Rest of the World Begging Trump To Challenge His Fixed Idea on Climate Change
As usual, Americans have their attention on things that differ greatly from those in the rest of the world. Here in the U.S., all eyes are on the transition to the Trump administration. What type of people is he tapping for key cabinet positions, and what does this portend about what’s in store for us re: immigration, civil rights, nuclear weapons, US military aggression, energy, healthcare reform, militarization of the police, repealing Dodd/Frank and taking other steps to deregulate Wall Street, women’s rights, etc.?
Not surprisingly, the other countries of the world, or at least the 193 who signed on to the Paris Accord, see the world through a very different lens, and climate change occupies a large portion of their set of concerns, i.e., the fact that we won’t have a civilization here in 50 – 75 years if we don’t make radical changes right now. In fact, their main interest in U.S. politics at this point is begging president-elect Trump to listen to the world’s scientists and come to understand the critical position the planet is in vis-a-vis global warming.
The truth, pathetic as it may be, is that Donald Trump is both: a) the one and only world leader who believes that climate change is a hoax, and b) the single most important person in the world when it comes to protecting our civilization from catastrophe. Here’s an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that underscored this point.
History may look back at this year and say, “2016 was the last opportunity we had to turn this around, but the people of the most powerful nation on Earth let the media lead them around by the nose, and became so concerned about Hillary Clinton’s email server that they chose to elect a man who would send our society backwards by at least a half a century. At that point, the battle had been lost.”
There is no question in my mind that global warming is the most critical problem that civilization has ever faced. However, if one were depending on the mass media in the U.S. for information, one would never know it.
Trump is concerned about what other people think if he believes that it will affect him. Thus, as the result of pressure from the world’s leaders, he could change his position on global warming if he thinks that it would be to his advantage to do so.
Considering my age and the life expectancy tables, it appears that I probably will not live for much more than another 20 years. Therefore, it is unlikely that I will be around to see the worst of the problems which global warming is likely to cause. However, those of us who won’t be around to see it should still be concerned because it will affect billions of people and we should not be indifferent to their plight.
Yesterday PBS presented a full two-hour program on nuclear power and also touched upon renewables. The program was very well balanced. It covered the consequences of Chernobyl and Fukushima and the problems of nuclear waste. It also, at last to a minor degree, covered a solution for nuclear waste and other nuclear technologies. It was clear from the program that there are differing opinion about nuclear power, i., it definitely was not one sided unlike a previous program they presented which stated that there was no solution to nuclear waste.
Yes Frank
I agree with your concerns and vision on things
Your concern for Future Generations needs to become standard public policy but now we have taken a Big Step backwards with our leadership.
Where this goes is going to be real interesting – we shall have to See when the Challenge s to Trumpism come from and how strong or effective ! T B D to be determined
@Craig
Of course I don’t share your pessimistic public rhetoric on the critical subject of greenhouse gasses. And why on earth would I – Craig portrays to being a forward thinking realist, while both eyes are focused squarely on the rear view mirror, and being more interested in promoting confusing small T (technology) talk (nothing to do with climate change) to an impressionable US public.
Please stop criticizing the public Craig, educate don’t capitulate.
This is an important point, because greenhouse gasses are a global issue, not a Texas or Nevada or Californian issue. I challenge Craig to sit face to face with a typical family from Chad, Eritrea, Myanmar, Zambia (I have and do still) for example and explain to them “please don’t panic or be concerned by greenhouse gasses destroying your climate – everything is under control – just look around you, even blind Freddy should be able to see that everywhere renewable energy technologies are being scaled up – solar farms are scaling up everyday everywhere – battery storage is nearly ready to take off and will change the world, and of course amazing off shore 5 MW wind turbines are changing the world as we speak. All this nonsense has nothing to do with ‘greenhouse gasses’ but has been the mantra from 2GreenEnergy thru 2016 in response to a global epidemic.
Overall it has been a pathetic response from 2GreenEnergy this year and certainly not one that the impressionable US public should be badgered with incessantly. Craig argues that he is disappointed with the inability of normal ordinary impressionable US people to grasp issues that way he is able to. Well the reason for that is that Craig has failed miserably as a leader and educator who could have done a lot better if he applied himself to the real task at hand and discuss head on the real issue and its technological imperatives, instead of skirting around the fringes. But he hasn’t, and this inadequacy from a global audience perspective has been breathtaking. This is a shame also because from a personal standpoint Craig has a very big heart, is passionate about goodness, and a very important part of a capable citizenry.
However, 2GreenEnergy to my great disappointment has not published one meaningful and forceful analysis on global greenhouse gasses permanent and practical reversal technologies and global implementation strategies this year. And why on earth not?
So back to my mantra (its simply about greenhouse gasses).
Unfortunately most commentators seem to have lost sight of what the actual problem is that we all face which is ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ largely from fossil fuel generation (coal) and internal combustion engines (oil).
This is the issue we must focus on, rather than the incessant background noise about small T technologies that are cool and trendy to discuss for sure, but have zero impact on ‘greenhouse gas emissions’.
There are two separate subjects at play here; the most critical one (greenhouse gas emissions) seems to have been shunted to the background, and that is the issue that will rise up and bite us all most severely within 15 years if it is not fully ameliorated by technological measures that should have already been maturing technologies starting to be rolled out and deployed in an orderly strategy worldwide.
But it is not too late, even though greenhouse gasses have already been responsible for cataclysmic damage everywhere (worse in some places than others).
We cannot turn back time though, and it’s counterproductive to keep looking in the rear view mirror going forward.
The focus must now be as a global collective of nations, to agree to the development of new age energy dense generation and distribution technologies and the implementation of orderly strategies to either replace or shutdown EVERY existing fossil fuel generation plant PLUS an international mandate that internal combustion engines be no longer manufactured globally by 1/1/2030.
This simply expressed international reforms compact will guarantee a reversal of greenhouse gas emissions permanently and quickly.
The people (individuals and corporations) globally that can make this happen are already laying the ground-work for what’s said above to happen. And of course it WILL happen – because it MUST happen. Failure is not an option.
Interestingly (for most readers I suspect) is that the greenhouse gasses crisis is such a monumental one, that the solutions will flow from the global commercial technology market sector, not the global political establishment. The magnitude of this global problem is now recognised as simply too big for mere political mastery and management to solve alone.
The take away in all this might be: The appropriate technological solutions (replace fossil fuel generation – coal) and (replace internal combustion engines – oil) will be forthcoming within 25 years and commence being deployed globally.
This inevitable conclusion also presents some astonishing commercial opportunities for one or more nations to mobilise their technological corporate and scientific bedrock capabilities to take the lead on climate change reversal generation and power distribution technologies, that must of course also take account of the enormous energy growth demands in the near future for developing nations.
An apt term I coined a long time ago is “the new age global energy imperative for all people” and if I was a national leader (even a new appointee) looking for a nation building project to rock the world and get the nation back on track – greenhouse gasses elimination science and technologies would be my first choice.
Lawrence Coomber
Craig,
This might come as a shock to you, but the rest of the world leaders are not consumed by a passion for radical action on climate change !
Many of those leaders, will not be leaders in two,five or ten years. Many leaders and governments will be replaced and new policy priorities advanced. Even now most are far more concerned with issues that assist electoral political survival, than climate change
You have read to much into the Paris accord. Like most such accords, the terms are long on symbolism, and short on real commitment. Like most long negotiated agreements, the public has often lost interest by the time the agreement is ratified.
The EU is slowly unraveling. the concept of a unified Europe with an all powerful bureaucracy based in Brussels has lost popularity. Nation after nation is seeking to diminish the power of the EU, while the threat of complete dissolution remains a possibility. Reform and moderation is the EU’s only hope for survival.
Unfortunately, that also applies to many large scale climate change programs and pledges. Paris may have witnessed the zenith of such political support.
The Sydney Morning Herald is a grand old publication with a high standard of journalism, but a distinct elitist left-wing bias. Like it’s companion paper, the Melbourne based Age, readership and influence has been in sharp decline in recent years.
Sections of the political and media elite are still concern ed with climate change as a priority, but once green politics became heavily infused (and confused) with leftist and extraneous policies, the general public lost interest or actively opposed.
Oh, they might respond to polls with “politically correct” answers, but voting trends will increasingly reflect a shift in priorities.
I know I’ve been warning this for years, but what I predicted is becoming obvious.
IMHO, the answer for the environmental movement is a return to basics. Forget all the expensive, large scale “solutions’ with heavy ideological/political involvement. Ten percent of the population may be very motivated, indeed passionate, but another 20% becomes alienated and the rest just don’t care.
By returning to basics and focusing on Clean (or cleaner) technologies with obvious economic benefits, the sort of benefits even Trump and his supporters can understand, public support can be revived. .
Cease attacking the Oil industry. Instead harness those resources and economic benefits to provide a less traumatic transition. Confrontation benefits no one. Exxon is winning it’s legal battle with various Attorney’s-General, but in the end only consumers and taxpayers will lose from such politically motivated warfare.
The real loser will be positive action on climate change.
The Trump Presidency is not the cause,(nor an aberration) merely a symptom of a much deeper malaise.
To win back interest and general public support, the environmental movement needs to learn from the mistakes of the past, and forget the politics. Instead, strive to rebuild broad based support by concentrating on real. practical projects delivering obvious benefits.
As clean tech economically replaces older technologies, the negative impact of fossils fuels will disappear without disruption.
One contributor to 2 GreenEnery wrote concerning a project by which water could be desalinated by using Solar Power. I was amazed no one but myself found his project of interest or sufficient merit to comment.
This technology has huge potential, not only on coastal sites, but inland for recovery of drainage, waste or make saline artesian aquifers viable. In addition,H2 production etc can be explored.
This technology has the potential to positively affect millions of lives while enriching the environment, yet it was almost totally ignored in favour of futile arguments about the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency.
That’s the real reason why Joe Public sees climate change as just another political fad. Climate Change has become caught up with confusing ideologies and largely irrelevant political issues. The only thing Joe Public believes is he is being asked to pay for the economic burden.
The difference in approaches is obvious, when Joe Public is confronted by an ardent green advocate ranting on about how Joe Public and Oil companies are destroying the planet, his immediate response will be to ask the advocate what fuel the advocate uses in his car !
On the other hand, when Joe Public is informed of how his water supply will improve and become cheaper, he’s willing to listen. Joe Public is willing to accept it’s a good thing if as an added bonus. the Clean Tech also helps reduce the effects of climate change. .
Once the pressure is removed, most people are happy to be doing “the right thing”.
The disadvantages of Solar power being intermittent, become irrelevant in the case of a desalination plant, since “power on demand ” isn’t a major issue.
The success of this technology should enhances the positive image for all alternate energy. Goodwill is easier to create from positive experience than by combative political advocacy or coercion.
(* I should add the disclaimer that I’m completing due diligence on Solar Desalination technology for investment purposes.)
@Marcopolo
Solar desalination has been around forever. I remember using it very effectively as a boy scout on survival training in the 50’s.
And Marcopolo is correct about large scale desalination technology being useful. In fact I go even further and predict that it “is” the future.
He omits to ponder that even wars will spring up over water security issues in the future (or at least cross border skirmishes). I have witnessed first-hand two such skirmishes. (1) Malaysia and Singapore (Malaysia supplies water to Singapore by pipeline from Johore Buru) during my service there during the early 70’s, and; (2) China and Hong Kong (China supplies Hong Kong with water from Da Wang reservoir in Shenzhen. My office is in the village Da Wang and I overlook the reservoir when there, so I know a lot about the politics of hostage by water supply.
These are two instances where it is easy to hold hostage one group by another group who have the “key to the water tap”. Is this a new form of chemical warfare in the making, or better explained ‘withholding of chemical- H2O” warfare?
Whatever. But the real big ticket item that Marco Polo avoids discussing is just how energy intensive technology desalination is! There are plants in Australia already that (predictably I add) have become stranded assets because of this point alone, one of them being in my hometown the Gold Coast Queensland.
So yes Marcopolo is heading in the right direction but the corollary must be that “desalination is the perfect technology to deploy and invest in only when accompanied by a “big energy” global generation imperative being worked towards in parallel” which of course also applies to a whole bunch of energy intensive industries that we urgently need to come on line soon.
And surprise surprise, another and more important side benefit to the “big energy” global generation imperative is the permanent reversal of climate change gasses.
I believe that Marcopolo knows about this axiomatic connection well, but even he probably lacks a committed objectivity to this debate because of his declared vested interest in the subject. I don’t have any vested interests to preserve whatsoever though.
Lawrence Coomber