we are stardust's picture

    Democracy Now! Interviews the Author of ‘Hot’; Please Spend the Sixteen Minutes to Watch

    By we are stardust on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 7:26pm |

    Investigative reporter Mark Hertsgaard, author of the new book, Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth was on Democracy Now! On Friday.  He has been investigating climate change since the ‘90s, but was motivated to ramp up his reporting after he met with British government scientists in 2005.  They explained that we have already reached the tipping point at which even with no further CO2 added to the atmosphere, the earth would not stop heating further for at least another thirty years.

    He says as he walked out of their offices, he considered what a vile thing we had done to his then-six-year-old daughter’s generation, whom he calls ‘Generation Hot’, the two billion kids who have been born since NASA scientist went to the Senate and said, “Look.  This is happening,” and we did nothing about it.

    The purpose of the book is to consider ways we must adapt to live through the next fifty years; the interview is wider, including a discussion of the wisdom of nuclear power and natural gas as alternatives to coal, agricultural dilemmas we’ll face.

    I remember fifteen years ago listening to an expert on climate change opining that the magnitude of the coming changes could be an excellent opportunity for global cooperation.  He mentioned as one example that corn would no longer grow in the heartland, and might need to be grown in Russia one day…

    Hertsgaard mentions that it is folly that Monsanto, et.al., believes the answer is genetically modified seeds; he believes the evidence shows organically grown crops have proven more resilient.

    You will hear that the EPA’s budget was cut 16% in the budget deal that was just passed, and the funding for the Climate Desk at NOOA reduced.  And that according to Goodman:

    “Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s climate policy is coming under criticism on an international level. Last week Obama’s lead envoy on climate change, Todd Stern, dismissed the need for a binding treaty to curb global warming. In an interview with Bloomberg, Stern said, quote, "I don’t think it’s necessary [that] there be internationally binding emission caps as long as you’ve got national laws and regulations. What I am saying is it’s not doable," he said.”

    I was about to check the figures on what percentage of Americans place Climate Change as a top priority; frankly, I just couldn't face it. 


    Or watch a larger version on youtube.

    We are such bum-fuque idiots; we don't deserve this beautiful, big blue-green ball of a planet.

    Matt Damon hosts a PBS series called Journey to Planet Earth; the first part was 'Plan B; Mobilizing to Save Civilization'; it was a barn-burner.

    (cross-posted @ my.firedoglake)

     

    Comments

    The right is winning this fight, to me that is clear.

    The right has won the gun fight, the deficit fight....

    But we must play chess with these devils.

    Concentrate on the issues concerning clean water, clean air and manufactured poisons.

    A large majority of our citizenry think in soundbites and the grand corporations know this.

    Oh you will lose your jobs....

    Stick with the poison propaganda and forget CO2. We get nowhere with this argument right now.

    Just a thought!


    by Richard Day on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 8:39pm

    Ryan's budget is worse than deplorable, granted.  but Dems need to do more.  The President needs to do more, including joining a planetary push to cap emissions.  China rightly asks, (IMO) if the US doesn't participate, why should they?  They are actually leading in the push fow wind-generated power, though others will know more than I on that.

    It is a sorry dilemma that Dems receive so many contributions from the industries that profit by keeping us enslaved by oil and coal, and that Obama is still pushing to undwrite nuclear energy plants is very bad in my mind. 

    I think it was Joseph Stiglitz who recently wrote that events like Fukushima and our financial meltdown are called 'Black Swan Events'.  He says that's absurd; planning and attention would have shown these to be predictable, if not even 'likely'.  We're addicted to the short view, arren't we, Dick?


    by we are stardust on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 10:39pm

    I recently passed through Monterrey, Mexico and was struck by the amount of air pollution there.  It made me wonder about national and international air quality laws.  Made me think what's the use of capping CO2 output in the US, or anywhere, if we just export the dirty work to Mexico?  Or China?  Or [insert next emerging nation here]?  So yes the issue may offer some point for international cooperation to coalesce around.  Then again eliminating safe tax havens for corporate money around the world could provide a similar rallying point.  Then again, we might all start conserving resources, practicing population control, and generally consuming less.   Survey says:  As long as there is a poor undernurished country out there willing to abstain from the "non-binding agreement" our fearless leader advocates, the death watch proceeds apace.  Huh.  I sound kinda upbeat today.  Must have been sumthin I ate.


    by miguelitoh2o on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 10:37pm

    That's 'upbeat'??  Yikes!  Odd that you mentioned tax safe havens.  The same Friday Amy had on  the man who wrote Treasure Islands.  I had thought about writing it up soon since he tells of how many activist groups are rallying around the issue.

    Yep; i also think it's very likely we will collectively get religion on sustainability in all things, and learn to cooperate, not compete, and love one another with abandon. 

    And: here's a link a commenter left at my.fdl to a climate change website:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/15/offshore_banking_and_tax_havens_have

    Thanks for commenting; I wuz beginning to think this blog had Cooties er sumthin'.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 12:46pm

    You all have me banging my head against the wall, seriously.  Climate change is vying for the top crucial topic of our time (we can have three 'top crucials', IMO), and this blog HAS THREE COMMENTS TOTAL!!!

    It got a little more play at my.fdl, but it wasn't front-paged (Boooo!).  Another man there put this video up 6 hours ago (maybe more) and there were ZERO comments or rec's when I saw it just now.  And his stuff usually gets front-paged.  I am just stymied that we are just dicking around about this subject when we are past the tipping point from which we can retreat for the next fifty years: NO MATTER IF WE ADDED NO MORE CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE, THE OCEANS WILL KEEP WARMING!

    We really can walk and chew gum at the same time, peeps; can 't we split our attention a bit?  Budget and the planet's health?  Bill McKibben has a goofy accent, but he introduces us to Powershift 2011, a coalition of Save the Goddam Planet Before We All Die groups.

    And he points out that millions of brown people are in solidarity with the movement; environmentalism ain't just for well-to-do white folks anymore.

    And thank you, management, for slotting this important subject into the middle column.  ;o) 

    Okay; rant over; I'll go have a cigarette now...  Cool



    by we are stardust on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 9:48pm

    I think a lot of people have read it. Most of the high "read" figures on other posts come from people refreshing again and again as food fights develop. Just nothing much to add to this perhaps.

    I personally remember covering the IPCC at the UN ten twelve years ago now and seeing the report come out on the differential effect of climate change, and how it was going to disproportionately hit poor tropical countries, and there was a decent chance the warming might even boost US GDP. It was at that point I realized we were gonna get screwed. No incentive for the US, or Europe even, to really move on this issue.  And then the heartbreak - one less asshole or asshole-ess (yeah, looking at you Sandra Day) on the Supreme Court in 2000 and we'd be living in a very different world, Gore and all.

    Now, we'll be fine. Disaster mitigation will be a great new industry and 'growth driver'. ooh yea. We'll all just watch from afar as millions upon millions of poor south Asians and Africans die. And we'll sigh, shrug, make sure those borders are sealed shut real good, and change the channel.

     


    by Obey on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 10:36pm

    Thanks for some perspective, Obey.  I do get that government isn't going to help until we push hard; it sorta looks like the young people will be at the forefront.  No MSM coverage of the events in Washington the past few days.  Guess people are stuck on Fox climate change denial.  McKibben said the HOuse just passed a sense of the House vote to claim the science is bogus. 

    When the water is lapping at the steps of the Capitol they'll blame...overflowing toilets?

    But no; not much attention is paid to the island residents around the globe who have already been forced to flee their homes and head inland.  Inconvenient Truth.  Lots of that around. 

    In an odd way, I appreciate your cynicism on the subject, Obe.  Kinda mirrors my own, but yours is a bit more adult.   ;o)  


    by we are stardust on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 11:01pm

    Oh.  Plus I've been watching a PBS special on John Muir, and the 32,000,000 acres of land Teddy Roosevelt put into protected status.  We used to be able to do things like that. 


    by we are stardust on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 11:13pm

    I'd say it's more hopeful than this, and this is the field I primarily work in.

    The world will get there, Republicans be damned. China's moving fast, the technology is zooming, and the economics are all lined up. Believe what you want, but at this point, the GOP is of secondary importance.

    Thing is, I've learned it's one of the worst issues to debate on the blogs - brings out the Clearthinker and doomsday brigades. It's like a whole new world of Civil War. 

    But thanks for the video! Good for people to watch.


    by quinn esq on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 11:31pm

    I've seen you more glum in the past on this, Q. Like when you were laying out how the regulatory environment and incentives and systemic blocks were hampering any movement on this in the US. Anything change there...?


    by Obey on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 11:38pm

    No surprising shifts in the US, it's just been encouraging that certain trends have continued, strengthened even. For one, technologically, the focus upon and investment in EV batteries is producing major cost declines. I was always on the side of the more aggressive rates of cost-decline, but according to Deutsche Bank - amongst others - battery prices have fallen over the last 1-2 years to where a lot of major firms thought they'd be in 2020.

    This is as big a deal as it gets, in terms of global GHGs. What we've been licking our chops for is the day when the first car-makers announce that the hybrid-regular car price premium has fallen almost to nothing (which you already see in some models), but then, when they announce that the PLUG-IN premium over the pure hybrid also disappears. Which is what a Toyota VP now says it's targeting by 2015. Because while it's electronics driving and enabling the change, it's electricity that is the world-changer in this. If I can run 2-4,000 cars by erecting a single wind-turbine, the pull for change - led by drivers - becomes enormous.

    The other hopeful things are perverse ones. The revelations around natural gas fracking, for instance. [With Pro Publica, followed by the NYT, doing a monster job there.} Obviously, Japan, BP, a return to high oil prices, etc. These things - terrible in themselves - keep the dirty energy guys and the anti-CO2 freaks from having any saviour, any "go to guy" that they can channel all the funds to.

    And back in Manitoba, we got our first families transitioning entirely off fossil fuels, in terms of meeting their 3 core energy needs - electricity, gasoline and heating. Which is pretty sweet, when our immediate neighbours often emit 30-40 tonnes a year, per home, from those end uses. 

    All we need now is for solar to keep dropping. After that it's just a question of whether we want the societal conversion to be a longer harder slog than it's been, or whether we just want to declare victory, and then everyone make this thing as positive a social consensus and economic change as we saw when extending some of these fuels to the populace in the first place.


    by quinn esq on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:36pm

    I watched this Nova last night and was a little encouraged, though Stuart Brand still can convince me on nuclear.  They addressed efficiency, too, and ways to quit losing so much power in production and delivery.  Anyhoo, you can watch online...

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/power-surge.html


    by we are stardust on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:58pm

    Quinn, you and Obey might like this washingtonsblog piece on energy returns on investment and efficiency, too; cool charts, too.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 7:51am

    Thanks. Interesting on all the energy lost in transmission.

    I spent a few months in Lithuania in '91, shortly after the wall fell, and their economy still was quasi-stalinist. They had 'central heating' in winter, which meant there was a central furnace ... for the whole city of Vilnius, with heated water piped under roads to all residential and commercial buildings around the city. And the pipes ... leaked. So you'd walk around these streets where the ground was warm and ... smoking. Of course not much heat actually made it to your house. And during that Russian winter, you were lucky if you had 12 degrees celsius - 50 degrees fahrenheit - indoors. Thank God for vodka...


    by Obey on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 11:53am

    Is there anywhere on this planet you haven't lived?  (typed 'loved' first; almost left it) ;o)

    Yes: Wodka good.  Veddy good.

    Jennifer Granholm was on Ratigan this morning (that will be $3.99 for hunting the link), leading a whole 50-sate project to plug green manufacturing, and get Congress to actually endorse an energy/jobs strategy (other than Dick Cheney's).  She and Ratigan claim we lose 65% of of our energy...Japan, he says, runs at 90% efficiency.  Ooops.

    The Nova program was interesting, even the nuke segment.  Westinghouse building plants with few moving parts and standardized, no electricity for cooling water in case of potential meltdown. Still disposal troubles...but wait!  A guy is working on an efficiency to allow the fuel rods to sorta burn out all their radioactivity. 

    Another guy building prototypes of CO2 recapture that could be used in cities, maybe trucks driving around sucking in the poisons.  Anyway, interesting.  But maybe too late for US, good for some other generations in any event.   ;o)

    'Course by then humans may be living on other planets in galaxies far, far awaaaaaaaaay....


    by we are stardust on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:08pm

    Thanks Q. Nice to see some momentum in the right direction.


    by Obey on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 11:38am

    I'm not sure who you thinks believes that the GOP is all that's standing in the way of our taking this threat seriously and acting upon it; maybe one comment, and Herrtsgard or Amy mentioning the EPA cuts and all, but that was the deal they all made.

    And yuo; I acknowledged China is leading in clean energy production, and that also others, and by that I kinda meant 'Quinn' would know more. 

    Don't know about 'debate' on the issue, but it sure bums me out that David Dayen's piece has gotten a total of 14 comments on the FDL front page.

    I worry about food and water scarcity, possibly because the SW has been dry and windy for too long.  Need some good dreams, maybe.  G' night, and thanks for some hope.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 04/19/2011 - 12:07am

    The world will get there,…

    …about 50 years too late.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 04/19/2011 - 8:40am

    Latest Comments