that field which is why I'm in the position I am today. I am fortunate and grateful. Alas, this means I'm not doing anything and this is a subject that I do have some very specific experience with (the modeling and the working with large data sets). My goal is scholarly and not political. I simply want to understand enough to give an informed opinion. From there, I may run my own models and get the results but that's not my objective.

Re:James Hanson

[riverat1]

There is the NASA/GISS ModelE, one of the leading GCMs that the IPCC reports are based on. You can download the source code (in FORTRAN I think), the documentation and other information at the link.

As far as altered data, there is very little "data" input in to climate models. The major ones like ModelE are physical models and in theory you could start them anywhere and they would evolve to a realistic climate rather quickly. As far as what's input into climate models they are obviously given a starting point. Then if you want to look at how changes in greenhouse gases affect the climate you would input various scenarios of changes in those gases over time (in the IPCC AR5 they are called RCPs or Representative Concentration Pathways). Some things in climate occur on a scale that's too small for grid sizes* that are practical so they can't be calculated in the model and they have to be parameterized. Clouds are an example of this. You could input a simulation of solar variation I suppose but it's varies so little and averages out over the longer time periods that models model that it's not necessary. Things like temperature, humidity, precipitation and wind are not input into the models but are emergent properties of them.

* Grid sizes are determined by how much computing power you have and how long you want a particular run to be. Here's a page that discusses resolution (both spatial and temporal) of climate models and how it's changed over time as more computing power was brought to bear.

Re:James Hanson

[KGIII]

Excellent, I'll take a look there in the morning. I'd also like to point out that the models are used to make predictions and thus must, by their nature, have data from the past in order to make predictions. Unless I am missing something. I'm both mentally and physically exhausted so I've simply bookmarked the page for now. I'm in that "function on autopilot" stage where I'm mostly passively consuming Slashdot comments with a documentary playing in another tab.

Re:James Hanson

[riverat1]

The correct terminology is that climate models are used to make projections. They are called projections because the output is contingent on what path the real world follows in comparison to the RCPs which can't be predicted ahead of time. You could think of it as shorthand for "If the changes in greenhouse gases follow this RCP we predict this but if they follow that RCP we predict something else. Maybe it's a semantic argument but there it is.

The major climate models are as much as possible physical models, that is they model the physical processes in the atmosphere (and oceans) that make the climate what it is. The only use data such as temperatures, humidity, precipitation and wind serve is as something to compare to model output to see how well the model does.

Re:James Hanson

[KGIII]

Hmm... I'm using NOAA's terminology:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...

Projections works. I'll keep the nominal difference in mind.

Re:James Hanson

[riverat1]

Ok, you're right about NOAA. I was using the NASA/GISS terminology which is also used in the IPCC reports. As I said it's somewhat of a semantic argument.

I hope Obama...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope he comes out on Air Force One, bringing his limo in tow, to meet with these kids and tells them, to their faces, that he just created more of a carbon surplus then they will in their entire lives and a cost more than all their combined tax dollars will ever amount to. Let those hippies put that in their pipe and smoke it tonight.

Easy

[s.petry]

It's the victim culture don't you know, so everyone cares. This kid should get what he wants just because he cried "FOUL" at someone. I think the song said "Money for nothing and your chicks for free!" right?

The kid might have been smarter to break^Winvent, a clock and get invited to the White House and Google before the lawsuit... but hey, that ship may have already sailed... to Qatar that is.

Is my cynicism showing?

Re:Useless

[crow_t_robot]

Learn to read.

Climate Cultism

[Anonymous Coward]

James Hansen should be immediately separated from these children.

The man is an absolute climate lunatic.

Re:Climate Cultism

[riverat1]

This is something James Hansen has been studying for over 40 years. May he knows something you don't.

"That's not how this works...

[IndigoZulu]

...that's not how ANY OF THIS works."

Re:Useless

[TWX]

I think I prefer George Carlin's take on prayer...

Re:Useless

[thegarbz]

Is it? It's not like it's without prescient: http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Re:Our descent into the bowels of fascism and deca

[DarkOx]

You sue the executive because he could be liable for malfeasance ( failing to do their duty). If there is some law under which it could be shown he had some specific obligation.

You can imagine some sufficiently twisted expansionist interpretation of exist environmental regulation where that might be possible. Its hard on the other hand at least for me as a lay person see how you could make a claim against the legislative body, they have powers but they don't really have much of anything in the way of legally defined duties.

Personally I hope they win at least the first round. I don't agree with what their goals, I think Obama and his EPA have already grossly over stepped and acted in excess of their authority. On the other hand they are going to continue to imagine new executive powers and playing King until something like this comes along and shows them it can bite them in the ass.

If a law suit like this can go forward brought by the general public than plenty of other suites could too. I can't wait until Joe Sixpack is able to sue the president for not deporting illegals as required for example; or for failing to defend the Constitution of the United States because he fought a foreign conflict without a Congressional declaration of war...

Oh the possibilities to restore checks on executive power.

Re:Useless

[KGIII]

That is only because you've never seen Emo's skit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

He should get his day in court...

[jmr0ec]

... Just as soon as he shows us all HIS plan to ditch all fossil fuel use, without a negative energy balance at any time, will all the math shown, and the most pessimistic assumptions you can make about renewable availability and construction/maintenance energy costs baked in. After that, I want him to figure out how to PAY for it. Then I want him to take a good look at what goes into all those 'Green' technologies. A solar panel is energy intensive to make, and requires some toxic materials.

Re:He should get his day in court...

[Coren22]

He already has the payment portion nailed. He is suing Obama so that he will pay for solar panels for the kid's house.

Re:He should get his day in court...

[AmiMoJo]

Greenpeace have done just that. Fully costed, realistic and achievable plans. It's actually cheaper than ignoring the problem, but of course most people don't think that far ahead or assume is to far enough down the road that someone else will pay for it.

http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

Re:He should get his day in court...

[jmr0ec]

Skimmed your link, found a lack of math and a highly slanted view of energy generation technologies. FYI, the section of Nuclear power seems stuck in the Gen II and Gen II+ era, little that I could see on Gen III or Gen IV reactor's. Also the section of PV technology seems to ignore all the issues with those techs, such as the high energy inputs needed to produce PV cells (it takes somewhere around 5 to 7 years for a PV cell to pay back the total energy requirement for it construction, if you leave out maintenance and degradation of the PV cell itself), or the fact that you have to use a number of toxic metals in their construction such as Arsenic, Cesium and Cadmium to name a couple.

But thank you for the link, it's always interesting to see a different view point, even if I don't agree.

Re:He should get his day in court...

[AmiMoJo]

What maths in particular were you looking for but didn't find?

The stuff on nuclear is based on what is reasonably expected to be available in the next 30 years. If you hadn't noticed, most new plants are gen III+, often AP1000s, and there is a big effort to keep existing gen II ones online. I don't think anyone is building commercial gen IV reactors.

They included all the manufacturing issues with PV, it's all well documented, they just use more realistic numbers. I think the 7 year number comes from a very old study using pre-2004 panels. A more recent but still old (2008) study suggests 250kW/m2, which would require around 2.5 years in the dreary UK or under a year in California to generate. The amount of rare or toxic materials used is basically negligible now too, with the inverter hard often having more. Their study is pessimistic and doesn't assume very much improvement either.

So what has he done?

[sbaker]

According to https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene..., since Obama took office:

* The EPA released the Clean Power Plan — the first-ever carbon pollution standards for existing power plants,
* The U.S. increased solar electricity generation by more than ten-fold, and tripled electricity production from wind power.
* The DOI has approved over 50 wind, solar, and geothermal utility-scale projects on public or tribal lands.
* Obama put forth initiatives to help develop principles for establishing energy corridors; encourage the use of designated energy corridors in western states; expedite the review of transmission projects in non-western states; and improve the overall transmission siting
* Created the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
* Proposed the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in U.S. history
* Finalized the first-ever fuel economy standards for commercial trucks, vans, and buses for model years 2014-2018.
* The EPA proposed two new rules in 2014 under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program to curb HFC's.
* Released a Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions that builds on progress to date and takes steps to further cut methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, agriculture, and oil and gas systems.
* Committed to deploying 3 gigawatts of renewable energy on military installations, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal, by 2025.
* Directed federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as building energy use and fuel consumption by 28 percent by 2020 and increase deployment of renewable energy. ...and on and on.

What's the common thread here? Well, things Obama *can* do (EPA regulations, federal programs) he did - what required House & Senate to write laws, he made proposals - largely in agreement of the relevant industry groups...but if no laws are written as a result of all this work - is that Obama's fault?

Re:So what has he done?

[Anonymous Coward]

is that Obama's fault?

Yes, if he had really cared about getting some laws through Congress, he could have thrown the election in favor of whatever Republican.
Maybe then they would have gotten their thumbs out of their asses and done some work.

Re:So what has he done?

[cdrudge]

if no laws are written as a result of all this work - is that Obama's fault?

Yes. Obviously he should have been more cooperative in working with Congress. Instead he enacts his own agenda, bypassing all the good work Congress has tried to accomplish. /s

Re:So what has he done?

[cdrudge]

See that /s at the end of my post? That means it was to be interpreted as sarcasm.

Re:Ahh to be young again....

[KGIII]

At his age, I had all the answers. I was also witty, insightful, and never wrong. Oh, I was devilishly handsome and my philosophical works were fantastic and original. So, you do have a point.

Also, I was wrong. Well, except for the devilishly handsome bit.

So let's go back to calling it global warming

[presidenteloco]

Which was the original, and still accurate, name by which this phenomenon was known, until right wing messaging diluted it to climate change concern so that it could be deliberately confused with natural climate change cycles.

Or if you want to be pedantic, we could call it "the climate changes associated with global warming".

Re:So let's go back to calling it global warming

[nytes]

Which was the original, and still accurate, name by which this phenomenon was known, until right wing messaging diluted it to climate change concern so that it could be deliberately confused with natural climate change cycles.

When did they do that? Back in 1956 when "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change" was published, or when the IPCC was created in '88?

yes

[raymorris]

> do we now live in a dictatorship, much like Russia, wherein one tyrant pretty essentially crafts all the rules?

Yes.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/...

It's not Obama

[presidenteloco]

It's clear President Obama had and has the will to act significantly on reducing CO2 emissions.

He is fighting the fossils in an obstructionist, denialist, bought-and-paid-for Republican-controlled senate and congress for every inch of progress on this issue.

The targeting of this lawsuit is misplaced.

Re:It's not Obama

[jcr]

And this is totally unlike what every other president did who had a 747 to hop on to?

Ooh, good retort! Anything that another asshole in the white house did before Obama totally excuses him, even if he's wagging a finger at us driving cars while he rides in a fucking airliner.

When did it become OK to be patriotic and yet call the elected leader of this country "that asshole" instead of The President?

Anyone who hasn't called a president an asshole isn't a true American.

I have more respect and love for the country

Do you really not understand the difference between a politician and the country?

-jcr

Re:It's not Obama

[wyHunter]

Especially when, for the first several years of his Presidency, the Democrats had all three branches of government. Bad Republicans, Bad!

Re:It's not Obama

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

When did it become OK to be patriotic and yet call the elected leader of this country "that asshole" instead of The President? I'm not even a US citizen and I have more respect and love for the country than you are showing.
Around the time it became de rigueur, to compare Bush 43 to Hitler, the thought at the time was "Dissent is the most patriotic form of speech"

Hitting all the checklist items

[swb]

* Young -- because you can't trust anyone over 15
* Hip-hop savvy -- shows your street cred
* Long hair -- because personal grooming is political
* Unpronounceable name -- you have to be ethnic to be taken seriously
* Filed a lawsuit -- This shows you mean business and are willing to take the law into someone else's hands
* Coloradan -- Dude, you can hook people up, ya know.

I'm sure he's a total hero with his brave, hip-hop flavored anti-authority, not to mention probably getting more dewy-eyed hippie chicks than even a 15 year can handle.

Re:Hitting all the checklist items

[PapayaSF]

I'm sure he's a total hero with his brave, hip-hop flavored anti-authority [...].

He's not "anti-authority," he just wants to be the authority.

James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[BCGlorfindel]

I get how as a scientist watching things you want to push people to action. That being said, James Hansen has gone a little overboard IMHO and into the realm of damaging the credibility of scientists in general be politicizing things himself. He's written things like:
Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years
This despite the IPCC estimates that gain/loss in glaciers will be regionally dependant on precipitation changes(and this based on admittedly poorly modelled precipitation).

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
This isn't precisely a statement backed by peer reviewed evidence either...

When people are angry about the science being politicized, it does NOT help for the scientists to go over board politicizing things themselves in the hope of being a counter-balance. It doesn't work between FOX and MSNBC counter balancing each other from Rep-Dem sides of things, and it doesn't work for educating people on the science either. You just get more and more grandiose hyperbole, half truths and flat out propaganda from both sides.

Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[Tom]

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
This isn't precisely a statement backed by peer reviewed evidence either...

It's a pretty precise statement, though not in scientific language. Coal is absolutely horribly in every way, and "death" is the absolutely correct association people should have.

When people are angry about the science being politicized, it does NOT help for the scientists to go over board politicizing things themselves in the hope of being a counter-balance.

Climate scientists have been speaking about climate change for literally three decades in neutral, factual, scientific language and were utterly ignored. If what you are doing doesn't work, you need to try something else.

The problem is not that we need to educate people about science. Those who are interested have plenty of options to educate themselves. The problem is that we need to hammer the point "your children will die from this shit" into the heads of people who don't care about the science. The kind of people who don't understand and don't want to understand the language of "the mean CO2 concentration shows a strong correlation to..." - they want to know what the point is.

And the point is that coal is death and climate change will kill us all. Yeah, maybe that's not the 120% scientifically accurate way of saying it, but what really matters is that all the desinterested people get it, and get it strongly enough that politicians start to give a fuck because it will influence election results.

Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[BCGlorfindel]

Coal is absolutely horribly in every way, and "death" is the absolutely correct association people should have.
That is in NO WAY a scientific position, it is 100% a POLITICAL position. Coal produces CO2 which causes global warming is a scientific statement. Coal power plants dump out more radioactive materials into the environment than any nuclear power plant is a scientific statement. Equating that to excess deaths ignores the bigger picture though. Coal power plants also provide very cheap electricity. In China that has meant employment and a better life for millions. In developing nations cheap energy enables development which greatly benefits everyone. Honestly, to hear guys like Hansen and yourself tell it the world is buying and burning coal because killing people is a hobby or something.

The problem is that we need to hammer the point "your children will die from this shit" into the heads of people who don't care about the science.
The problem is when scientists start claiming "Your children will die!" but the evidence is a hell of a lot more mundane and pedestrian than that. We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times. Even the IPCC worst case scenario projects sea level rise by 2100 as less than a metre, and that worst case has us accelerating our fossil fuel usage indefinitely. The assumption that technology will stop progressing and electric vehicles and nuclear power won't start changing out oil and coal power isn't exactly the most probable scenario. In the last 100 years we've come from horses and books by candle light to space craft and the internet.

Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[riverat1]

We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times. Even the IPCC worst case scenario [www.ipcc.ch] projects sea level rise by 2100 as less than a metre, and that worst case has us accelerating our fossil fuel usage indefinitely.

Sea level could easily rise by a meter or more during the lifetime of some of the people alive today. In every new IPCC report the projected sea level rise is greater than in the previous report. There may be non-linear effects like the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that produce dramatic sea level rises in relatively short periods of time. It's an area where there is a lot of uncertainty but the uncertainty has a fat tail, that is the probability of greater than projected sea level rise is higher than less than projected sea level rise.

Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[Tom]

That is in NO WAY a scientific position, it is 100% a POLITICAL position.

Bullshit. Just because it's not phrased in scientific-journal-language doesn't mean its contents aren't scientific. Sure, saying "death" instead of using clean, nice scientific terminology is a different way of putting it, but it is a scientific position, because continuing the thought from the immediate effects to the consequences is necessary.

Coal power plants also provide very cheap electricity.

You might want to double-check it. In my country, coal is only cheap because of hidden government subsidies.

We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times

According to the WHO, we are talking about five million additional deaths from the health side effects of climate change alone.

The UN is talking about seven million premature deaths per year due to pollution.

Google a little for youself and you will find much, much more.

"Your children will die from this shit" is quite an adequate summary, IMHO.

Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[Magius_AR]

You might want to double-check it. In my country, coal is only cheap because of hidden government subsidies

Citation? In all instances I'm aware of, coal is cheap because its plentiful and cheap/easy to dig out of the ground. Now that everyone is abandoning it, it's even cheaper because supply is still exceedingly high and demand has fallen substantially.

Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[Tom]

Citation?

http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/a-2...
http://www.greenpeace-energy.d...
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/...

just what I found in a few seconds. Sorry, it's all in german, but I was talking about my country.

In all instances I'm aware of, coal is cheap because its plentiful and cheap/easy to dig out of the ground.

Not once you use real costs. A lot of the subsidies are hidden subsidies because they are not officially marked as such. But when the government cleans up after companies, gives them land for free, passes special laws with special tax breaks just for them, that's a subsidy just by another name.

Re:James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[Tom]

Citation required.

See my other reply.

To get energy from coal the steps are trivial. Pick up lump of coal from the ground, light lump of coal on fire, done.

Bullshit. This is what industrial coal digging looks like:
http://www.ardmediathek.de/ima...

You see the size of that machine? These are among the largest machines we have on the planet, one of them holds the Guiness World Record. They cost ~ 400 mio. US$ each.

There are billions of extra costs as well, as whole villages and small towns are routinely relocated away from the digging areas. What's your estimate on moving an entire village?

The real reasons we stay on coal - at least for my country - are all political. The first is that there are many thousands of jobs in the industry, and entire regions are based on it and would become economical wastelands if we stopped using coal. The second is that coal is one of the few energy sources we have locally. Oil and gas need to be imported, and thus can change price or become entirely unavailable in case some global political shit hits the fan. So politicians keep the coal industry on a lifeline so in case of crisis it can be resurrected fast.

If we want to get off coal, climate change is the least of the reasons to do so.

That is why I quoted these different sources. I was saying that coal is death, and the reason is not just climate change. The stuff is just horrible all around. Hence the pollution citation.

But abject poverty doesn't kill anybody does it? If only they knew that using coal was worse for them than dying penniless in a ditch.

This is the real challenge of our time. If only we would tackle it, instead of all this bullshit wars about oil and presidential egos. It's not a problem we can't solve. We're just too busy solving other problems that we've created ourselves, many of them for purely power-greedy reasons (half the wars going on in the world right now were basically started because someone needed a distraction).

Re: Who cares

[WarJolt]

I don't think this qualifies as news for nerds. Someone cares, but /. in general is a bit too pragmatic to care about this stuff. Not to say there isn't a significant environmentalist community here, but most /.ers know even if man made climate change exists the chances of cataclysmic results of climate change is highly unlikely.

I kinda feel sorry for the kid though because I don't think he's prepared for the backlash. By suing the president for climate change he's alienating both the left and the right and doing little for his cause.

Re:Hey, at least it's not ...

[serbanp]

Who knows, it may have been mis-spelled...

We're saved!

[meta-monkey]

Well, that does it! Climate fixed, we're saved! Thanks Quetzalcoatl!

Schools aparently don't teach Executive Imunity.

[RatherBeAnonymous]

This case has no chance. (IANAL, but I can google) The president can not be sued or prosecuted criminally for any act he does (or does not do) in the execution of his duties as president.

(from http://definitions.uslegal.com...)

Executive immunity is an immunity granted to officers of the executive branch of government from personal liability for tortious acts or omissions done in the course of carrying out their duties. The U.S. president's executive immunity is absolute; however, the immunity of other federal executive officials is qualified.

Suing for what?

[jcr]

A lawsuit demanding that the government usurp even more power that the people never granted to it? Fuck that kid, and the asshole tree-huggers who put him up to this.

-jcr

This post reeks of paid shilling

[Rujiel]

Implying environmentalism is never feasible, check
Pandering "the facts", check
Ridiculous claims about environmentalists (They hate STEM!!).. check
Complaining about someone else's agenda despite the obvious presence of your own? Check

I'm actually impressed you were able to fit nearly all rhar into a paragraph. Next are you going to talk about windmills killing birds?

Ah the right wing story progression

[presidenteloco]

It's not happening
It's uncertain
It may be happening but it's not us
Ok it's happening, but it's all those poor people who are trying to catch up with us
Ok it's happening, but there's nothing we can do about it.
Ok it happened, but there was nothing we could have done about it.

Yes. You could have done something. Finding yourself it a hole, you could have stopped digging.
You could have kept your friggin' traps shut with your destructive obstructionist bullshit and got the hell out of the way of the smart and motivated people trying to solve the problem.
You've already cost us 35 years of inaction since the problem was well known in scientific circles to exist.
So I say again, shut up and get out of the way.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes. You could have done something.

No, I couldn't... this happened before I was old enough to have any say in it, and I'm 40 years old...

Finding yourself it a hole, you could have stopped digging.

I can't stop driving, I can't stop living, thus the digging doesn't stop.

So I say again, shut up and get out of the way.

What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?

Sorry, no thanks.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[erapert]

So you were screaming at the top of your lungs about this problem forty years ago but nobody listened?
Forty years ago did you put forth a viable solution to the problem?
Have you been living in a carbon-neutral cabin in the woods ever since?
Do you have a car? Do you drive it frequently?
Do you have a computer? (yes, because you're on the internet) Where do you think that computer came from?
Do you have an air conditioner? Do you run it during the summer?
Do you buy food from the super market?
Do you buy clothes from a store?

Basically, unless you're Amish then you're every bit as responsible for "this mess" as the people you're railing against.
So get off your high horse and be reasonable. Your unreasonableness and histrionic screeching is detrimental to your cause.
So, to paraphrase something I read once: Shut up and get out of the way of your own cause.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[nightfire-unique]

This .. is one of the best replies I've ever read on /.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[sithkhan]

" got the hell out of the way of the smart and motivated people trying to solve the problem." That sounds vaguely tyrannical ... but it's with the best of intentions, right?

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[FlyHelicopters]

These are not the same things. I get from A to B most of the time on a bike.

I hear lots of people say that, and it sure sounds nice. It isn't very realistic however...

How do I take the kids to school on a bike? How do I go to the grocery store on a bike and bring home enough to feed a family of 5? While it is 30 degrees/100 degrees outside? In the rain?

Once you have a car, you use it, then you move to the suburbs where everything is driving distance, not walking/biking distance.

Buy a compact instead of a pick up. etc. etc.

Ahh, that "minor inconvenience" thing... So you want me to go out and spend money to replace my large vehicle, which carries 7 people and their stuff comfortably, with a Honda Civic that does neither?

And you want everyone else to do that too?

In the end though, the easiest thing is the most logical thing is to massively switch over to hydro and wind (with some solar)

Sure, that is easy to say... but hydro is largely tapped out and there are environmental reasons to not dam every river on Earth.

Wind will grow, but it costs more than coal/natural gas. Yes, yes, I see people post all the time that wind is now *cheap*, but I don't see it. When I pick my power company and my power options, wind always costs more. I have the choice to buy 100% wind power, but it costs about 30% more than coal power does.

And I live in Texas, we are the largest wind producing state in the US. The numbers for solar are even worse. If your plan is to ignore the economics, well, you need to pay a visit to reality land, and see how to pay for it without using other people's money.

There is no excuse not to do these things

Sure there is, they are expensive... time consuming, and ultimately won't change the outcome...

In reading the various posts here, I find that many people have really no idea of the scale of the problem. We either have to end our way of life as we know it, or accept that 2 degrees C increase is going to be passed without a thought and probably 3 degrees within our lifetime. 4 within our children's lifetime, but hopefully we stop it before it gets there.

75% total energy reduction, 90% carbon reduction, in the USA, would be required to stop it. Other nations will have to do less, but still large reductions. This will not happen. The refusal to accept this is harming the cause.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[khallow]

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day, but we don't count on them to tell time. Life is more than condescending plots ripped from low budget movies. Show global warming is a problem requiring our urgent attention rather than spin fantasy about how your genius gets ignored.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[FlyHelicopters]

By not even trying you are pushing the car closer and closer to the cliff. Do we really need to keep accelerating toward a cliff we know exists?

A cliff is a good example...

The climate change activists are trying to avoid the cliff. I'm saying their efforts will fail and we're going over, regardless of what we do.

Once you accept that the cliff is unavoidable, then you have to figure out what to do about that.

Regarding the cliff, does it really matter if you go over it at 50mph or 60mph? Maybe, perhaps... but if all your efforts to stop slow you down to 50mph, but you end up hitting rocks at the bottom, who cares? But if instead, you just accept that the cliff is unavoidable and go over at 60mph, but instead you have a parachute because you used your efforts to get that instead of slow down, you'll be much better off.

So I submit that we stop trying to slow down and instead build a parachute.

We need to stop burying our heads in the sand and start actually doing something.

Like what? All I hear is "build wind, build solar, buy an EV, that will do it!". But even if we do a lot of that, it won't stop us from going over the cliff. So it really isn't a solution to anything.

We don't need to go back to caveman days but we could actually put some effort in.

It is quite possible, with 7.4 billion people in the world and 200k more added every day, that yes we WOULD have to go back to a very different time. Except that if we do, half the people would starve to death.

Every day more people in the world move towards the American lifestyle, not the other way around. A few people reducing their consumption doesn't counter 10 joining them from the bottom, at least not to the extent required.

You need only look at Reagan removing solar panels from the White house to see a long history of Republicans being against the progression of our energy policy.

That is a fair point, but that ship sailed a long time ago. I was a kid when Reagan was President, so that isn't my the fault of most working people today.

Nothing the Democrats could do will stop the car either at this point. The time to stop the car was perhaps 30-40 years ago. Or longer, that is another debate for another day, and doesn't really matter in the end.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[FlyHelicopters]

I think you missed the point about your defeatist attitude.

It isn't so much a defeatist attitude as a realistic one.

Have you ever heard of "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"?

If you were doing that as the ship was sinking and I tried to point out that it won't change the outcome, would you then call me a defeatist? Or am I the one living in reality?

Once Titanic hit the iceberg, her fate was sealed. Run the water pumps, don't. Move stuff around, steam ahead, reverse, have everyone run to the back of the ship, doesn't matter. In a few hours she'll be headed to the bottom of the ocean.

Do you accept that outcome and move on, or fight it to the last second?

I have looked at NASA's number, they are sobering. I don't for one second think the PhDs at NASA are dummies, so for the moment, I'm willing to take them at their word.

The current efforts in Paris are largely aimed at going over the cliff more slowly, but I'd submit that we'd be better off accepting that the ship is sinking and instead build more lifeboats.

Had the Captain and crew of the Titanic accepted in the first 15 min that the ship was doomed, could they have used the few hours they had to build makeshift liferafts out of decking and other materials for the healthiest passengers to get onto to try and save as many people as possible?

What would it have taken for them to stop trying to save the ship and instead save the people?

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Xyrus]

What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?

Sorry, no thanks.

Why stop smoking when you already have lung cancer, right?

Your greed is admirable. The future generations thank you.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Jack Griffin]

What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?

Sorry, no thanks.

Your choice is spend money or spend more money. There is no option to spend no money.
Another way to look at it is this: Assume Global Warming is complete fiction, but we go with it anyway. We create an entire new clean energy industry, which stimulates the economy, and creates more jobs and therefore more wealth, less poverty, and less crime.
The worst case case is we have less pollution, generate cleaner energy, more efficiently, and create more jobs for more people.
Even hard-core conservatives love creating new jobs. What other plan do you have that could achieve this?

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Bing Tsher E]

Rage on, internet rage boy.

Re: Ah the right wing story progression

[KenHansen]

35 years ago the problem was global cooling, the global warming, now 'climate change'... This has, at best, been a moving target. I wasn't aware 'obstructionist' republicans ran the US (world?) government these past 35 years...

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[forand]

That is all well and good. Just accept that you are doing something. You are actively choosing to continue the status quo. That is fine. That is the norm. That is what the vast majority of humanity is doing. What YOU are asking is that future generations pay for your unwillingness to find a solution to YOUR problems. You "can't stop driving" why? You are angry about spending YOUR money but you are requiring future generations to pay the debts you are incurring. Accept that your actions have consequences and face the reality of the modern world.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[FlyHelicopters]

You "can't stop driving" why?

Because the world that I live in and can't easily move from requires it.

The city I live in, the places I have to go each day are not reachable via any other means than driving.

And in this case, the *I* isn't just me, it is all the people like me. Even if I move somewhere else, someone will just move here.

You have to change millions of people's behavior, a few don't matter.

I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area in Texas. There are 7 million people here, spread out over a large area. The city isn't going to be bulldozed tomorrow and it is too spread out for anything other than cars to work.

That is what it is, it isn't going to change in the amount of time we have left before CO2 passes the danger levels NASA talks about.

Because that is the case, trying to stop it is a waste of time. Instead, that time and money would be better spent on preparing for the changes that a 3 degree temp rise is going to cause.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[FlyHelicopters]

You didn't even read what I wrote. Try reading and replying to what was written, rather than posting a reply to something that isn't even there.

There is plenty to worry about, I'm quite concerned over the changes that a 3 degree temp rise are going to bring.

I just don't think it can be stopped at this point. Preparing for it is far more useful than making vain attempts to stop it that will fail.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Anonymous Coward]

There is so much more than just driving. You can recycle more, lower your heater and put on a sweater, save the water you waste waiting for the shower to warm up to flush your toilets, add dimmers and dim your lights at night, don't go shopping more than once a week (plan ahead), etc... Most of the things you can do to help the environment also benefit you. They save you money with a tiny cost in time.

Personally I live close to work. It takes me over a month to go through a tank of gas. The rent is slightly higher, but I get exercise whenever I want to walk to work, have a less than 6 minute commute so I can go home whenever I want/need to and have more time to waste on Slashdot, etc... The reducing in commute more than makes up for the rent increases. Plus it helps the environment, but that didn't even enter into the decision, it's way better for me.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[thegarbz]

For me it's a choice of spending less money. If the average year round temperature where I live was 3deg higher I wouldn't have the heater on right now.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[dave420]

Just as it's not tyrannical for an airline to not allow anyone who thinks they are a pilot to fly their planes, it's generally not tyrannical to stop scientific illiterates deciding scientific policy. I'm sure it sounds tyrannical to you, though, but that speaks more to your understanding of this situation than the situation itself.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Jack Griffin]

For me it's a choice of spending less money. If the average year round temperature where I live was 3deg higher I wouldn't have the heater on right now.

You're already spending money, who do you think is paying for Obama to go to Paris? The cost may not be obvious to you directly, but that doesn't mean those costs don't exist.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[BCGlorfindel]

What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?

Sorry, no thanks.

Your choice is spend money or spend more money. There is no option to spend no money.

Another way to look at it is this: Assume Global Warming is complete fiction, but we go with it anyway. We create an entire new clean energy industry, which stimulates the economy, and creates more jobs and therefore more wealth, less poverty, and less crime.

The worst case case is we have less pollution, generate cleaner energy, more efficiently, and create more jobs for more people.

Even hard-core conservatives love creating new jobs. What other plan do you have that could achieve this?

It depends greatly on what your entirely new clean energy industry is. If it's adopting electric cars and nuclear power, then we're already well on our way. It's just the greens that we need to get onside with no longer actively preventing the adoption of nuclear power.

If you are talking about subsidizing solar and wind, or heavily taxing existing energy sources that's different. If you are talking about hard global caps on emissions, you are talking about economic depression and war...

There's a spectrum of options and simply saying clean energy is a win-win-win with no downside is cute in it's naivety.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[FlyHelicopters]

So because you can't cut out all car journeys you won't cut any.

There are effectively no car journeys that I can cut. Maybe 1% of them, if I really thought about it.

Kind of like a kid taking a dump in the community pool, screaming that it's not his fault he didn't use the bathroom before he went in.

A better example would be if 500 people had already taken a dump in the pool. One more really wouldn't matter at that point.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Citizen of Earth]

You also rack up many more $trillions in needless debt building these impractical technologies. Hint: if they were actually practical, then free enterprise would be all over them without any subsidies at all. Also, you kill tens of millions of people in the third world through needless energy poverty.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Jack Griffin]

There's a spectrum of options and simply saying clean energy is a win-win-win with no downside is cute in it's naivety.

But you said you don't even want to try, I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility that the "Global Warming" hype could produce a lot of positive side effects, whether it's true or not.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Jack Griffin]

Hint: if they were actually practical, then free enterprise would be all over them without any subsidies at all.

Not true. Large scale projects are generally too expensive and risky for shareholders who demand returns in months, not decades. It's why having a government is useful, and having no government is.. .well see Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria for examples...

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Jack Griffin]

Oh yes, let's not forget the other fallacies, like war stimulates the economy. As do hurricanes and earthquakes.

Well technically they do, but building creates a greater net gain than destroying. Which is why new industry makes a more savvy investment than destruction.

Re:Xiuhtezcatl ?

[alva_edison]

Xiuhtezcatl .......wow....what a name

Yeah, I thought Nahuatl was a dead language. I wonder if it's a traditional family name, or if someone just used an Aztec Random Name Generator.

Re:I just feel like typing this.

[erapert]

Agnosticism is the only logically defensible position, since there is no test that can prove, nor disprove, the existence of a supreme being.

I think you should take it one step further and consider Pascal's wager.

Hip Hop

[BrianMarshall]

Fuck da bitches dat burn da coal
Dat lectric fuck da ozone hole
Or make if hot or some fucken thing
Gotta save da whales - you know dey sing?

My vape's lectric
but don't burn no coal
Gets free lectric
from my ride's console
Da Man's smoke's fucked
My smoke's fine
(Dis can't be Hip Hop
too much rhyme)

Dune and the Spice

[psycho12345]

Someone apparently hasn't bothered to read Dune yet. Or take a civics course.

Could we theoretically get off fossil fuels? Yes. Could we do it overnight? No. The spice must flow. To unilaterally end the usage of fossil fuels in transportation would be to "End all commerce among the Great Houses". There simply is no replacement for fossil fuels when it comes to transportation. Especially once you consider the infrastructure.

This doesn't even begin to cover the power of fossil fuels, specifically oil, when it comes to medical technology. Did this kid get a vaccine? If so, he has benefitted from fossil fuels. Has he ever been to a hospital or a doctors office and been examined or received a physical? Again, fossil fuels made this possible to do. Before plastic, many many many kinds of procedures were simply not possible to do safely. Lost large amounts of blood? Die well, either from the blood loss or from playing Russian roullette with a blood transfusion (did these even exist prior to refrigeration and plastics?).

We may reach a day where we do not rely on fossil fuels for transportation. I very much hope so. But Rome was not built in a day, and neither will this effort to reduce fossil fuel usage. Fossil fuels have built over the last 2 centuries, they won't be undone in 1 decade.

Re:Constant

[KeensMustard]

Climate change is a constant

I don't see how this could be. If it was constant, the earth would be very hot or very cold. The climate record indicates that the climate fluctuates - it's not constant.

So the question for you is: if CO2 is not a driver of climate change, what is driving the current (dramatic) climate event?

Protesting climate change is as effective as protesting the daily sunrise/sunset.

I think you'll find that they aren't protesting the fact of climate change, but rather that we are deliberately changing the climate to our own detriment: which makes as much sense as stabbing yourself in the eye "oh well, the knife is already on the way to my eye, can't stop it now".

So unless you think that the sunrise/sunsets occur due to human activity, I'd guess that you are mistaken.

Put it in kid terms:

[kheldan]

Obama to (Republican-controlled Congress): Quit hogging the ball, it's everybody's ball, we want to play with it, too!
Congressional Republicans: Haha, we don't like you, so we're not going to let you play, and there's more of us than there are of you, so get lost, loser!
Congressional Democrats: Hey, we want him and his buddies to play, and he's right, and you're all just being mean!
Congressional Republicans: STFU or we'll beat you up again -- and you can't stop us from doing that, either!
Obama: ...
Congressional Democrats: ...
Congressional Republicans: Shoe on head or we accidentally the whole Federal Government again!
Obama: -_-
Congressional Democrats: T_T
Congressional Republicans: Y U SO MAD THO? XD XD XD XD

That's about how the climate-change conversation goes on The Hill these days.

We're not perfect but we're trying

[presidenteloco]

We're not perfect but we try. The most important thing is we are fully willing to subject ourselves to a significant and steadily increasing simple carbon tax on all our fossil fuel use.

We've super-insulated and sealed air leaks in our small house and have double and triple-glazed windows. In late-October through April we set the thermostat to 19 or 20 C when we're in and awake, and 17 C at night, so using a lot less natural gas heating. May through Mid-Oct the gas is off, and no A/C just windows open and tree shading in summer. We're all LED lighting, and converted to a small electric hot water heater from gas. Our hydro-electricity bill is about $300 a year, and will be reduced to near nothing once we do our next two steps: Replace fridge with super-efficient DC fridge and DC freezer, and put in a 5-panel PV array on the roof to run a DC sub-panel through a lithium ion battery.

We ride our bikes and walk and take transit most of the time, reserving the vehicle mostly for weekend trips and occasional hauling items.

We've reduced our meat consumption (but not eliminated it). The reduction is a healthier choice anyway.

While it's hard to do as much as is needed while living in our current cities, with our oil-fueled supply chains, what's most important in my opinion is to advocate for tax-shift measures of a scale needed to significantly, steadily change behaviour through the operation of the (tilted-playing field) market; to be willing to be subjected to significant fossil-fuel taxation, and to work to come up with clever new ways of doing things that use less fossil-fuel.

Re:We're not perfect but we're trying

[FlyHelicopters]

We're not perfect but we try.

Trying is nice, but it doesn't mean anything unless you 8 years old playing soccer.

You succeed or you don't, there is no try.

All your trying isn't going to stop the train, and that is why you're missing the whole point.

The most important thing is we are fully willing to subject ourselves to a significant and steadily increasing simple carbon tax on all our fossil fuel use.

Sure, but all that does is wealth transfer and harm poor people. It doesn't magically stop the coal from getting burned. Even if the USA stopped burning coal outright, it would get burned somewhere else.

We've super-insulated and sealed air leaks in our small house and have double and triple-glazed windows.

Good for you that you can afford to have that done. So can I, but not everyone can.

We ride our bikes and walk and take transit most of the time, reserving the vehicle mostly for weekend trips and occasional hauling items.

That is not a practical option for a billion people.

While it's hard to do as much as is needed while living in our current cities, with our oil-fueled supply chains, what's most important in my opinion is to advocate for tax-shift measures of a scale needed to significantly, steadily change behaviour through the operation of the (tilted-playing field) market; to be willing to be subjected to significant fossil-fuel taxation, and to work to come up with clever new ways of doing things that use less fossil-fuel.

That's nice, but all of that will do nothing to stop climate change. It won't even noticeably slow it down. And most people aren't willing to do what you've done.

So grats to you, but it doesn't scale and isn't going to make a noticeable difference.

Instead we need to prepare for the change that is so clearly coming.

Re:We're not perfect but we're trying

[maharvey]

Yay, more meat and gas for us!

Young Climate Activists?

[SpankiMonki]

Git off my tundra!

Yes, So let's get started

[presidenteloco]

Not suggesting that war is a good idea, but look what nations can accomplish quickly when they have to when they go to war.
Look at the societal and production changes Britain and the US did for the six short years of world war 2.
Look at the Manhatten project that developed nuclear weapons from scratch in a few years. Imagine if that sort of effort was put toward something constructive.

If we start working together in the right general direction, politically and technologically, change can happen fast. And we have political ways of helping people who are disrupted by the transition, and that's all part of it. The challenge is staggering, but that's when things get exciting and when the best people are required to step up.

Re:Yes, So let's get started

[FlyHelicopters]

So you're suggesting that we start WWIII to get things moving?

Because frankly, without that happening, you're not going to get Joe Sixpack to give up his pickup truck and his AC.

If you DO push the changes too fast, then you'll perhaps get what you want, which is another world war.

Re:Yes, So let's get started

[presidenteloco]

I don't want a world war. I want a world war's worth of effort.

If all that can seriously motivate large scale human populations to significant action is war, then we are truly pathetic.
If we can't do rapid large scale action unless we're at war, well, to quote the good-looking replicant in Blade Runner:
"then we're stupid and we'll die".

Re:Yes, So let's get started

[david_thornley]

The social and production changes in WWII were explicitly short-term, "for the duration". They would not have been tolerated forever, and they would not be tolerated in the short term if they weren't explicitly temporary.

The Manhattan Project took top-notch scientists and had them concentrate on what was essentially a big engineering problem instead of basic research, which would have been more valuable in the long run.

Notta problem

[Tablizer]

It's okay, the GOP's existing ACA and immigration lawsuits toward O have backlogged the courts through a president or two down the road...

Re:Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh?

[alva_edison]

This must be one of those wetback invaders from central america we heard so much about last year. I wonder what jew is using this aztec retard to do this?

In order to reduce "climate change" perhaps we ought to get rid of these wetbacks and liberal idiots that fly all over the world blabbing about this shit. The whole Western world needs to establish camps with doors that only open inwards to put these leftist degenerates in. As a true environmentalist I don't see any downsides to the extermination of all niggers, jews, wetbacks, muslims, etc.

Remember, White is Right and black is whack.

Poe's law. I can't tell if this is parody (in which case it's kinda funny) or a real opinion (in which case it's horrifying).

Re:I just feel like typing this.

[khallow]

Yea, I doubt you'll be punished as much for simply not having a belief as you would for having the wrong belief.

What about these data sets?

[CozmicCharlie]

Check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It seems to suggest that this is the FIFTH time the global temperature has spiked in the past ~420K years. There appears to be some periodicity to the graph as well, which makes me think this time is right on schedule.

You're going to need a bigger sandbag wall

[presidenteloco]

The magnitude of climate change to come if we continue business as usual cannot effectively be prepared for.
It will be at least 4 degrees C and up to 9 degrees C warmer global average for 1000s of years.
That my friend is a a whole different planet (or a whole different epoch).

Re:You're going to need a bigger sandbag wall

[FlyHelicopters]

The magnitude of climate change to come if we continue business as usual cannot effectively be prepared for.

Well, it can be or it can't be, but at this point, I don't think it can be stopped.

It will be at least 4 degrees C and up to 9 degrees C warmer global average for 1000s of years.

If we can't figure out how to build starships to get off this rock in the next 1,000 years, then we probably don't deserve to survive.

We may well hit 4 degrees, I think 3 degrees is all but certain at this point. All the vain efforts to stop it will not be effective.

Re:Useless

[riverat1]

As an astrophysicist I doubt Hansen got the calculation wrong. Concave or convex is pretty much the same thing when it comes to the impingement of radiation on the surface and the distance to the Sun from the point on the Earth closest to the Sun and the terminator is pretty much a rounding error compared to the distance to the Sun.

Re:Our descent into the bowels of fascism and deca

[riverat1]

... or for failing to defend the Constitution of the United States because he fought a foreign conflict without a Congressional declaration of war.

That horse left the barn a long time ago. there hasn't been a formal declaration of war by the US since World War II.

Re:Useless

[riverat1]

I agree that the radiation per unit area will drop as you get away from the point of the Earth closest to the Sun because the angle of the surface compared to the incoming radiation increases spreading out that radiation over more area. But wouldn't a flat disk that was the radius of the Earth that was perpendicular to the Sun intercept the same amount of radiation as the spherical Earth does, just over more area?

I think you got your formula "Te = [So(1 -A)/4*sigma] ^(1/4)" wrong. Shouldn't it be "Te = [So(1 -A)/4*sigma]*(1/4)"? It's that "*(1/4)" factor that accounts for the area increase of a sphere over a flat disk.

As I said I sincerely doubt Hansen got that calculation wrong. He got a PhD in astrophysics in the 1970's and was studying Venus and other planets before he turned his attention to Earth. If he got that wrong it would have been pointed out by others long ago. It's too simple a thing to be otherwise.

Re:Useless

[riverat1]

Ah, you're right about the formula. It's the "/4*sigma" part that accounts for the difference in area between a disk and a sphere as in the area of a circle is pi*R^2 and the area of a sphere is 4*pi*R^2. My bad. The Wikipedia page on Climate Models has a pretty good explanation of the formula. If Hansen and all the others studying the climate are wrong as you say then you should publish your proofs. It's pretty basic stuff.

Larval form of a hipster?

[Hognoxious]

Is this the larval form of a hipster? Smug little twat.

Typing his retarded name creates more carbon dioxide than driving a typical car twenty miles.

Similar case in Netherlands

[Asha2004]

A judge in the Netherlands ruled over a similar case against the Dutch state. The ruling was that the state was not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gases.
Dutch site so link is via Google translate:
  https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/06/24/rechter-staat-moet-broeikasgassen-sterk-terugdringen&usg=ALkJrhj2_gJc4cjcTdMsH5pGZjqwqIk-Qg

Re:Similar case in Netherlands

[david_thornley]

In a VERY different legal climate. What works in Dutch courts is significantly different from what works in US courts.

Counter-suit?

[Dog-Cow]

Can the Administration counter-sue for wasting the court's time?

Brer rabbit

[ChrisMaple]

but do please, Brer Fox, don't fling me in dat brier-patch

This is pure stage-play. Obama couldn't have asked for a nicer gift, some jerk suing Obama to make Obama do what Obama wants to do.

Re:Constant

[KeensMustard]

The climate has not changed dramatically.

Cite the relevant study supporting that assertion.

CO2 is a terrible predictor of global temperatures, with the same probabilities than random guessing.

Cite the relevant study supporting that assertion.

To put it blunty, if man-made CO2 is indeed the cause of global warming, homeopathy works.

Cite the relevant study supporting that assertion.

Re:Environmental concerns

[BCGlorfindel]

"If you have (or are getting) a STEM degree, you are likely to get shunned" (by environmentalists)

Rubbish.
Most environmental concern is BASED on the findings of science,
whereas lack of environmental concern is based on either ignorance or selfish greed.

There are very few definitions of 'environmental concern' that fit your description. The large environmental movements from groups like the Sierra Club and the Greenpeace are hardly based on sound scientific principle.

One of Greenpeace's top 3 bullet points on climate and energy is preaching AGAINST nuclear power, the one technology that can do the most today to reduce our climate impact.

The Sierra Club's website right now has one of it's biggest bullet points as "Save the Bees". This in spite of the fact that bee colony numbers in the Us are at a 20 year high. The activism is lobbying to abolish evil neonicitinoid pesticides that are killing bees. The same neonic pesticides that were adopted to replace ones much more harmful to bees... Not sure we really are helping bees by going backwards, and the alternative of simply banning all pesticides means jacking food prices so high that the poor go back to eating far worse diets again.

Sorry, but environmental concern as represented by the largest self-proclaimed such groups is anything but 'scientific' and is rountinely pushing agendas contrary to the science,

How exactly?

[presidenteloco]

How exactly does a carbon tax whose revenue is either
a) given directly back to taxpayers in the form of other tax reductions or dividends, or
b) spent on clean and renewable energy R&D
enrich bankers and the elite?

You need to unload that huge (and racist) chip on your shoulder.

Re:Useless

[riverat1]

Since the equation you're complaining about is essentially a zero dimension climate model it was never meant to be used in detail, just as a rough estimate for an idealized situation. The paper you found it in was published in 1981. It's old news now.

Re:Constant

[riverat1]

CO2 levels do not have any measurable impact on climate because the concentration in air is microscopical and statistically irrelevant, ...

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 ppm. That's not a huge amount. But if I put you in a room with an airborne cyanide concentration of 270 ppm you would be dead within minutes. Just because something appears to be a minor component doesn't mean it can't have a serious effect.

Re:Modest Proposal

[riverat1]

And you could do your part by not eating any plants or animals so the carbon they absorbed from the atmosphere doesn't get converted back into CO2 by you.

Re:Best joke of the year!

[riverat1]

Yeah, the Climategate quote mining episode really was a joke, wasn't it?

Re:What Global Warming? It stopped 18+ years ago

[riverat1]

Second they are the least adjusted.

You're kidding yourself if you think satellite temperatures are the least adjusted. The satellite data has to be adjusted for changes in instruments when new satellites are launched, the deterioration of the sensors over time, the changes in orbit of the satellite, the effects of clouds and high elevations on the data and no doubt other things I can't remember at the moment. The reason you like satellite temperatures is because they show something you want them to show.