Disease Soaked: Communal virus communion » « Anagram Play: Ha! Claiming one parent

What If This Happens: A hypothetical

Here’s a thought:

In the first three days after the 2001/09/11 attacks, the US’s air quality improved and pollution dropped.

What environmental effect will there be after close to a billion people in industrialized countries stop consuming fossil fuels and natural resources for a month or two?  Will we finally wake up and realize how much damage we’ve done, and how quickly we can change it?

I hope it’s a silver lining.

Disease Soaked: Communal virus communion » « Anagram Play: Ha! Claiming one parent

Comments

  1. chigau (違う) says

    Those few days were really quiet, too.
    But we won’t stop consuming just because we’re staying at home. The overnight temperature here was -25°C. The heaters were on all night.

  3. GerrardOfTitanServer says

    Hi. Nice blog.

    Are you aware that the biggest impediment to solving the climate problem are the Green environmentalists, not the climate change deniers?

    This is according to several preeminent climate scientists.

    Quoting preeminent climate scientist James Hansen.

    Quoting James Hansen: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf

    A facile explanation would focus on the ‘merchants of doubt’ who have managed to confuse the public about the reality of human-made climate change. The merchants play a role, to be sure, a sordid one, but they are not the main obstacle to solution of human-made climate change.

    The bigger problem is that people who accept the reality of climate change are not proposing actions that would work.

    […]

    The insightful cynic will note: “Now I understand all the fossil fuel ads with windmills and solar panels – fossil fuel moguls know that renewables are no threat to the fossil fuel business.” The tragedy is that many environmentalists lineup on the side of the fossil fuel industry, advocating renewables as if they, plus energy efficiency, would solve the global climate change matter.

    Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

    This Easter Bunny fable is the basis of ‘policy’ thinking of many liberal politicians. Yet when such people are elected to the executive branch and must make real world decisions, they end up approving expanded off-shore drilling and allowing continued mountaintop removal, long-wall coal mining, hydro-fracking, etc. – maybe even a tar sands pipeline. Why the inconsistency?

    Because they realize that renewable energies are grossly inadequate for our energy needs now and in the foreseeable future and they have no real plan. They pay homage to the Easter Bunny fantasy, because it is the easy thing to do in politics. They are reluctant to explain what is actually needed to phase out our need for fossil fuels. Reluctance to be honest might seem strange, given that what is needed to solve the problem actually makes sense and is not harmful to most people. I will offer a possible explanation for their actions below.

    Quoting leading climate scientist Kerry Emanuel
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/10/29/top-climate-scientists-warn-governments-of-blatant-anti-nuclear-bias-in-latest-ipcc-climate-report/

    The anti-nuclear bias of this latest IPCC release is rather blatant, and reflects the ideology of the environmental movement. History may record that this was more of an impediment to decarbonization than climate denial.

    It seems that most climate scientists believe that nuclear power is a required component of any workable solution.

    See these four leading climate scientists saying this here: https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html

    If you like youtube videos, I believe the following video is an extended news-reporter Q&A with the above four authors on this issue. https://youtu.be/KnN328eD-sA?t=2041

    See dozens more scientists who are regularly cited by the IPCC have also come out publicly in favor of nuclear power. http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-change

    Just spreading the word that the problem is the Luddite Greens and their fascination with pipedream solar and wind when the solution to this problem has been known for more than half a century, and which has been systematically stymied by the efforts of these Green people on their altar of anti-nuclear fear-mongering.

    Please definitely read this too: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world