|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The world’s leading scientists are calling on us to finally heed the warnings about the climate catastrophe that we’re running full speed into: that we have a very few years to act decisively to prevent the worst impacts of climate change to current and future generations that imperil not just the human species, but all life on the planet.
The people of my generation — the baby boomers — have been divided about the existence of climate change for years, and what, if anything should be done about it.
I think that the majority of people now believe climate change is real — evidenced by the extreme weather, drought, fires, and floods we are experiencing now — and that something should be done.
We baby boomers have taken some strides, the state of California in particular, to enact policies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s not nearly enough. A newer generation coming of age now fully understands what its future looks like and is not satisfied with the “baby steps” we have taken. Groups such as the Sunrise Movement, and young politicians like U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) are advocating for and taking the bold actions necessary to fight for a livable planet.
Cities have a vital role to play in this fight, including the city of Pleasanton.
Our 2005 General Plan vision states that “Pleasanton is committed to sustainable community principles and will meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”. Our 2012 Climate Action Plan is described as “a roadmap — a set of bold ideas — to help expand on our successes to slow the effects of climate change”.
The city now needs to build on these early actions, engage this newer generation, and take bold and effective measures to play our part in confronting what truly is an existential crisis.
A good first step is to recognize that there are limits to growth — both in the physical realm and in the economy — and reimagining our city motto from the “City of Planned Progress” to the “City of Sustainable Progress.” We owe it to our children and grandchildren.
If you agree, please let the City Council know your thoughts by sending an email to citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov.
Editor’s note: Matt Sullivan served on the Pleasanton City Council from 2004 to 2012 and is a former Pleasanton Planning Commission member.
Editor’s note: Matt Sullivan served on the Pleasanton City Council from 2004 to 2012 and is a former Pleasanton Planning Commission member.
if you want to reduce the impact on global warming you have to reduce the population
more people more warming
Mr. Sullivan,
It is commendable that you are bringing up the topic that is so important to younger generations, myself included. And forgive me, because I don’t know your stances as a previous councilmember in Pleasanton – I only know your name in association with the Costco debate.
But the crux is about what “growth” is, and just talking about “the limits to growth” doesn’t give me enough detail. Because you’re right, we can’t continue to grow in blithe consumerism, throwaway plastics, and wasteful practices.
But if you consider “limits to growth” to include the built environment in Pleasanton, let me assure you that stopping further housing and job growth in Pleasanton is not in itself a sustainable strategy either. The people and jobs don’t just disappear – people either get into extremely long commutes and pollute while driving, or they (or their jobs) move to states like Texas, which have much, much higher CO2 emissions per person. Pleasanton is not a dome, and what might seem to keep emissions off of one city’s “emissions list” can just be a reshuffling of blame without addressing the issue.
I don’t want to get into a debate about a particular project here, because there can be so many issues. In general, I hope you can expand on what you mean and how that really leads to lower emissions overall – because this isn’t quite there yet.
“Reduce the population” needs to expand a little bit on how they plan to do that without genocide or forced child limits within the timeline that keeps the environment sustainable.
The reality is you can get there without population control. In fact, rising quality of life results in less population growth over time.
For every scientist that declares global warming is fact, there are five scientists that declare global warming is not fact.
Going to need a source for that, Mr. Austin.
@Michael Austin
I can respect well reasoned, honest differences in opinion, but you’re just making stuff up. I happen to be a Ph.D. physicist at Lawrence Livermore Lab., and although climate science is not my specialty I’m very much aware of what’s happening in the field through my reading of scientific journals such as ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’ magazines, listening to scientific seminars, and discussing climate science with other scientists. There’s a very strong scientific consensus in favor of manmade global warming. That fundamental fact is really no longer up for debate. The evidence for manmade global warming is just too overwhelming. I’m talking about evidence such as rising atmospheric CO2 levels, rising average global temperatures, rising ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, rising acidity of the oceans (through absorption of increased CO2 by the oceans which leads to the formation of more carbonic acid), changes in animal migration patterns, etc., etc.,etc. . The scientific discussion has moved on to analyzing the sensitivity of manmade global warming to various factors, examining the consequences of manmade global warming, etc.. Manmade global warming is here
stop protecting the interests of gas station owners.
joking aside, a good question to pose to the community, though while I agree with slowly building to a sustainable pace, I think your lead in lends itself to the community answering it in a slightly different way.
i.e. – our city layout encourages driving over carpooling; schools, sports parks, downtown, etc. We are not a “connected” community for the purposes of non-vehicle transport.
We could require solar farms for every new development; not just generation for that housing unit/complex, but incremental generation for parks/schools/shopping centers nearby.
Our garbage and recycling program is poor.
We could tax bottled water.
We
Mr. Sullivan –
Help me understand your stance on Costco vs. the comments you make in your latest contribution to the Pleasanton Weekly.
By building the Costco per the original plans, wouldn’t that help us reduce the carbon footprint of Pleasanton residents (by reducing the miles people drive)? I for one would be able to ride my bike to get my lower cost meds – and no I would not go there for the $1.50 hotdogs you seem to be obsessing on whenever you get frustrated with people how don’t agree with you.
Given the focus of the Green New Deal and other government actions independent of actual cost / benefit analysis, should we really be all that concerned with any hidden Costco costs to the community? We should be willing to spend anything and everything to reduce our carbon emissions and build that Costco?
I do believe man is contributing to global warming – it is pretty obvious the pumping of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over an extended period of time will have an impact.
I think the big debate should be on what will actually help the situation rather than do what the latest “politics” dictate.
I’d like to see some efforts to develop and implement real actions to solve the problem. More than subsidizing solar panels and electric cars, that actually contribute to the poisoning of the environment. How many people driving around in their Tesla and Prius cars think about the carbon pumped into the environment by the fossil fuel power plants that generate their electricity, or worry about how the heck we are going to be able to dispose of all those poisonous batteries when they will not longer accept a charge?
And why should we take any action at all given countries like India and China are doing almost nothing to even reduce the growth of their CO2 emissions? Our action and all the money we spend won’t even put a dent in global warming if India and China don’t take significant action.
How do you propose to solve this GLOBAL issue with real GLOBAL actions? Oh, and that Paris Accord is a do nothing action – so please don’t point to that.
Since humans are the problem, let’s euthanize anyone as soon as they reach age 65. This would not only eliminate tons of CC2 that they exhale. It would also solve the Social Security payments problem and eliminate billions of dollars of Medicare expenditures. This would also free up housing space.
Also, on the other end of the age spectrum, we could terminate pregnancies at any time and for any reason. Again saving Billions and providing a possible tool for controlling population growth.
20,000 years ago the glaciers covering the upper mid-west and a lot of Canada melted. No one was driving cars, cows weren’t passing gas, it just got warmer. To me the climate is changing, it has always been changing. I don’t think we can do anything that will make a difference. Certainly improving air quality is a good thing, but will it change anything about the climate, I am not convinced.
Check out the website wattsupwiththat.com to get a different view of climate change.
@unconvinced :”20,000 years ago the glaciers covering the upper mid-west and a lot of Canada melted. No one was driving cars, cows weren’t passing gas, it just got warmer. To me the climate is changing, it has always been changing.”
Listen: No one is denying that the earth’s climate changes over time. Yes there are natural glacial periods which occur over a time scale of 100,000 years or so. The point that you’re missing is how fast the temperature changed during those natural glaciations and warming periods compared to how fast average global temperatures are changing now due to manmade global warming. FYI, the rate at which the average global temperature has changed in the past 100 years due to manmade global warming is about TEN-TIMES FASTER than the rate at which average temperatures change when emerging from a natural glacial period. That is what is so remarkable about manmade global warming.
Doug, thanks for speaking up. You’re right. However, I don’t know that you’ll make much headway convincing people who don’t want to believe.
There once was a time when people were curious and understood that they needed to rely on others when their own personal knowledge was limited. They knew that other people spent a lifetime becoming experts in things they themselves barely understood, and when those experts spoke, they cared and listened.
No, who am I kidding. That time never existed. Denying the existence and intransigence of climate change deniers is like denying the existence of climate change. It’s pointless and wrong.
By the way, we can have empathy for armchair climate change deniers. They’re being told that climate change is personal, that it’s their responsibility and their (or their generation’s) fault.
I think that is a very bad argument that liberals tend to make, that major economic and structural issues are personal and if you only ate more kale, recycled your dishwater, and wore sweaters more often you’d be morally righteous. The truth is that neither the armchair deniers or we can do anything personally about this. Democracies only work in the aggregate, and even then only in near supermajorities, for a system to respond by making the hard changes needed. Usually those changes only happen during war. Otherwise, our system is self perpetuating and neither we nor the deniers have much influence and no ability personally to change where it matters.
I have C.O.P.D. and my next door has been piling up wood which she burns
outside her patio when having company over. Is there anything I can do legally to protect myself from the thick smoke. I can’t even enjoy my patio
when she decides to burn the wood. I have seen flames up to two to three feet at times. I can not approach her and do not want any bad results if I should have to report her to the police. This is not good for climate change or my lung. Any ideas who can handle this problem??
Grumpy: I’m wondering if you were curious enough to visit the websitewattsupwiththat.com that I suggested?
Hi Bad Lungs –
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has a “Check Before You Burn Number” I call before I use my fireplace insert
1-877-4-NOBURN
In addition to checking for no burn days, they also have an option to report a wood smoke complaint.
I think it is set up to help people avoid unpleasant encounters with their neighbors.
just my 2 cents (mainly in response to “Doug”‘s comment):
1. question – what is a “fundamental fact” in science? If it’s not debatable, it is verifiable by observation – a fact is not an interpretation of observations (which is a theory). Manmade global warming is a theory.
2. Science, by nature, is always up for debate – thank God for AE (not AOC)for his contribution to scientific advancement, despite what some believed was settled science (re: Newton)
3. “Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops” – AE
4. When you prove that global warming is largely caused by anthropogenic activities – it will no longer be a theory. Until then, it is worthy of civil and intellectual, not necessarily political, debate.
I wish everyone would just grow up a little bit, but I’m not optimistic about that.
Thinking is not stopping for some of us, but opportunities for civil discourse have diminished drastically.
The End.
What are the biggest contributors to green house gases in Pleasanton?
Automobiles?
Cemex?
What kind of incentives could be created to ease this?
Solar panel rebates?
Electric Car rebates?
I’ve read algae farms are being used to reduce green house gases. Maybe Pleasanton should set aside some land for that? Could residents create mini-algae farms in their backyard?
The so called “scientists” who proclaim the climate change hysteria are the ones who depend on climate grant funding for their survival.
Like someone said, climate change is a theory, and the simulations that people trot out as proof are great examples of what’s called GIGO- garbage in garbage out.
In the 1970’s, the threat was “global overpopulation” & we were told that in 20 years the Earth would become incapable of sustaining & feeding the growing masses if we did not shift to an agrarian society & halt breeding by abortion we would become extinct.
It never happened.
In the late 70’s the threat shifted to the impending “Ice Age” & that if we did not shift our economic & technological infrastructure to an (again) agrarian & more socialist based economic model we would perish in (once again) 20 years.
It never happened.
The narrative changed in the mid 80’s to now change the threat to “global warming” & we were all (again) told by the same group of globalists that the capitalist, modern society & technological advances we made over the past decades would eventually doom the planet in (you guessed it) 20 years if we did not drastically change our societal model.
That too, never happened.
Once the purveyors of doom realized that their scare tactics for the past 30 years were unable to shift our democratic, capitalist society into the socialist, agrarian utopia that had been their ultimate goal they began to shift the narrative once again & this time chose a more all encompassing term of “climate CHANGE” Now ANY dramatic change in the weather could be deemed as a catastrophic global event & further proof of their hypothesis.
Now we see a naive, ignorant, uneducated & potentially dangerous former bartender turned politician lecturing the world on the exact same scenarios that have been proven wrong, have failed to have an ounce of credibility & could bankrupt the nation if implemented just to further a failed political agenda.
It is truly ignorant and arrogant to even comprehend that a society can have ANY affect on a global climate when we as an industrialized nation have decreased our pollution levels to now pre 1940 levels. Theses very same alarmist groups ironically do not & have never put these restrictions on the most violent offenders of pollution, China, India, South America countries & Russia. Ironically, all socialist & essentially 3rd world countries.
As the media & most of acedamia has been fully complicit in perpetuating this hoax & it saddens me that the youth of today have no other outlet but to do their own research to challenge these lies (Vostok Ice Core study) & when the current narrative is challenged they are marginalized & ridiculed as is so common with the leftist mentality.
The sky is not falling, the world is NOT coming to an end, we need to be good & proper stewards of our environment but the doom & gloom being perpetrated for the past 40+ years needs to finally come to an end.
To resident at Pleasanton Valley
Bad Lungs responding with the deepest of gratitude for your much needed
information on the wood burning subject. I don’t want to be a Big Rat on my
neighbor but I also want to enjoy my patio without all that smoke coming my way . I’d buy you a beer, if I knew who you were !!
THANKS Again!
Don’t believe for a minute that we have anything to do with climate change nor can we do anything to change it. I was around for the first “earth day” they marched us out in junior high into a field and we stood there for a few minutes while our teachers told us we were entering an ice age! If as a kid I thought it was stupid. The climate has changed naturally for millions of years and I will give you a hint…………….its the sun.
Relax and enjoy the day because millions more are to come.
Well, it appears that the attempt to discuss the issue of climate change or manmade global warming in a rational and reasonable way has descended into wackiness, as often seems to happen on public online forums.
Doug,
As I pointed out early on in this thread in a rational and reasonable way, for ever one scientist stating global warming is fact, there are five scientist stating global warming is not fact.
The commentary tends to support that, it is not wackiness!
Pete,
In no way possible can your statement be true. We absolutely can influence it positively and negatively; to what degree I think is the real question.
Super easy question to answer (I’ll re-purpose from another source) – would you rather stand in a closed garage with a EV running or an internal combustion engine vehicle running? Without question we have an impact on the environment.
You don’t think humans are capable of wiping every tree off the face of the planet or polluting every water source? You don’t think that would have a significant impact on climate change?
Yes, the climate will change even if human’s didn’t exist, I don’t think that is really a debate. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t control the impact we do have.
That faction crys wolf every 10-15 years or so, saying we have 10 years to fix it. It’s been nearly 20 years since the last time the world was to end.. so they are running a little late.
Chemotherapy is merely a theory. Will people now stand in front of a cancer treatment center trying to discourage patients from their life-saving treatment because that treatment is not a certain fact beyond further research? I certainly hope not, though I’ve grown less surprised by what commenters could be capable of.
Neither! I am saying we should be good stewards and not be purposefully wasteful. Destroying our economy is not going to help anything. We have moved from leaded gas with no abatement to the wave of the future, hydrogen fuel cell in less than 30 years. That is progress and it is seen in the numbers. Used to work at GM and you couldn’t even see Mission Peak because of pollution. We need thoughtful progress and all will be fine.
could burn all the forests. they r a major contributor of carbon
The moment they changed the description from “GLOBAL WARMING” to “CLIMATE CHANGE”, was the moment that you knew this was a political event and not a crises.
All predictions made to claim dramatic “man-made” climate change are based on “man-made” mathematical MODELS.
Those same models, when fed data from past observations, have NEVER be able to reflect past climate changes.
Consider that for a moment, especially you alleged physics graduates.
Current models ARE NOT reverse compatible, so therefore cannot and should not be used to make ANY policy changes.
I remember the climate-cooling scare in the 70’s. Vaguely remember the “over-population bomb scare as well.
PURE POLITICS.
Climate changes every day. Sometimes it gets better (whatever that means) and sometimes worse. But to say that man has anything to do with it is just God-like attribution, the likes of which sicken me to no end.
I’ll believe that “global warming” is an issue when our politicians and scientists (and even people on this thread) act like it is by giving up air travel, SUV’s and cars, huge gated homes run on electricity from power plants…etc.
Lead by example.
Until then, they’re just scaremongering and actually, quite dumb.
Dan
“Fifty Years of Apocalyptic Predictions” with attributions and links to original articles.
https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/
Safe link.
All of this stuff was believed at the time because of “consensus” of scientists.
So stupid that we’re even going through this again…
It’s all about MONEY and POWER.
Dan
“Chemotherapy is merely a theory.”
What?
I mean, WHAT?!!!!
Chemo is a practice that, while not 100% effective, does have proven abilities in stopping various cancers.
You are way off on this analogy.
Dan, please review the definition of theory. How about one from Webster: “the coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual, and pragmatic principles forming the general frame of reference for a field of inquiry (as for deducing principles, formulating hypotheses for testing, undertaking actions)”
Chemotherapy is a theory specifically that cancer cells, being rapidly growing in an adult body where nothing should be rapidly growing, will uptake various toxins to growth and thus reduce or kill cancer cells faster than most healthy cells. It’s not perfect, the research is constantly changing, and the hypothesis is only mostly correct, rather than entirely correct. And yet action can be taken in response to the theory that will often work, where inaction will be fatal.
Just like climate change.
I think your reaction might be a sign that you just understood why climate change is real, and it doesn’t sit well with you.
My reaction (and words) is that your analogy is incorrect.
All you have to do is look up the word “principles” and compare that with the word “practices”.
Sheesh…
No comment on my “model” post eh?
Very telling…
I want to make one last comment here about the scientific use of the word “theory”. In physics, a scientific theory is a set of ideas and concepts which are used to explain some physical phenomena. There are good theories and there are bad theories. Some theories which enjoy very widespread support among scientists become ‘accepted theories’ or ‘prevailing theories’, which is the highest level of attainment that a theory can enjoy. Well known examples of theories which have reached this level of popular support among scientists include the special theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of quantum mechanics, and, yes, the theory of manmade climate change or global warming. It’s very rare to find any professional scientist who disputes any of these widely accepted scientific theories.
Among laymen there appears to be this mistaken idea that there is another level of scientific truth which goes beyond ‘accepted theory’ or ‘prevailing theory’ that is called ‘fact’ or ‘fundamental fact’ or ‘proven fact’ but, no, there is no such thing for scientific theories. There is no international scientific board or committee which declares certain theories to be ‘facts’ or ‘proven facts’. You can be sure that anyone who tries to claim that something is “just a theory” and “not a proven fact” is not a scientist and, furthermore, does not know how science works.
Doug, once again, thank you.
Dan, a practice stems from a theory. Quantum theory leads to all of chemistry, as well as the most destructive force ever made by man. Number theory leads to all of cryptography. The theory of relativity explains much of the universe that we see from here.
These are all theories. None of them are fully understood. None of them are final. But none of them are mere hypotheses. They are all true and incredibly effective. Science exists to replace what we know that is true in the way we use it with theories that are also true in the way we use it (and so usually reduce to our older knowledge) but true in ways that we haven’t ever thought of before.
Newton wasn’t wrong. Archimedes wasn’t wrong. They were just simplistic in today’s terms and missed some important things that never even occurred to them were missing.
Chemotherapy is a theory. It is a specific theory of what causes cancer and which cells uptake what chemicals for what purposes. Chemotherapeutic treatments themselves are the practice. But just as you confuse therapy with treatment, you confuse theory with practice, as if the distinction were all that important when it is nearly nothing.
Climate change is true. I think you just don’t like it, don’t like being blamed for it (I sympathize with you there), and are grasping for whatever straw you can find to displace the blame. And doubting a theory because people more expert than you use the word differently than you is the very definition of grasping at straws.
I think the bigger question, to return to the topic, is does it really matter what Pleasanton does about it? I suspect not enough to think deeply about, but I suppose that there is a sociological aspect of demonstrating support that has value.
It’s good to see that we are finally having a discussion about Climate Change in Pleasanton. Not just on this blog, but at City Hall and throughout the community. Pleasanton can make a significant impact on fighting Climate Change locally by updating our existing Climate Action Plan and implementing more aggressive actions, such as joining the East Bay Community Energy CCA to increase the level of renewables in our power portfolio over that of bankrupt PG&E (Pleasanton is one of only two cities in Alameda County who have not joined. Every other city is on board). More on EBCE here: https://ebce.org/
Someone asked me what the tie-in of Costco to Climate Change was. It’s simple: more cars generating a lot more GHG emissions! The EIR calculated that Costco will generate 10,000 – 12,000 car trips per day, most of those trips coming from outside the Tri Valley. This far outweighs the benefits of Pleasantonians driving 2-3 miles less on their weekly trip for hot dogs. In addition, these additional trips pose a health risk to residents of the Val Vista neighborhood – something the city neglected to examine in the EIR and why they ended up in court. More on the impact on cars trips associated with big box stores: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bbtk-factsheet-traffic.pdf
For those on the blog who still have questions about Climate Change, you may find this FAQ from NASA helpful: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/
Finally, we haven’t addressed how capitalism and militarism drive Climate Change, and unless we deal with this we probably will be unsuccessful in mitigating its worst effects. This is the inconvenient truth that very few want to talk about.
Grumpy,
Climate change IS real, nobody is arguing that point.
What CHANGES the climate is STILL NOT UNDERSTOOD. That is still in the THEORY stage. Consensus does not change that.
CLIMATE CHANGES ALL THE TIME.
You can continue to argue about the theory, but the practice of using models to determine future climate is indisputable. Go look it up.
Now, apply the same logic I just gave you to Chemotherapy and compare with the current state of Climatology.
Get my point now?
Matt,
Simple answer to your questions:
Show me the climate model that accurately captures past climate and then we can talk.
Until you do that, you’re just whistling past the graveyard.
Dan
Dan, I did look up your model point. It is simply wrong. The climate models that are in use today do fit the past, quite well. That’s no surprise, because that’s what it takes for consensus to be built that it works at all, and consensus has in fact been reached.
I don’t know why you choose to believe in cranks, but I can tell that your own use of all caps shows that you aren’t really following all of the points of this discussion.
Since you asked me to compare climatology with chemotherapy, I will. I’d say that climatology today is like chemotherapy was in the 1970s, after the discovery of taxol but before the raft of drugs we have today. Just as we understood then that targeting cell division will harm the cancer faster than the other cells, we know now that carbon dioxide traps heat and increases the enormity of bad weather events. As Doug pointed out, climatology is not a theory in your use of the word, it is a proven fact. But there still is active research to be done, and although that will not change any aspect of the core parts of the proven fact that manmade emissions are warming the planet, it may make predictions even more accurate.
I’m not sure why you are fixated on models. It is models that allow all large businesses in this country to be profitable, to innovate. It is models that makes our military the best in the world. It is models that keeps our bridges up during earthquakes. Boy I’m glad we have models! Thank God for science.
I’m not prepared to think that Matt is saying we should be like Venezuela. But I am curious why he thinks capitalism is the problem. Capitalism is a tool. Rampant, unchecked capitalism can be very bad. But thoughtfully deployed capitalism is the only system we humans have worked out so far that cuts through nobility and other artificial barriers to produce a real solution to many problems. I wouldn’t be so quick as to think that capitalism can’t solve our climate problem. In fact, I’ll take a stronger stand and say that it will be the solution.
“There’s a very strong scientific consensus in favor of manmade global warming. That fundamental fact is really no longer up for debate. The evidence for manmade global warming is just too overwhelming.”
I suggest you examine that the “Green New Deal” by AOC and other proposals offered to “fix” global warming are nothing more than economic disarmament/sugar coated socialism for the United States.
Forget the “millions of green jobs” claims with the government micromanaging the economy/energy sources. Speaking of making stuff up, Obama promised exactly that if the government spent/regulated what he wanted – and they never materialized. Other nations are not going to cripple their own economies/put millions of their own citizens out of work because of the demands of environmental groups as well. We should not be paying them billions of our taxpayers dollars to alleviate that.
Reduce emissions by doing what we’ve been doing – usage of more natural gas/nuclear vs. coal for power plants.
Green is good, I get it. And yes, climate change is real. Okay… so what?
How do we change it, stop it, or reverse it? What is the actual problem? The ozone layer? The rising sea levels? Rising temperatures? Plastics in the ocean? Air quality? Wild fires? Droughts? Land fill capacities?
What can I do about it? What is going to make a difference? Find a way into an electric car? Remember to compost my pizza boxes? Stop watering my lawn?
What’s going to move the needle? We need to stop singing that the “sky is falling,” and figure out a way to catch it, find shelter from it, or build a support for it…
‘Charlie Brown’ would be better named ‘Jonathan Swift’, whose A Modest Proposal (for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick
https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/modestproposal/summary/ he appears to be adapting to these purposes.
I understand his desire to be rid of my generation of deniers. Contrary to our fond hopes when we trusted no one over thirty, we have been/are a Big part of The biggest Problem.
K,
You adressed the answer to your criticism of evs in your opening statement. Its a lot easier to regulate a primary generation source of electricity and its byproduct production than millions of automobiles.
Id also point out batteries are recyclable and Tesla is the only company selling an entire product line that allows for sustainable generation and consumption if you elect for it.
We absolutely should invest in green technologies and this is where government policy and business best align.
Government sets policy for progressive progress/investment to a requirement and possibly provides subsidy to allow it to develop and businesses evolve/adapt.
Its also wrong to think because the rest of the world isnt adopting we should lead. Energy, water, air, food are absolutely critical to survival and economic growth. We must always be looking at ways to ensure their impact on one another isnt detrimental, and our consumption of allows for contiunace.
Whether you believe in global warming, the human impact on, etc, its undeniable that humans are excellent at exploiting a resource until its gone. This at a minimum should provide the basis for investment in those other means of production/sustainability
@Matt Sullivan,
You may want to tell East Bay Community Energy about nuclear energy if they are serious about mitigating or preventing climate change. They also might want to consult with people in the fields of engineering and the applied sciences to help with their advisory committee.
It is useful to look at the examples of France and Germany.
https://medium.com/third-way/france-germany-and-two-paths-to-cut-carbon-85b65090fc96
“Finally, we haven’t addressed how capitalism and militarism drive Climate Change, and unless we deal with this we probably will be unsuccessful in mitigating its worst effects. This is the inconvenient truth that very few want to talk about.”
So why don’t you enlighten us as to how exactly you would “deal with” capitalism to supposedly save the planet? Let me guess. The government micromanages the economy/portions out resources and wealth based on “need” or “fairness”. That worked really well in Venezuela, didn’t it?