You're Getting Warmer - On (Kyoto's) 10th Anniversary, Why Are We Barely Past The Starting Gate?

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/31/youre-getting-warmer

Volume 15, Issue 31
Published December 5th, 2007

You're Getting Warmer

The Kyoto Accord Began The Race To Halt Global Warming. On Its 10th Anniversary, Why Are We Barely Past The Starting Gate?

By Bill Mckibben

I remember so well the final morning hoursof the Kyoto conference. The negotiations had gone on long past their scheduled evening close, and the convention-center management was frantic - a trade show for children's clothing was about to begin, and every corner of the vast hall still was littered with the carcasses of the sleeping diplomats who had gathered in Japan to draw up a first-ever global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. But when word finally came that an agreement had been reached, people roused themselves with real enthusiasm, lots of backslapping and hugs.

A long decade after the first powerful warnings had sounded, it seemed that humans were finally rising to the greatest challenge we'd ever faced.

The only long face in the hall belonged to William O'Keefe, chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, otherwise known as the American coal, oil and car lobby. He'd spent the week coordinating the resistance, working with Arab delegates and Russian industrialists to sabotage the emerging plan. And he'd failed. "It's in free fall now," he said, stricken. But then he straightened his shoulders and said, "I can't wait to get back to Washington where we can get things under control."

I thought he was whistling past the graveyard. In fact, he knew far better than the rest of us what the future would hold. He knew it would be at least another decade before anything changed.

...

[madeline_con]

1. Didn't the U.S. refuse to sign? n/t

[madrchsod]

2. george bush

[NNadir]

3. One answer, of course, would be ignorance.

Right here in the E&E forum we have lots of people who oppose the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy.

Why do they oppose it?

Who the fuck knows? It's some kind of bizarre religion that has not a fucking thing to do with rationality, analysis or even just plain vision.

It's some kind of hallucination apparently, like when people imagine that the Virgin Mary is in their closet sorting their socks.

There is really nothing more depressing than an anti-nuke sockpuppet having the gall to ask this question.

[DCKit]

4. ",,,the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy."

OK, I give. What is it?

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. A quick review of the DU rules may be in order

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.
2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.
3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.
4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. ...

[NNadir]

12. Content?

Let me understand your interpretation of the rules:

No one is allowed to state the truth.

Why am I not surprised?

The fact is that you come here making up pretend concern about climate change, at the same time you stand here opposing the single largest tool to fight it.

Let me repeat: The truth is that you oppose the largest, by far, climate change free gas form of energy there is.

Sorry bub, I don't tell lies because there are fools and creeps who lecture about "civility" when they are, themselves, completely devoid of it.

The little yuppie creep who lives in the White House gave big fucking lectures on civility in the year 2000, and guess what? He was a freaking liar amd killer. Maybe you think that the war in Iraq is about making nice, but to me it's just killing, just as opposing nuclear power is killing. In fact, the war in Iraq is about the dangerous fossil fuels about which the anti-nuke religion couldn't care less.

Nuclear power saves lives. You don't have to be far beyond the moron phase to read the tables of external costs. I believe they teach the nature of inequalities (2>0, 187271 > 17, for instance) in third grade.

Really, all the anti-nuke religions, when they're not trying to put dangerous fossil fuel waste in people's lungs, is whine.

This, I suppose, would seem to substitute for knowing something about say, numbers.

Still the numbers are what they are and all the crying and stamping of feet will not change them:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

The numbers for external costs, about which the anti-nuke religion is in sockpuppety denial, are still in the Externe report, where they've been for years.

http://www.externe.info/results.html

The scientific literature is also chock full of life cycle analyses. All of them say the same thing: Nuclear power has the lowest external cost of any exajoule form of energy. In fact, the scientific literature is chock full of papers showing that nuclear power has a lower external cost than the cute forms of sub exajoule energy like solar and wind stored with imaginary compressed air systems.

Similarly, the scientific literature is chock full of papers on evolution, not that this has dissauded a single creationist from citing the Book of Genesis whenever they have a chance.

Note that nuclear power - for which there is NOT one member of the anti-nuke religion who can produce even one dead body in this country in the last 50 years, NOT ONE - easily outstrips all of the cute pretend yuppie brat car culture stuff combined. Still, we hear from people who are incapable of comparing two real numbers that nuclear power is a failure.

To the extent that nuclear energy is not more widely used, part of the problem lies with the endless repetition of ignorance. Ignorance must be fought, because IT KILLS. Anti-nukes coming here and complaining that nuclear power is not growing as fast as it should (and must if we are to have any hope of slowing climate change) reminds one of those arsonists volunteer firemen one hears about from time to time, or Republicans talking about achieving peace through war.

It is relatively transparent why there is climate change.

I am merely pointing out that one reason - probably the main reason at this point - is that the anti-nuke religion couldn't care less about the subject.

That's a true statement and is the equivalent of saying that water has two hydrogens and an oxygen. The thirty exajoules of primary energy that nuclear power produces easily outstrips the 2 exajoules that wind, solar and geothermal produce on the entire planet combined. In fact it outstrips solar, wind, geothermal and hydro combined. You're against nuclear power.

Every single nuclear power plant that has been shut by ignorance has been replaced by dangerous fossil fuels. There are zero nuke plants that have been shut by appeals to ignorance that have been replaced by solar, wind, or geothermal toys.

Zero.

Got it?

No?

Zero.

Still can't get it?

Why am I not surprised?

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it with whatever else they smoke at the little yuppie dinners the anti-nukes hold in their little yuppie car culture utopias in the backwoods.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Clearly, you either miss my point, or prefer not to acknowledge it

You do not simply state your point of view.

You consistently use abusive language.

You consistently attack those who disagree with you.

In essence, it is you who wish to limit our freedom of speech.

[kestrel91316]

10. Tell me again how you propose to make the world safe for the next

umpteen-thousand years from the hazards of countless tons of nuclear waste.............

Opposing nuclear is not a "religion" for me or anyone else here, AND YOU KNOW IT. Stop with the insults. It is ALL about hazardous waste (except for when it's about workplace safety issues for uranium miners, and radioactive waste on privately owned land like the Navajo Reservation, and all those other inconvenient truths that you so love to ignore).

Ok, now here's your chance to call ME a bunch of names for the record........

All you EVER do on DU is insult members right and left. If you hate us so much, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU HERE??????

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. It's for our own good

NNadir is trying to educate us poor ignorant fools.

Think of how frustrating it must be for him.

He must wonder why his constant verbal abuse doesn't convince us.

---

"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument. The heated mind resents the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of logic."

— William Ewart Gladstone

[razzleberry]

5. only one country is stupid enough to change behavior ...

because of the numerical limits,
and that country is not participating.

all other annex-1 countries either ignore the treaty and do nothing,
or have closed Soviet era industry, so they are below numerical
limits, so they do nothing.
(Australia is a special type of do-nothing)

[AlecBGreen]

7. I think it goes beyond stupidity

we have long passed the time when we could truly say "we didnt know!" The combination of ignorance, arrogance and greed has reached criminal levels.

[NickB79]

8. Because, despite the happy talk about renewable energy, we need to make sacrifices

BIG sacrifices, sacrifices that will no doubt anger the average American.

No more big cars and trucks, and even driving small compact cars must be reduced. Driving hybrids or E85-capable models doesn't cut it, because they still emit far too much CO2.

No more big houses in the suburbs and exurbs, even if they're hyper-efficient homes. They still emit too much CO2 to be sustainable.

Far fewer vacations halfway around the world on airlines.

Fewer fresh vegetables in the dead of winter shipped in from Mexico, Chile, or elsewhere.

Less cheap consumer crap imported from halfway around the world.

Basically, we have to drastically alter our lifestyles and economy away from a consumer-driven one towards one that is more sustainable. But sustainable isn't fun in the eyes of a lot of people. Why buy one good TV that will last for 10 years, when you can buy a newer, bigger one every 2-3 years? Why use the same computer longer than a few years, when you can throw it out and buy a new one? Why drive the same car for a decade when you can trade it in every few years? What do you mean I can't fly to Bermuda or Paris or Tokyo twice a year on vacation?

You know what would happen if an American politician told the American people to do any of these things? He would be lynched in the street. Remember Carter telling Americans to turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater? He was right, but people hated him for it anyway, and we got Ronald "blow sunshine up your ass" Reagan instead.

Politicians who tell the truth can't get elected, but the ones that placate us with promises of magical technological fixes "some time in the future" can.

We are running around with our fingers in our ears yelling "la la la I can't hear you!", while we get closer to the edge of the cliff.

[razzleberry]

9. fewer Gala conferences, would be a good start

perhaps the supposed leadership
could make an act of good faith