The way ahead
 
Yesterday we gave some reasons for giving up on the idea of emissions reductions due to the seeming impossibility of the task.
However, today we read in interesting article by Michael Gelobter at the Daily Grist who points out that too many of us dismiss the idea of change too readily just because it is hard to do. Michael writes:
There are two problems with the “anti-easy” argument:
1. It’s wrong, and
2. it’s bad political strategy.
The modern world is changing radically already, every day. Between computers, biotech, a workplace that promises no one stability, a political regime that wiretaps and disenfranchises us, and oil prices at a record high, Americans are, for better or for worse, always ready for change.
Michael goes on to offer some good examples of what a world using 80% less fossil fuel might offer us:
1. an economy that is, at worst, different — not worse. Redefining Progress and many others have long projected that seriously weaning ourselves from fossil fuels promises moderately better growth and employment. The strength of the U.S. economy doesn’t rest on flaring natural gas out from the tailpipes of SUVs. We actually make more money when we invest in our strengths rather than industries that flow on dinosaur blood. Parenthetical messaging example — target audience: banks — “What is it about retaining the third of our record trade deficit that goes to oil that wouldn’t be good for you?”
2. an environment that, if we actually turned to green sources of energy, would suffer at least 35 percent fewer insults. This stat courtesy of a hand-waving calculation that since around 70 percent of all environmental degradation comes from the exploration, extraction, refining, shipping, use, and disposal of energy, replacing 80 percent of it with good stuff, well thought through, would halve the insults.
3. technology and opportunities for efficiency that are easily up to the task of powering us better, safer, and cheaper. Or have we all just joined the oil industry in arguing that Amory has been a lunatic all these years?
These are all valid points.
The climate change argument suffers badly from a lack of vision on one side - reducing fossil fuel use does not mean going back to the stone age - Â just as it suffers from a lack of realistic and pragmatic thinking on the other side.
The real debate should be about finding the sensible middle ground. How do we balance the achievable against the necessity to make some sensible and tangible progress?
Frankly we think that campaigners on both sides of the climate change argument have done a lousy job of helping to facilitate such a debate, with too many extremists producing far too much noise and polarizing otherwise moderate observers. We regularly hear alarmist exaggerations of impending catastrophe from the Greens as well as myopic statements such as “it has been proven that Co2 cannot cause global warming” from the Reds.
And unfortunately the middle ground in the discussion is mostly represented by freeloading members of the European Parliament attending Bali with their ‘assistants’ without any identifiable role in the proceedings*. We think on this basis we are justified in our earlier pessimism.
So what’s the way ahead?
We see reports today claiming that the Arctic sea may be ice free in 5 years. Perhaps if such alarming predictions come true so quickly we might have a genuine crisis to focus our minds on, the nonsense talk might stop and we might have a realistic and sensible debate on climate change?
 It is sad to think that it might have to come to that.
* Sorry, that was a distraction from our argument, but we just had to mention it.
Arctic Ice MAY gone in 5 Years was on every media site, but the article Arctic Sea Ice records fastest growth in 27 years was harder to find.
Note the abscence of the word MAY in the second article.
This is the tripping point (play on words) in the climate debate. The green team is all about may, might, could. Red team is all about is, proven, fact.
So you do not think I am not an
equal opportunity argument starter.
Here is an example how Blue team think works. They think the Red team has a lack of vision for responding to the green team mandates to reduce CO2 nad switch energy sources. If the green team said lets switch energy sources using any means neccessary, I would say OK.
BUT what the Green Team says is lets switch energy sources while we hamstring the economy with emission caps. You cannot build a new energy infrastructure without utilizing the current one.
So they will not budge and we say it like it is based on their position, and we can prove what we say with real world economics.
Is there misddle ground, sure, get off the bus of doom and start making some sense.
They (the Green Team) should accept an increase in CO2 short term to achieve their goals of massive reduction long term.
Unfortunately that will never happen because they are told that there is no time by the doom prophets.
Al Gore in his Nobel Speech said, responsible actions to decrease energy use by the individual is not enough. World leaders must stand up find the words to inspire the courage to mobilize as if for war and be ready to sacrifice to win a protracted battle.
Key words SACRIFICE and PROTRACTED. He knows what it will mean to the economies of the world and how long it will take to implement and recover.