The recent TIME article on "How to Win the War on Global Warming", may not offer viable solutions for future energy demands of the U.S... but, it does outline a "world economic war on the third world".
TIME states: No one yet has a comprehensive plan for how we could do so again, but everyone agrees on what the biggest parts of the plan would be. Here's our blueprint for how America can fight—and win—the war on global warming...
Summarized by Haase -
Tax billion$ in carbon energy sources we "do not like", to invest in potentially higher carbon producing sources that "appear to be" greener
-
Invest billions to rehash old ideas that failed for decades under grants and subsides with "hope" of yield ing better results
-
Continue to divert billions in wind, solar and bio-energy with "hope" that they become viable enough in the next 10 years to "catch up" with our massive demands
From TIME
U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side. ...the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer with vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen—someday... taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all.
Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth.
Think I'm Kidding? Read the article here
TIME suggests: devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, (What kind of vague langue is this?)
TIME - The most important part of a blueprint to contain climate change is to put a charge on carbon emissions. "Cap and trade changes everything," says Krupp.
Soooo wrong their not even "right".
FACT - Krupp. may be fatality flawed in the amount of financial pain and human suffering this carbon market trading will put onto the world. What good for industrialized nations will reign a "holocaust" on the third world. - Haase
TIME Points out - Dramatic reductions in U.S. emissions won't bring the intended environmental benefits if emissions by other countries increase at the same time. The problem is, if we don't clean up our own mess because developing giants don't have to, what's the incentive for them to clean up theirs? "If we don't act, China and India will simply hide behind America's skirts of inactions and take no steps of their own," says Senator John Warner of Virginia.
FACT - The third world has NO means or incentive to follow U.S. actions and we are a decade away from a coherent dialogue.
In fact, carbonizing rapidly industrializing economies may indeed lead to a war...
Particularly when the painful cuts made by North America, Western Europe and a handful of other OECD economies are dwarfed by the emission trail spewing from China and the rest of the developing world.
As OECD countries begin to tax their own economies by charging growing fees on CO2 emissions, their their trading partners will diminish rapidly.... killing the GDP of those countries whose supply chains depend on OECD countries
FACT: Developing World - Principal Source of Emissions (Source )
Total global emissions have risen by a cumulative 25% since the beginning of the decade. But only a small fraction of those emissions came from North America, Western Europe and OECD economies. In fact, emissions in the most advanced economies of the world have grown by a paltry 5%, one-tenth the 50% increase seen of the developing world.
Over the last seven years, China and other developing nations consist of 90% of Emissions Growth...So great has the recent rise in emissions growth in the developing world been that as of 2005, it surpassed the OECD in total emissions at a massive 2,500 million metric tonnes (mmt) or nearly 55% of global emissions.
Within a decade they will account for more than two-thirds.
How much will it squeeze the U.S. Economy?
TIME - 2% of the GDP for a few years...
It's true that there will be costs associated with any carbon-pricing plan; ending climate change won't be free. "You want a clean environment, you have to pay for it," says Peter Fusaro, founder of the green investment group.
All based on a flawed hope that;...carbon cap with teeth will boost electricity and gas prices in the short term, before carbon-free alternatives can be scaled to market, and that will hurt those already struggling to heat their homes and fill their tanks.
TIME - Offering suggestions that are no better than my Grandmas; America has long been astoundingly wasteful about energy use, but for years, that mattered little because power and fuel were so cheap. "Until recently, using more energy was a way to get more productive," says Kevin Surace, of a green building company. "That doesn't change until energy costs go substantially up."
Think of simple, costless changes like turning off the lights in offices at night—that's "money on the table," Efficiency standards could be put in place for household appliances and lighting as well.
And I would love to see the spreadsheet that depicts this;...in the words of efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. MGI says annual industry-wide investments of $170 billion per year in efficiency improvements like green buildings and higher-mileage cars could yield an additional $900 billion per year in savings by 2020.
TIME - Well it's a crap shoot... go for it!;
But the good news is that there are already thousands of very smart people working on alternative energy...buzzing that "the biggest bubbling is happening in California,"
Adding that:
That's where government can help...whip hand to the process. A firm carbon price will accelerate creativity by making alternatives that much more economical.
TIME - Pointing out that
"There's no shortage of ways to spend whatever money is made available." Solar, Wind power, tidal power, geothermal energy and even nuclear fusion—any of which could take off with enough luck and money.
Suggesting that; Washington should flood the zone with research funding, and refrain from trying to pick a winner... (yikes)
All spending BILLIONS more rehashing a short sighted, misguided future driven by venture capitalist; "developing ways to make better biofuels out of feedstocks like wood chips"???
Finally they suggest more "micropolicies, like tax credits," to further nickel and dime us on feed small misguided projects that offer no ROI.
Summary if we took all the steps outlined by TIME here:
● national cap-and-trade system; to break the economy of third world nations
● tougher energy-efficiency mandates; should be real easy if we throw money at problems
● investments billions more in new public and private green technologies; without strategic investment return projections
● absorbing perhaps 2% to 3% of gdp a year for some time; to force further decline of world economy
Going green: What could be redder... After formally insulting our nation and taxpayers by calling America a "loser" in the global warming fight; Kristin Modesto, hails "California" as the "leader" with Schwarzenegger, leading the way on global warming... and yes, she is from California.
What happened to one nation under GOD?
Dear TIME, we have strong a comprehensive plan and very few would agree with yours (unless they are carbon market investors)..
Why wage "war" when we can enjoy and prosper from the obvious opportunities in world energy and trading?
This should NEVER be a war effort, but a business plan within global partnerships with ALL.
For over three decades the science and prevention of "global warming" have not changed – but political and media reaction to it has.
I did love the image by Fredrik Brodén in the headlines... very nice TIME;
Now spend more effort on content. - Haase
If carbon-induced global warming is "Eco-Reactivist's" primary concern then, more food based biofuels will continue to make it worse by clearing agricultural land and rainforests, which absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide.