Citizen's Climate Lobby is a bipartisan organization of regular people trying to get this bill passed. Please check out CCL and write your representative to ask them to sponsor H.R. 763. It's our best shot at lowering green house gasses quickly.
But I don't think that Republicans actually follow their own ideology of minimal state.
Anyway, I think the bill is a good idea (not an American).
Is the other party not allowed to vote for one such bill?
Also, consider that if Democrats gain control of the Senate in 2020, they can pass this easily, and once such a fee-and-dividend scheme is around for a few years, it will likely become very popular with citizens (because of the dividends ) and big business (because of the predictability, compared to regulations/bans/subsidies/political favoritism ), so it won't be easy to get rid of it again. Instead, the battleground will shift, as we currently see in Canada, to "how fast do we increase the price per ton?" and "which industries get special treatment?".
Yes, they can, which should really get people thinking if they don’t. Republicans don’t care about this stuff and readily admit it, but Democrats seem to only care a lot if they don’t have power to do anything. Once they are in control, this kind of heavy impact bills don’t get passed either, and best we get is something like plastic straw ban.
But if externalities taxes + dividends are politically expedient then so be it. It sure beats never regulating externalities.
Since getting downvoted, maybe people don't know Trump's relationship with climate change:
Edit: I am getting downvoted for saying that...and really don't know why. If downvoters could explain, I'll be much obliged. Thanks.
The idea of 3 branches of government, supposed to put checks and balances on the democratic system is also a ruse. The President has the executive power to do almost whatever he wants. Never in the history of USA, any president has ever been criminally prosecuted, despite a long laundry list of atrocities conducted, nationally and internationally - since its existence. Congress will often blindly side with their party's elected President to pass or block any legislation, Even if overwhelmingly majority of the people of the country wants legislation it will either not get passed - or get heavily diluted by lobbying. The revolving door between private industry and government is a huge deal and perfectly legal which results in absurd things like Oil industry executives being in charge of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA).
The Judiciary Branch is also heavily politicized and partisan. Which is truer now than at any time in its history and will often side alone party line and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
This is, of course, an overly simplified version of reality. But don't call USA Democracy, its anything but.
IMO Corporatocracy is the closes type of US political system. This has been the case for a very very long time.
Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Harrison, R.B. Hayes, and J.Q. Adams.
Adams was elected by the House after an electoral tie.
> As is the case with the current president and some past presidents.
Climate change progress, like the catalytic converter, will be 1% innovation and 99% legislation. If you care about this problem please vote. Voting is arguably the most important action you can take.
Democracy does not start with a vote. That’s just a step in a large process.
Deniers and their ilk will talk about nothing but personal failings, not systematic approaches. That’s a rhetorical strategy they are comfortable with and where they will always be able to win (since society is currently structured in a way that makes it very hard to reduce your footprint).
People might think that them personally doing something might solve the problem, which couldn’t be further from the truth. People might think that since they did something they don’t have to do anything more.
Focusing on personal responsibility is the completely wrong approach. This needs taxes, this needs bans, this needs huge political changes. There is no alternative. There is nothing you can personally do to solve this when those things don’t happen.
Being a loser with no money and/or friends, possessions, status, whatever, will affect your ability to influence greatly.
I find a lot of activist types are afraid of wealth or status, which usually translates to them having none. Unwashed, bearded folks are an anti-example. We need well-adjusted, respectable, active, socially able members of society setting an example.
Once the cool kids go green, everyone will. Make it cool, make it have status, make it hip. Think Tesla.
IMO technology is very rapidly evolving which will drastically reduce emissions with very little negative trade-offs, and in fact, do so in an economically competitive fashion.
The EV cars don’t just emit nothing, they are also better cars in almost every respect. The seaweed cows don’t just not fart methane, they grow fatter for less feed. The solar power isn’t just green, it’s cheaper and safer per GWh, and makes good use of fallow land while promoting biodiversity,... etc.
There are so many way to handle global warming issue, and yes individual contribution does matter, but the only way to move the needle in any meaningful way has to come from the top of the government and real actual meaningful policy and its implementation in a reasonable time.
That is going to be very tough to do in the majority of the world government.
The problem of global warming is not a technical problem or a problem that is not solvable or daunting. It's a Human problem, a combination of greed, complacency, and the daunting task of making massive lifestyle and business change all across the world to come into agreement and work together and make massive compromise.
The chances of this happening is zero.
There will be changes, and people should be lauded for their effort, but its too little too late.
Reminds me of one of my favorite scene from "The Newsroom" TV Series. Maybe a bit too drammatic, but the gist is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyULP9rk-iM
Some people say they can taste the difference in beef between grass fed and corn fed. What about seaweed fed? If the beef is not as palatable, steak houses won't want to buy it.
I'm not saying that it's not something worth pursuing, but it's not a quick, simple, risk-free, or inexpensive conversion.
(edit: clarify that my response is addressing the seaweed part of parent's post)
[¹] : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20711498
The average American has a carbon footprint that can be offset with a $20 per month subscription. We need more money to flow into fighting climate change!
I personally use Project Wren to offset my carbon footprint specifically through a tree planting projects!
>The average American has a carbon footprint that can be offset with a $20 per month subscription
You have a source on that?
Edit: for the average american footprint, you can easily find the stat that the US emitted 5.268 GtCO2 in 2018. There are 327.16 million people in the US. From that I get more like 16 tons/year per person, so 20 is out of date. Of course, we have to get to zero with sequestration on top of that.
Cheaper than the Iraq war....
Mass production is a thing that brings costs down, so some of the carbon offset programs could take advantage of similar effects.
You're definitely right that some of these projects aren't infinitely scalable though. There are only so many gas stoves used in northern Uganda to be replaced..
For example, you could "offset" the effect of buying a daily latte on your household budget by just continuing to buy them while your partner promises to skip their own daily latte. Despite the offset, your bank balance would be lower than if you had just stopped buying them.
There is no known way to remove carbon at a scale that would make a difference and a cost people would accept. As almost all carbon from extracted fossil fuels is now in the atmosphere and ocean, it would amount to running our fossil fuel extraction in reverse.
> Briquettes replace wood burning, a heavy polluting fuel source
> This initative is projected to provide 4,000 refugee households with clean briquettes, saving over 16,000 tons of emissions annually.
Let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculation. 16K ton per 4K refugees means 4t per person per year. I couldn't find data on briquettes efficiency vs wood but let's be generous and say it's twice as efficient. Then the emission before the reduction would be 8t per person per year.
So they are telling me that an average Uganda refugee, from cooking alone, emits almost as much as an average Brit 
edit: what am I missing?
What happens, for example, if refugees decide to keep using wood as well as the free briquettes? It could result in higher emissions (Jevons paradox).
My guess is this is still highly optimistic, but the project claims are 50% emissions reduction from cooking, which is at least possible.
I suspect it’s more like the former, but I also wonder.
"The findings are in line with those of European scientists at the Copernicus Climate Change Service, who said earlier this month that July was 0.07 degree Fahrenheit higher than three years ago. Copernicus, NOAA and other agencies around the world use different sets of temperature data in their calculations. NOAA’s dates to 1880."
For what we would consider modern, direct methodologies, about 150 years. Think mid- to late 1800's.
You may find this information useful.
For example, here's a list of known climatic forcing events:
They help us verify models, and see what sort changes one can expect when disruptions to the system happen.
To answer your specific question:
It's the rate of change that's the problem. What used to take thousands of years is now taking decades. If that doesn't seem like a big deal, think of the difference between stopping a car with normal braking action vs. crashing in to a brick wall. In both cases, the car changes its velocity by the same amount. It's the rate of change that causes the difference in trauma levels.
Of course, I'm not saying I want to be here for a comet strike! But, we shouldn't pretend it's the earth's health we are concerned about, since the earth apparently can weather much, much worse than anything we can throw at it. It is our own human civilization we are worried about. And according to the climate models I see thrown around we have a century or so of slowly creeping sea levels to avoid. That seems pretty doable given all the things we humans have done in the past couple decades alone.
Earth did, after millions of years and a mass extinction. I'd rather not have that happen to the biosphere if it is something we can control.
Some food for thought: Earth is already well on the backside of how much longer it will be able to support life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth for more details) Stopping damage now is the better option that thinking "Eh, things will recover in geologic time." Geologic time is running out.
tl;dr- Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. Solar output increases by ~1% every 110 million years. There are ~500 million years left before long-term processes make Earth a hostile place for life.
https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_s... will get you started.
We started joking that "winter wants to spend summer holiday with us". Romania
It looks like July was actually a little cooler for us this year.
Here is a good Youtube channel for reference: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtZdUYUZr493AUh_EInBYxQ
I was kind of hoping others might look, report how their July was. (I expect some hot European temperatures, not sure about the rest of the world.)
We have to make it easy to grasp so we come up with things like “Global warming” or “climate change” for the general public. Which maybe indicates that the change is in a particular direction.
But the climate is a system that can be influenced by many factors. I think what you should be worried about is repeated unseasonal weather. Too cool may be just as bad as too hot.
If you have one sensor, you can't measure an average. Add a sensor on the other size and you have a better chance of measuring an average but still a lot of room for error.
Now add 100 more. If they are evenly distribute over the surface of the sphere you're likely to get a reasonable approximation of average.
If, however, all those sensors are cluster around a single pole, then you effectively get accurate of measurement comparable to when you only had a single sensor.
With this all in mind how are the world's sensors whose data is the basis of this article arranged on Planet Earth and do we know how much that deviates from actual average temperature?
The reason I pose this because the majority of people live in places with temperatures agreeable to the human body and many of the humanities sensors will be measuring these places but won't include what's happening in all the other areas of the world that are generally outside that livable range.
Just something to think about when we talk about global averages.
Note that "surface" is both land and ocean. It is used as opposed to satellite.
On the other hand, while you were thinking about global averages, how come you didn't discover WMO's database? I think it is relatively easy to discover if you try just a bit.
Hard to make sense of what's coming out of NOAA these days...
So website that is an vitriol-ridden ad hominem attack discredits his usage of source news articles, data analysis, graphs, & logic? None of his arguments are addressed...
Then, he goes to lower troposphere temperatures, but again this varies from the surface temperature for well known reasons.
In conclusion, he didn't make any actual "arguments" at all.
It is so much easier to make up lies than it is to disprove them that at some point, yes, you do have to rely on people's reputation before you start investing huge effort into disproving their statements.
So yes, if you can easily show someone is a crackpot, liar or heavily motivated by a bias that is likely to make them unreliable, prove that and move on.
There was a submission ~3 months ago regarding this phenomenon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012565
I’m certain there’s a submarine agenda behind most of these “hottest month EVAR” stories. /methinks it’d be much more productive to focus on making human society more resilient, than to focus on a single variable (“carbon”).
I followed /u/RickJWagner’s comment’s link to accuweather, and saw a story expressing concern about this year’s coming harvest .
Instead of focusing on immediate problems, the NY Times and others fixate on the one variable the experts have been collecting data for, and say “see this confirms the one-variable model is right!”
>> [...] Noam Chomsky has a characteristically dry and precise version of the story: “Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that’s where the light is. It has no other choice.”
>> So historians, mystics, scientists and drunks have something in common: they all tend to seek the truth where the process of seeking is easy, rather than where truth is.
The problems of a fragile climate are always with us.
If not, maybe, just maybe, the climate scientist are right and the ever increasing CO2 is the culprit. Maybe.
And this isn't even getting close to the IPCC report. It's not even in the same league.
I'm not sure you even know what the IPCC is, who is involved and what its results are, am I right?