New research, reported by the Guardian this morning, has shown that if climate change is to be curtailed then most of the already identified fossil fuel reserves of the world must remain in the ground. A chart they publish looks like this:
The fact is that the case for a Green New Deal is now unanswerable.
What is absurd is that this issue will be largely ignored in the forthcoming election when it is of such significance to us all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Its an absolute no-brainer.
It should be the centrepiece of any progressive governments program – it truly delivers joined up government (and thinking)
Build eco friendly housing (to passivhaus standard for example) – solve the housing crisis
Low or non-existent energy bills.
Provides jobs, training and skills.
Reduces unemployment benefits, reduces housing benefits
Renewable energy and transport infrastructure will do similar things.
The overarching goal of course is to avert a future catastrophe by reducing carbon emissions. So why wait for a toothless international treaty that will forever kick the can down the road – why not just get on with it.
Jeff, it’s an absolute ‘no brainer’ to anybody who posesses the capacity to care about other people (and species), and is prepared to admit that what is easiest in the short term (sticking with fossil fuels in this case) is sometimes the wrong thing to do in the long term. That of course is not the case with the current government and it’s supporters whose response to environmental concerns is simply to throw stupid insults like ‘the green blob’ at people.
Undoubtedly true,but sadly my problem with those thoughts is that owing to the huge and no doubt increasing demand for power and fossil fuels in the developed democratic countries,is generating sufficient and reliable replacement power by “green” methods,and enabling such energy saving as to make it all practicable without the serious reigning in of public demands,knowing how we all love our current energy wasteful lifestyle. So I`m thinking that the suggestion of any really valuable and worthwhile moves towards energy waste and pollution reduction might make many politicians feel unelectable – and would suggest that the “Greens” suffer right now,from that problem. Maybe a real start on widespread pubic education on the urgent need to take real action and damn soon,would be a start? I fear a lot of hand wringing,but not a lot of action ahead.
Is the Green Party not signed up to the Green New Deal? If not they should be and it should be a key element of their election campaign. I thought Caroline Lucas was a member of the GND Group.
Greens are signed up throughout the EU
¨Undoubtedly true,but sadly my problem with those thoughts is that owing to the huge and no doubt increasing demand for power and fossil fuels in the developed democratic countries,is generating sufficient and reliable replacement power by “green” methods,and enabling such energy saving as to make it all practicable without the serious reigning in of public demands,knowing how we all love our current energy wasteful lifestyle. So I`m thinking that the suggestion of any really valuable and worthwhile moves towards energy waste and pollution reduction might make many politicians feel unelectable — and would suggest that the “Greens” suffer right now,from that problem. Maybe a real start on widespread pubic education on the urgent need to take real action and damn soon,would be a start? I fear a lot of hand wringing,but not a lot of action ahead¨
If you want pollution reduction, you don´t start in the developed countries.
You start in the rapidly-developing countries. look at pollution in China and India
http://world.time.com/2012/11/30/indias-air-pollution-is-it-worse-than-chinas/
The clarion-calls are out to ¨reduce cars¨(and trucks and fossil-fuelled public transport).
But since the larger part is industrial pollution, some thought may be necessary here?
And maybe, just maybe, people may like to look at the legacy remaining from solarPV adoption?
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4583-A-darker-side-of-Chinese-clean-tech
Maybe a look at wind turbines is necessary as well. The new[er] type use no gearboxes (a major source of early failure, as in a 7-year life instead of the design 25-year), instead they use permanent magnets. The down-side is that the magnets use rare earths to enable stronger magnetic fields.
But wait:
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs
So, we live in an economy/country, that has minimal pollution.
And is being increasingly helped along that road, by other countries having a massive environmental cost.
There´s always a downside.
Sometimes the downside is planned?