Obama’s plan to tackle climate change includes a commitment to slash CO2 emissions from US power stations by a third within 15 years, imposing CO2 limits on the country’s 1,000 fossil fuel-fired power plants. These account for 32% of US carbon emissions.
Predictably, the proposals triggered an immediate political and legal backlash. Having previously resisted any cut-back in emissions, people, like the Heritage Foundation, cynically hired to discredit climate change are now saying, “We accept that mankind is adding to the effects of natural climate change, but Obama’s proposals are a drop in the bucket and will only damage investment and profitability” (note the weasle words). Their names and those of their paymasters will go down in history as the authors of ecological disaster. Great job, fellows! So here are some facts:
– Arctic ice could have vanished within a decade or two. Loss of Greenland ice alone could add a metre to sea levels. Some estimate a sea level rise of 7 metres, and others estimate as much as 12 metres, drowning large areas of land and whole cities. If humans are unwilling to restrain their population the planet will do it for them.
– The weather is already more extreme than forecast. Warming was expected to boost food production, but food prices are rising rapidly with extreme weather, confounding forecasts. Fishing may soon be confined to fish farms.
– The planet absorbs about half of the excess CO2 at present, but no one knows how long it can continue to do so.
– The half life of CO2 is about a hundred years. If we stopped now, completely, the CO2 levels would start to reduce in the next century and maybe return to reasonable levels within 200 years. This is an astonishing thing. We will cause an quite unnecessary “mass extinction” that in geological terms could correct itself in a twinkling of an eye. Alas, too late for millions of people!
The fact is that if China and the United States seriously reduced their emissions it would make a real difference. Climate change is probably the greatest threat to ataraxia (peace of mind) in human history; Epicureans have to be on the side of the angels.
“Their names and those of their paymasters will go down in history.”
I fantasize erecting billboards, placing ads on the side of buses, creating websites where the names of these culpable people ARE listed for all to see.
I don’t understand the supposed drawbacks from Obama’s plan. The only reasonable objections are that would: 1. destroy jobs in the fossil fuel sector and 2. increase energy costs. However, the jobs created in the renewal energy sector would more than offset the jobs lost in fossil fuels- and many of those jobs would be better-paying, because they would involve researching and improving renewables (which are in their relative infancy.) Secondly, America already has one of the lowest energy costs in the world. This would continue under Obama’s plan because: increased investment in renewables could be funded by cuts to fossil fuel subsidies ( I would abolish those altogether but oh well), and the resulting reduction in pollution would reduce the costs of pollutants (people dying prematurely, cleaning the natural environment etc..) In summary, this is a debate between those who want to cling to the past, and those who want to embrace the future. There can only be one winner.