Good, thoughtful post. I think what you've perhaps failed to run across in your AGW/CC readings is that any coming temperature rise is both unknown in magnitude within a fairly wide range, and modulated by natural variability.
I guess the two points I'd make about what you've written are:
- A "green new deal" (or any other US action) isn't going to do a thing to address the major sources of CO2 generation going forward - China, India, and other rising third world powers. China and India both have large commitments to coal power.
- There should be more investment in energy research. Next generation nuclear should be given priority. Current renewable solutions are too expensive over time (20-25 year livespan, versus 40-60 years for gas/nuclear), and inherently unreliable. Nuclear can produce electricity with retail prices in the neighborhood of five cents per KWH.
The only real solution in the long term is to develop clean technologies that are more cost effective than dirty technologies. The LED light bulb is a good example of how that can work...
Yeah, we don't know exactly what's going to hit us. But we know the IPCC has consistently undershot the mark. We know that many well respected scientists have identified feedback loops not accounted for in the IPCC's calculations that could make things much, Much worse than the IPCC is laying out. And we know the IPCC is already calling for a World War II level mobilization to completely retool our society.
Hansen's team identified a feedback loop that could see us facing 10 feet of sea level rise or more by as early as 2050. And his finding has been replicated several times. Other teams have identified feedback loops (different ones from those Hansen identified) that could see us hitting 1.5C as early as 2030, instead of in 2040 as the IPCC predicts. Many climate scientists think we're headed for between 4 C and 6 C of warming by 2100, instead of the 2 C - 3 C that the IPCC is predicting.
When we get up into the 4 C to 6 C range, we start to edge into run away feedback loops trigged by the release of sequestered methane from the permafrost that could see us catapulted into a rerun of the Permian extinction.
All of which is to say, we can't afford to be complacent about this anymore. We have to move and we have to move _now_.
With respect to China and India, yeah, they are going to be major sources of CO2. But until the US moves they have little incentive to move on fixing their issues. If the US handles its carbon, then we can reasonably put pressure on them to do the same. Maybe we can offer funding to help. But even best case for national funding is two years for now. And the form a "green new deal" would likely take is funding to help municipalities make the local infrastructure and power grid changes. Well, there's no reason the municipalities have to wait for that funding. They can and should start making the changes now. Every reduction in carbon emissions helps.
Nuclear does need to be part of the mix, but we don't have time to be picky. Nor do we have time to wait for new innovations. We're in the eleventh hour. We need to reduce carbon emissions by hook or by crook anyway we can. It doesn't matter if solar or wind are less than ideal. If they can supplant coal and gas production get them on the grid.
We spend a lot of time thinking about electricity generation, but transportation is just as large a contributor to emissions. Person car and truck transportation makes up about 20% of our total GHG emissions. So infrastructure changes that incentivize dense living, walking, biking and public transit are just as important as reconfiguring the grid. And those things are going to have to happen at the municipal level anyway, that's where those decisions get made.
In the long run we are also going to need clean tech solutions. But we can't afford to wait for them. And we can't keep living the way we are and assume some new technology is going to rescue us. We've done that for nearly four decades, and nothing's appeared. We have the technology to make the needed changes now. And we know what changes we have to make. So lets just do them. Yeah, it means some lifestyle changes. With the right incentives and the right infrastructure, people can make those changes. They've dealt with worse in the past. We can get this done.
I guess the two points I'd make about what you've written are:
- A "green new deal" (or any other US action) isn't going to do a thing to address the major sources of CO2 generation going forward - China, India, and other rising third world powers. China and India both have large commitments to coal power.
- There should be more investment in energy research. Next generation nuclear should be given priority. Current renewable solutions are too expensive over time (20-25 year livespan, versus 40-60 years for gas/nuclear), and inherently unreliable. Nuclear can produce electricity with retail prices in the neighborhood of five cents per KWH.
The only real solution in the long term is to develop clean technologies that are more cost effective than dirty technologies. The LED light bulb is a good example of how that can work...