Climate Change Questions

For John, BLUF:  If the crisis is real, we are not being real about the crisis.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I think my wife is dubious about my subscription to The New York Review of Books, but sometimes it can be a real though provoker, as with an article in the current edition, "Can Climate Change Cure Capitalism?".  It is a review of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, by Naomi Klein.

I haven't read the book, but the review by Ms Elizabeth Kolbert caused me to think more about the hypocrisy, or the ignorance, of the climate change crowd.  The book goes in one direction, as you can see from reading the review.

According to these groups, climate change is a problem that can be tackled without major disruption to the status quo.  All that’s needed are some smart policy changes.  These will create new job opportunities; the economy will continue to grow; and Americans will be, both ecologically and financially, better off. Standing in the way of progress, so this account continues, is a vociferous minority of Tea Party–backed, Koch brothers–financed climate change deniers.  Former president Jimmy Carter recently summed up this line of thinking when he told an audience in Aspen:  “I would say the biggest handicap we have right now is some nutcases♠ in our country who don’t believe in global warming.”

Klein doesn’t just disagree with Carter; she sees this line of thinking as a big part of the problem. Climate change can’t be solved within the confines of the status quo, because it’s a product of the status quo.  “Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war,” she writes.  The only hope of avoiding catastrophic warming lies in radical economic and political change.  And this—again, according to Klein—is the good news.  Properly understood, the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere represents an enormous opportunity—one that, well, changes everything.

I go in another direction.  I realize that many believe the science is settled, but I am not tracking well the temperature issues, which used to be the issue, first as Global Cooling and then as Global Warming.  Now it is all about CO2.  And CO2 is increasing.  On the other hand, I live more than 50 feet above sea level. But, Ms Klein raises the important point about a lot of Climate Change Alarmists not being serious.

Ignore Former Vice President Al Gore.
Ignore Former President Jimmy Carter.
Ignore President Barack Obama.

They are not serious about this issue.  If you are serious about this issue you will wish to cut average US energy consumption by 80% or more.  This is not buying a Prius or getting an Energy Friendly fridge.  This is serious life style change.

The reviewer, Ms Kolbert mentions the 2000-Watt Society, out of Switzerland, which is trying to direct us all to living on 2,000 watts of energy, or 48 kilo-watt hours per day.♥  Their target date for this goal is 2050, which the Climate Change folks think is way too far off. By the way, Ms Kolbert wrote about this in a New Yorker article, back on 7 July 2008, "The Island in the Wind:  A Danish community’s victory over carbon emissions."  This is about the Danish island of Samsø.

If we are going to be serious about this issue, and serious about not leaving anyone behind, then we are going to have to do some radical things.  Things so radical that even Senator Elizabeth Warren would blanch.

The number one rule would need to be that we don't begger the less fortunate in order to allow the well off to continue their lifestyles.  For example, no private jets, Mr Gore.  No internal carbon tradeoffs, or maybe none that results in a energy usage differential of more than 50%.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I believe it is unseemly for himself to refer to some of his fellow citizens as "nut cases".
♥  To be clear about the magnitude of this goal, the average American consumes about 288 kilo-watt hours per day, against a target of 48.  On the other hand, the average Bangeldeshi consumes 7.2 kilo-watt hours per day.