$60 Trillion Trouble

[Justin Spencer]

Many reasons why that fantasy is not going to happen anytime soon. First is very evident, that as energy prices are forced up, extracting fossil fuels using more expensive methods (like oil sands) becomes economically viable, especially compared to the highly subsidized "green" sources. Another would be that forcing higher energy costs on ourselves through govt regulations, restrictions, etc will further erode our economy in many ways, like continued job losses to countries that are not anti-business, less money for consumers to spend, degraded quality of life, etc.

No doubt it would degrade our quality of life as we would all have to tighten our belts a bit, not travel as much, have a garden in our backyard, etc. (much like my grandparents and great grandparents lived). By doing this we would be helping to preserve the quality of life for future generations, but most can't think in advance so we will continue to kick the can down the road and let our kids and grandkids deal with the consequences.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I hate to keep beating the drum, but NG is below 50 cents in parts of OK and about $1.70 in Springfield. Factor in that it's abundant here, gives off less CO2 and doesn't have to be refined, only needs some smell added. If that isn't enough factor in depriving the Middle East with excess money to fuel terrorism, That the jobs would probably balance out if coal takes a hit. the miners can work in the gas fields. Tell me why we're hell bent on producing electric cars that run on foreign batteries and use electricity that burns more CO2 producing coal then NG? These cars are the ultimate ostrich idea. Head in sand and ignore the pollution from the fuel that drives them. They might be a great idea if we had more nuclear produced electricity.

Mans problem is that he has entered into an unnatural evolving that the earth wasn't designed for and we don't know how to bridge the gap.

[gotmuddy]

ng is great but requires a infrastructure we dont have.

Justin, the quality of your business would take a nose dive off the face of the planet if what you wished for came true. btw, I need two 'yaks for a saturday float

[Old plug]

That is right got muddy as pertains to natural disasters. Then we can help those things along. Then you have plain human nature a rolling disaster. Wars and more wars since the days of the cave man. And they keep getting bigger and more destructive.

[Justin Spencer]

ng is great but requires a infrastructure we dont have.

Justin, the quality of your business would take a nose dive off the face of the planet if what you wished for came true. btw, I need two 'yaks for a saturday float

I know it would (unless high speed rail stops at the campground), and I'm out of Kayaks for the 3rd and the 10th, we can do it on a Sunday though.

[Wayne SW/MO]

ng is great but requires a infrastructure we dont have.

???? We have it just about everywhere so what don't we have? It's coming to power plants burning coal that are economically feasible to convert. Those that aren't will likely shut down. As far as vehicle use goes, we're in better shape there then we are with gasoline. The only real down side is conversion and the government would probably have to help there. The problem is that gasoline would go up and the refiners would fight the conversion tooth and nail.

[Al Agnew]

Man, it's hard to not argue all this again...SOOO much to refute. But I ain't doing it.

[gotmuddy]

???? We have it just about everywhere so what don't we have? It's coming to power plants burning coal that are economically feasible to convert. Those that aren't will likely shut down. As far as vehicle use goes, we're in better shape there then we are with gasoline. The only real down side is conversion and the government would probably have to help there. The problem is that gasoline would go up and the refiners would fight the conversion tooth and nail.

we would require huge pipelines which can certainly be built but existing pipelines would never carry enough fuel for a town.

[jeb]

???? We have it just about everywhere so what don't we have? It's coming to power plants burning coal that are economically feasible to convert. Those that aren't will likely shut down. As far as vehicle use goes, we're in better shape there then we are with gasoline. The only real down side is conversion and the government would probably have to help there. The problem is that gasoline would go up and the refiners would fight the conversion tooth and nail.

Agreed. I think NG is a FAR better solution than any of the hugely non-profitable "green" sources. But you're not only fighing the oil/gas industry, you're also fighting the echo-freaks. They won't hear of a source of energy that burns fossil fuels. They'd rather "go for broke" and run our economy into even worse conditions than give up the "dream". Common sense has no place in those realms. It's all about what if's and wouldn't be great's and let's force them to do it, no matter what the cost's. No mention of what makes the most economic sense.

[Tim Smith]

So tell us, what is you are doing to combat this supposed train wreck from happening? This is not a problem, if you buy into the whole religion, where turning off lights in rooms not being used or driving to the store once a month less often is going to help at all. Heck, even the economy killing Koyoto agreement was only predicted to have a miniscual impact, and you know they were even over selling that. This is an uplug from the grid, live in a cave kind of thing. You think anyone is going to go for that? It's all fun and games for the gullible public when it's abstract. "Oh, I heard on the news we're all going to melt and die. We have to do SOMETHING about it!!! Let's blame those evil companies (but not the one giving me a paycheck, of course)!!" But try and tell them you're only going to allow them 2 hours a day of electricity or that the govt now controls their thermostat and how many miles a year they get to drive and see what they say.

I don't see the logic in this argument. Americans are not surrender monkeys. We have made successful inroads into every environmental problem we have tackled so far while improving our standards of living at the same time. Why would global warming be any different?

Every angler should be aware of the huge successes of the Clean Water Act since 1972 and the fact that your favorite fishery probably would not exist today without it.

Our total and per capita solid waste streams have been declining for over a decade now.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/MSWcharacterization_508_053113_fs.pdf

Here in Colorado, the population has increased 19% over the past 10 years while water use has declined 10%, part of a nation-wide trend, even in the West where water resources are often limited.

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2009/world/u-s-water-use-declined-from-2000-to-2005-part-of-growing-trend-usgs-report-finds/

A third of animal populations in North America are increasing rather than decreasing, a trend that goes strongly against the global trend. The same is true of our commercial fisheries.

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/health_of_our_planet/

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/05/docs/2012_sos_rtc.pdf

And that’s just a tiny fraction of what we’ve accomplished.

It is absurd to say we are hopeless in the face of large scale environmental issues, because most of the issues we’ve addressed we’ve actually managed to improve or solve and in the meantime, we’re wealthier, healthier and have better quality of life than we’ve ever had. Certainly I’m enjoying my own life and my kids have vastly better quality of life than I did when I was their age.

Jeb you asked what I do because of global warming. Ok I'll rise to that bait.

1. Over the last 6 years, I planted or helped plant over 20,000 mangrove trees, which traps as much carbon per acre as a rain forest, and which buffers shorelines against rising sea levels and hurricanes.

2. For years, I’ve promoted green shoreline development, keeping shallow water plants and productivity in place rather than replacing it with seawalls that require frequent repair and do not act as carbon sinks.

3. For my last car I chose something that makes 32 miles per gallon rather than the 18 mpg of the truck I had been running.

4. I use a programmable thermostat and keep the max and minimum temperatures at 60 and 80 in the winter and summer. Most of the time, there’s no heating or cooling on at all in my house.

5. I try to buy locally and I raise some of my own food in the summer through gardening and laying hens. We put up 300 pounds of food last year and we’re just now finishing off what was in the freezer. This year we’ll do about the same.

6. I’ve turned my food waste streams into compost and put those in the soil in my yard rather than the denitrification vats at the waste water plants (incidentally that also pollutes the local river less).

7. I carpool twice a week.

8. I made a conscious decision to try to reduce work-related travel. This year, I’m down to a 15 minute commute, and for a time most of my work was done through telecommuting.

9. I own a relatively small house, big enough for my needs but not so big I’m heating and cooling dead space all year.

10. I used light rail for about 25% of my local transportation needs last year.

11. I walk if the destination is less than a mile and a half away.

12. I buy from green businesses and vote for people who support sustainable energy research and sustainable energy implementation. Most importantly, I’m ready to support effective measures in the future that will move this process forward. It is sheer hysteria to say our lives are over or our quality of life can’t be sustained if we take steps to conserve and reduce our carbon footprint. Nothing in our recent history supports that point.

How all that balances out in terms of carbon footprint, I don’t know. I do know that I've consumed vastly less than I would have consumed if I didn’t care or threw up my hands like a surrender monkey.

...and your points about the climate models being incorrect are just as misguided. We've just passed the warmest decade on record and we're well within the confidence intervals of almost every prediction the IPCC has made. The cause and effect for climate is known and we're causing the temps to rise. The only question left to us now is how to handle it.