Find out why "cap and trade" is really a lot of hot air.
http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/
What we really need are REAL cuts to carbon emissions, not just moving the carbon to another industry. Cap and Trade is attractive in principal, but it leaves open too many loop holes that circumvent actual carbon emissions cuts.
THE solution is explained very well by the well known former NASA scientist who first got the world thinking about antropogenic effects on climate, back in the 80's, James Hanson. Back then, environmental solutions were focused on acid rain and pollution. While these are worthy causes and have been largely dealt with in some ways, climate change is much bigger and global in scope.
See James Hanson interview here:
Tom Freidman has the right idea about making an Apollo sized effort to transform the global economy to be about creating alternative (soon to be called standard, we hope) energies, such as wind, solar, tidal etc... These will not save our sorry asses, but they will mitigate society's collapse. What about all those workers laid off from automobile factories? Well, they all have useful, transferrable skills such that can used to create a better more efficient energy infrastructure. But we mustn't be fooled into a false sense of techno-triumphalism, thinking that technology is the answer. It's part of the answer, but technology does not equate to energy. We need to scale-back and re-localize our economy. Localization not globalization. Localism not globalism. This doesn't mean that we can't promote international trade, but should we make trade the very purpose of our existence? Should we define ourselves simply as "consumers"? What about citizens? ...or humans?
Peace,
Grant
http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/
What we really need are REAL cuts to carbon emissions, not just moving the carbon to another industry. Cap and Trade is attractive in principal, but it leaves open too many loop holes that circumvent actual carbon emissions cuts.
THE solution is explained very well by the well known former NASA scientist who first got the world thinking about antropogenic effects on climate, back in the 80's, James Hanson. Back then, environmental solutions were focused on acid rain and pollution. While these are worthy causes and have been largely dealt with in some ways, climate change is much bigger and global in scope.
See James Hanson interview here:
Tom Freidman has the right idea about making an Apollo sized effort to transform the global economy to be about creating alternative (soon to be called standard, we hope) energies, such as wind, solar, tidal etc... These will not save our sorry asses, but they will mitigate society's collapse. What about all those workers laid off from automobile factories? Well, they all have useful, transferrable skills such that can used to create a better more efficient energy infrastructure. But we mustn't be fooled into a false sense of techno-triumphalism, thinking that technology is the answer. It's part of the answer, but technology does not equate to energy. We need to scale-back and re-localize our economy. Localization not globalization. Localism not globalism. This doesn't mean that we can't promote international trade, but should we make trade the very purpose of our existence? Should we define ourselves simply as "consumers"? What about citizens? ...or humans?
Peace,
Grant
Previous posts
Check out the KunstlerCast, below