14 comments on New Jersey's Global Warming Response Act Bill Signing
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
My goodness, this is truly amazing. We really need a 90% reduction to retain a healthy biosphere, but this step is in isolation and reductions will become increasingly easier as others join in and economies of scale and bodies of knowledge are achieved. Way to go! But remember that air travel will account for 50% of emmissions by 2030 if we are not careful, and targets today do not include that because there is no international agreement on how to deal with them. Even tho its as simple as working out the CO2, multiplying it by the additional effect of things like contrails and attributing 50% to the start and 50% to the destination country, or by dividing it by the number of people from the location who are using the air.
For more about the 90% target (which must include aviation), why we need it and how to get there, read Heat by George Monbiot ISBN 9780141026626. It is a fascinating account about how many things will not get us there, but that there are ways. In my mind, it plays down the potential benefits of a new generation of airships and possibly more efficient ocean passenger transport (planes are the hardest thing to deal with, without not flying) and plays down the role of vegetarianism (meat takes up about 7x more land than vegetable food, leaving more space for carbon sinks and bio-fuel), but is the most useful and green movement critical account I've seen yet.
"Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there." (Aldous Huxley "Island" 1962, p38)
According to Hubbert Linearization, by 2050, when New Jersey is supposed to have 80% less greenhouse gas emissions, there won't be any oil left to create greenhouse gas emissions.
A plan like this that makes no mention of the permanent fuel shortage is a silly plan that will be abandoned.
Bm: It is my understanding that the plan is to generate the greenhouse gas emissions from coal in 2050.
Sure, but even the cheap coal is gone already. Any transition from oil to coal is likely to trigger "peak coal" in our lifetimes. By 2050 there won't be any choice but to emit 80% less - all fossil fuels will be largely gone by then.
Global warming is a serious problem, and it's great that the media and government are finally talking about it. But they aren't taking it seriously enough. And the taboo against discussing overpopulation and peak fuels remains firmly in place.
bmmcnett,
ther's a lot of cheap coal of excellent quality in Wyoming, and a whole lot of lignite in Texas and other states thats 40% water with all kinds of heavy metal pollutants. If you're talking about fairly clean burning cheap coal near the eastern centers of population, or in England ,you are definitely right.
I advocate what the Demicans and Republocrats would consider unthinkable. We need to tell the power companies that all coal must be phased out in 10 years, so stop building coal plants and focus on another base load generation like nuclear, while building wind and solar as fast as possible. Same way with refineries. Tell them they are shutting down in 10 years, but they can have as much of the wind, tidal, geothermal and solar business that they can build. Take all the auto mechanics and long haul truckers and retrain them for free as wind turbine manufacturers and mechanics, solar installers and workers in solar plants, railroaders and short haul truckers with freight from Alan's electric railroad plan.
If people have a sense of purpose and a personal plan they will become excited and make all kinds of willing sacrifices. There was a real sense of purpose when I was a kid and everyone was working to put a man on the moon. And with real leaders, not deciders, we can have a sense of purpose again. Bob Ebersole
Unfortunately Bob you are right. Coal is very dirty and is the only scalable replacement for oil in the decades to come.
I agree that we should enact a moratorium on coal but I think we can do no such thing, because it is cheap and scalable. Pro-coal people can offer cheap energy in the short term, and politically nothing can counteract that.
You and Alan are right that electric trains are required for shipping in the medium term. I think likewise I'm right that scooters are required for personal transportation in the medium term.
Bryan
Thanks Phil, I agree that this is a piece of landmark piece of legislation. It will all be in the execution, but now at least they are on the record for having stated a policy goal in law. This can eventually affect large areas of public policy from transportation to local land use to utility regulations.
I read Heat and frankly I think we could easily give up about 50-80% of air travel as completely non-essential. Reducing air travel and future investment in air travel infrastructure would be very easy low hanging fruit to reduce carbon emissions. And Air Travel is highly interconnected to other carbon intensive and environmentally destructive activities so there would be nice downstream impacts as well.
It is important to remember that Monbiot does not have a 90% reduction for everyone. He gave a nice talk recently here calling for zero emissions by 2030. Some of his ideas are similar to those found here, others not.
Chris