Robert Samuelson: Global Warming Simplicities

Robert Samuelson on global warming. There's plenty to talk about here, but my internet connection is less than perfect at the moment, so I am going to leave this one (and the others today) to comments:

Global Warming Simplicities, by Robert J. Samuelson, Commentary, Washington Post: We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. A recent Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson on how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it.

If you missed Newsweek's story, here's the gist. A "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." This "denial machine" has obstructed action against global warming and is still "running at full throttle." The story's thrust: Discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. ...

The global-warming debate's great unmentionable is this: We lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb the growth of emissions.

Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. Using present policies, it projected that emissions of carbon dioxide ... would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions that is based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass energy; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear energy. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.

Even the fantasy would be a stretch. In the United States, it would take massive regulations, higher energy taxes or both. Democracies don't easily adopt painful measures in the present to avert possible future problems. ...

One way or another, our assaults against global warming are likely to be symbolic, ineffective or both. But if we succeed in cutting emissions substantially, savings would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. ...

Against these real-world pressures, Newsweek's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. ... The alleged cabal's influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic; they've treated global warming ominously. ... Nor does public opinion seem much swayed. ...

What to do about global warming is a quandary. Certainly, more research and development. Advances in underground storage of carbon dioxide, battery technology (for plug-in hybrid cars), biomass or nuclear power could alter energy economics. To cut oil imports, I support a higher gasoline tax -- $1 to $2 a gallon, introduced gradually -- and higher fuel-economy standards for vehicles. These steps would also temper greenhouse gas emissions. Drilling for more domestic natural gas (a low-emission fuel) would make sense. ...

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: We simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale -- as Newsweek did -- in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.

Comments

[reason]

Interesting coming from Samuelson. I hardly can disagree, except that his pessimism is paralysing - even more so than the denialists.

The global-warming debate's great unmentionable is this: We lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb the growth of emissions.

Perhaps we should be financing the right research (not relying on IP which I think counts against good research by encouraging secrecy). And providing long term incentives for the low hanging fruit. But the international aspect of the problem is of course difficult.

(We could of course just start wars wherever large amounts of fossil fuels are found, GWB has made a start.)-)

[anne]

"We simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale -- as Newsweek did -- in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."

"We simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray [evolution] as a morality tale -- as -------- did -- in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."

"We simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray [going to war in Iraq] as a morality tale -- as -------- did -- in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."

"We simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray [the military occupation of Iraq]-- as -------- did -- in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."

We have here the essense of journalistic cowardice and ignorance and deceit. Imagine my surprise.

[ken melvin]

Hardly the person to ask for an opinion. He's not even very good at forensics.

[lonesome moderate]

Samuelson's assertion that "public opinion does not seem much swayed" appears to be refuted by the same article that he sites, which notes that 39 percent believe that there is still a great deal of disagreement among climate scientists about whether global warming is real (down from 64 percent last year, but still, this is ridiculous).

His point, if I understand him correctly, is that there is no way to keep the planet from heating up by, say, two degrees, and that the struggle will be to keep it from going up by more than that. Therefore, we should avoid saying nasty things about the people who have been trying to decive us, and continue to do so. I don't see the logical connection at all.

[Greg]

A meaningful carbon tax phased in over the medium term will let markets decide how to cut CO2 emmissions. The US economy needs to be reshaped and we need to do it starting 20 years ago.

Samuelson is just giving feel good reasons to wait another 20 years.

The planet will not be able to feed all the people here when crops fail over ever larger areas. Besides massive human deaths, we are entering a human induced mass extinction.

None of the IPCC projections include positive CH4 feedback from ocean hydrates or artic permafrost. This is because we don't have enough info to determine when it will happen. But when it does, then warming will go into overdrive and all our projections will look like wishful thinking.

Be fearful, be very fearful.

[robertdfeinman]

The leaders in Africa held a conference a few months ago on how to best ameliorate the effects of climate change. They can't afford to wait for carbon dioxide levels to be cut.

The difference between them and our own leaders is that they are not in denial. Needless to say they didn't come up with very many viable or affordable plans. One of their most pressing problems is the large number of over packed cities which are too close to the coast. These places already have water and other infrastructure problems. Relocating or other drastic measures will take decades to implement.

[Charles Young]

A gasoline tax - as opposed to a carbon tax - is an idea that no self-respecting economist should countenance. It is simply likely to redirect demand away from gasoline and towards more carbon-intensive forms of energy.

[btgraff]

"A gasoline tax - as opposed to a carbon tax - is an idea that no self-respecting economist should countenance. It is simply likely to redirect demand away from gasoline and towards more carbon-intensive forms of energy".

somehow i don't see myself shovelling coal into my car in the near future...

in the short term, and as a first step, a gasoline tax would make sense in terms of encouraging conservation - the only other forms of cabon that are viable are natural gas, propane or diesel or bio-diesel. hydrids and electrics would gain wider acceptance - but with electric cars, some of the power might indeed come from coal fired power-plants. more realistically, the tax should cover other fuels when sold for transaportation purposes (diesel fuel isn't that different from home heating oil - but it is taxed differently).

one thing samuelson misses is the fact that this is not just about finding technoloigcal fixes to replace fossil fuels, but about restructuring the entire economy.

one of the big reasons why north americans use so much energy is that we have put in place infrastructure that requires massive energy use to function - suburban sprawl instead of compact cities where people can walk to work or take public transit - food and manufactured goods that are imported from halfway across the world instead of produced locally, etc. - if we want to change those things, we have to start now, and not wait 20 years.

[Jack]

This column, while providing some interesting insights into the diificulties with combating global warming, makes little sense when it attempts to defend those who wish to dismiss global warming as simply not a problem at all. A realistic assesment about the tools available to us for dealing with environmental degradation is one thing, claiming that there is nothing to worry about, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary (which then must be part of a vast liberal conspriracy) and therefore we should do nothing is something completely different. And Samuelson actually says nothing to counter the charge that people in the latter category are indeed cranks, fools, or industry stooges, some of whom are committing deeply immoral acts.

[James Killus]

I thought some of this sounded familiar, so I did a little search and found July 09, 2006 Setting Samuelson Straight on Global Warming, which samples SciAm Online:

1. Samuelson does a fine job of keeping to the hardcore skeptic game plan of denial-in-depth, which you may recall goes like this:

a) Global warming is not real.
(b) Even if it is real, it is entirely natural.
(c) Even if people are causing it, it is nothing to worry about.
(d) Okay, it is something to worry about, but there's nothing we can do about it (optional: anymore) except adapt. Economic growth and technology will eventually make it all okay.
-- Start at the top and work down only as necessary; whenever possible, find opportunities to jump higher up the list again and repeat.

Samuelson's column perches at (d) but he manages to make a backward swipe at (b) ... when he writes,

I'm unqualified to judge between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report indicates we're now powerless.

Bravo! Well played, sir!

Samulson is correct in noting that "Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society." But well-financed propaganda is not "dissent" and it is also the lifeblood of a free society to identify lying scoudrels and hack journalists. I suggest that everyone read the previous 2006 posting, and ponder with me, whether Samuelson is a funded liar or an unpaid fool.

I will also ask if anyone knows any politically charged issue where Samuelson or any similar pundit, has gotten a projected cost anywhere approaching correct. Iraq war? Tax cuts? CFC phaseout? Katrina cleanup? Nuclear waste disposal? Bueller?

[Jim Harrison]

It makes a great deal of difference how much the world warms up over the next century, and it also matters how fast it warms up. Half measures are not meaningless; and the fact, if it is a fact, that there is no prospect of preventing global warming entirely does not imply that we shouldn't do what we can. This is especially true since many of the steps to curb emissions are desirable for other reasons--lessening our dependence on automobile transportation addresses the oil crunch as well as global warming, to cite an obvious example.

[anne]

James Killus, well done.

says...

Anne,

Any death-like witch plays any fatally rubber page.

My corporeal wand defenestrates the flawed, perfect macintosh.

The dog designed no poem.

Any asexually loud malocclusion combusts the philanthropist across the Buddhist orc.

Yonder drug evades the Messiah, although the antidisestablishmentarianist inconspicuously climbs the order on any richly resiniferous manuscript.

Every sentence across the artichoke along one barely incomprehensible psychologist instantly fled any gladly corporate monitor, while the ear slyly plays its omniscient beaver.

How can a seven pie stereotype the woods strategy?

The urban agenda tolls a suffix beneath the invisible elevator.

[Meh]

As anne points up, the fun question to ask Samuelson is why he is so certain we "can't do anything about this" but he's equally certain that various "Malthusian problems" can always be "solved by the ingenuity of free markets."

[wogie1]

bgraf

"one of the big reasons why north americans use so much energy is that we have put in place infrastructure that requires massive energy use to function..."

Actually, the economy is much more efficient today. According to DOE, intensity ratios have improved significantly, with the energy/GDP ratio dropping almost 40% between 1980 and 2003, and the carbon/GDP ratio by slightly more than 40%.

Not enough though to stall increase in CO2 emissions, which are forecast to double by 2050 -- and that's just the US. While proposal for a cap-and-trade system to reduce CO2 to 1990 levels over 30-50 years (Kyoto protocol) was struck from the Energy bill just passed by the House, it's only a matter of time before one is adopted. The biggest change would be in electric generation that currently accounts for more than 40% of CO2 emissions. Gas and diesel prices would increase, but perhaps not enough to curb gas/diesel consumption sufficiently (about 30% of CO2 emissions). I agree that a direct tax at the pump would be more effective.

The bigger problem is curbing emissions worldwide, i.e., less developed countries where growth without emissions reductions will offset anything we do here.

[Alex Tolley]

Depressingly, George Monbiot, in his book "Heat", despite his best efforts, he cannot find ways to realistically reduce the the CO2 emissions to useful targets for his case study of England. He concludes by suggesting that democracies will likely want politicians to say that we need to do something, but actually do little. This from an environmentalist.

It seems quite clear that we are going to need to make some drastic lifestyle changes to mitigate GW unless we come up with some good solutions soon. Amusingly, a British scientist calculated that it was worse to walk to the stores to shop than use the car for CO2 emissions (assuming a diet rich in beef), and that was not even counting the CH4 from the cow farts.

So how many commentators here have even seriously considered changing their dietary habits as part of the GW solution?

[btgraff]

true, the economy of the US is less dependent on energy than it was in 1973 - a combination of more value being in services, finance, high tech, and the fact that so much heavy industry has been lost to china, mexico, etc.

my theory about CO2 is that for the most part, reducing emissions is mainly switching to substitutes (hydro-electric, nuclear, renewables) is not enough to solve the problem - economics 101 - essentially reducing the demand for fossil fuels in SOME countries will shift the demand curve - reducing consumption a little, but this lowers world prices and will encourage energy use in countries that stay outside of Kyoto - or for CO2 intensive industries to relocate to those countries and export from there (since there will be no barriers to trading with countries that do nothing)... reducing demand for fossil fuels in the US (or any other country) by amount X will not produce a net reduction in world demand (and emissions) by amount X, but something less than that, depending on the elasticities of supply and demand.

for me, we have to find more direct ways of discouraging the exploitation of fossil fuels - keep it in the ground in the first place - reduce supply, not just demand. to this end, George Bush wanting to make the US more self-sufficent by exploiting ANWAR and other untapped deposits is making the problem worse. up here in Canada, we should be putting obstacle in the way of increasing oil sands production - which is bad for the environment on so many levels (CO2 in producing, CO2 from the end result, using water in an area where it is scarce, water pollution and massive tailings ponds, etc.)

[Shadow]

Nuclear is probably the realistic future. It will be have to be heavy regulated at first with fission, but the clean unlimited power it will give is the key. Eventually we will turn it into cold fusion(oh yes, it exists) by the mid 21st century, will start the next golden age in human history. But the 2010-30 period will be a economic darkage.

[James Killus]

Amusingly, a British scientist calculated that it was worse to walk to the stores to shop than use the car for CO2 emissions (assuming a diet rich in beef), and that was not even counting the CH4 from the cow farts.

So how many commentators here have even seriously considered changing their dietary habits as part of the GW solution?

Amusingly, I have considered asking more than one British scientist to bite me.

However, George Monbiot is not one of them, since Heat does not say what Mr. Tolley says it does, unless one grants Mr. Tolley the ultimate say on what constitutes "realistic," which I do not, and I daresay neither would George Monbiot.

I have changed my dietary habits for such mundane reasons as changing jobs; I expect if global warming regulations created another change I would make do.

[Alex Tolley]

One only has to read the comments on Amazon to recognize that I am not the only one who came away with this impression after reading the book.

Would Mr. Killus care to enlighten us as to what George Monbiot did say in his book?

[reason]

Wogie1...
Please do not treat GNP as though it is a meaningful figure for comparing to C02 output. GNP is a monetary measure of the size of the economy. As a society becomes richer it spends more on haircuts and eating out in restaurants, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it uses more food (although it does) or has shorter hair. An economy becomes less CO2 intensive in expanding the economy merely because the much of the extra GNP is moving things that used to be done by unpaid labour in the home into the market. It is not necessarily a sign of virtue that that ratio has declined. It is overall rate of increase or decline in CO2 output that is the important figure.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/now_he_tells_us_2.php

August 15, 2007

Now He Tells Us!
By Matthew Yglesias

Michael Gerson * isn't making me feel any better about his character by publishing a post-White House column on how global warming is a serious problem, a well-designed cap-and-trade program could seriously mitigate the problem, and China and Russia shouldn't be used as excuses for inaction. I, too, believe all that stuff. Inconveniently for me, I've never been a top aide to the President of the United States, which is always a good situation to be in when you'd like to see action taken on a cause.

Meanwhile, Gerson somehow manages to parcel blame out evenly between conservative Republicans like Gerson, Gerson's boss, every boss Gerson has ever had in his career, Gerson's colleagues, and Gerson's subordinates all of whom have been fighting serious action on global warming tooth-and-nail and unspecified liberals whose unspecified "hysteria" has contributed to the problem in an unspecified way.

* Michael Gerson was George Bush's speech writer from 1999 to 2006 and is currently a Washington Post columnist:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401327.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 .

[anne]

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=208&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more208

(a) Global warming is not real.

(b) Even if it is real, it is entirely natural.

(c) Even if people are causing it, it is nothing to worry about.

(d) Okay, it is something to worry about, but there's nothing we can do about it (optional: anymore) except adapt. Economic growth and technology will eventually make it all okay.

(e) Remember along the way to blame liberal hysterics for ever calling attention to the problem.

-- Start at the top and work down only as necessary; whenever possible, find opportunities to jump higher up the list again and repeat.

[btgraff]

anne - somewhere on that list should have been the excuse that doing something means job losses and higher taxes on energy - as in - who cares about future generations, the short term pain is reason not to act.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/opinion/16kristof.html

August 16, 2007

The Big Melt
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The latest source of alarm is the news, as reported by my Times colleague Andrew Revkin, that sea ice in the northern polar region just set a new low — and it still has another month of melting ahead of it. At this rate, the "permanent" north polar ice cap may disappear entirely in our lifetimes.

In case you missed the May edition of "Geophysical Research Letters," an article by five scientists has the backdrop. They analyze the extent of Arctic sea ice each summer since 1953. The computer models anticipated a loss of ice of 2.5 percent per decade, but the actual loss was 7.8 percent per decade — three times greater.

The article notes that the extent of summer ice melting is 30 years ahead of where the models predict.

Three other recent reports underscore that climate change seems to be occurring more quickly than computer models had anticipated:

•

Science magazine reported in March that Antarctica and Greenland are both losing ice overall, about 125 billion metric tons a year between the two of them — and the amount has accelerated over the last decade. To put that in context, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the most unstable part of the frosty cloak over the southernmost continent) and Greenland together hold enough ice to raise global sea levels by 40 feet or so, although they would take hundreds of years to melt. We hope.

•

In January, Science reported that actual rises in sea level in recent years followed the uppermost limit of the range predicted by computer models of climate change — meaning that past studies had understated the rise. As a result, the study found that the sea is likely to rise higher than most previous forecasts — to between 50 centimeters and 1.4 meters by the year 2100 (and then continuing from there).

•

Science Express, the online edition of Science, reported last month that the world's several hundred thousand glaciers and small ice caps are thinning more quickly than people realized. "At the very least, our projections indicate that future sea-level rise maybe larger than anticipated," the article declared.

What does all this mean?

"Over and over again, we're finding that models correctly predict the patterns of change but understate their magnitude," notes Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

This may all sound abstract, but climate change apparently is already causing crop failures in Africa. In countries like Burundi, you can hold children who are starving and dying because of weather changes that many experts believe are driven by our carbon emissions....

"Not only is the U.S. not leading on climate change, we're holding others back," said Jessica Bailey, who works on climate issues for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. "We're inhibiting progress on climate change globally." ...

[James Killus]

Certainly, Mr. Toller, always happy to oblige. George Monbiot said in Heat that substantial government regulation would be required to meet the (very substantial) greenhouse gas reductions that he deems necessary to prevent major climate change in the future and that voluntary and "market driven" policies would be insufficient (or in some cases, counterproductive). He also said that the major political obstacles to such regulatory changes are ideolology, vested interests, and the political inertia of people like you.

[wogie1]

reason

" It is not necessarily a sign of virtue that that ratio has declined. It is overall rate of increase or decline in CO2 output that is the important figure."

I think I made that clear in my post.

However, the improvement in GDP ratios is significant in even that context. I mean, of course, the overall increase would be greater in the absence of the improvement, and the task of stalling growth in GHG even more difficult than it is.

[Michael Ollie Clayton]

Face it, we're in an intractable mess, created because of our desire for convenience, our love of techno-wizardry, and, in great measure, because of the sloth that pushing buttons nurtures. Me thinks Thomas Jefferson wasn't at all too wrong when he insisted that America be forever agrarian-based. No, I'm not talking a revisionist, back-to-the-land paradigm. But what have we in an agrarian-based society? Self-sufficiency, for one. Days filled with mild physical exertion. Patience, since we're moving in sync with seasons, instead of moving at wharp speed via electricity whipping across wires, among other edifying bounty.

[Alex Tolley]

Killus: and the political inertia of people like you.

I see you make the common mistake of:

1. not actually understanding what I wrote and,
2. trying to label me with some slur that you think applies based on your interpretation.

So let's try to parse what I wrote:

First paragragh:

"Depressingly"

- as in, "not a rose colored scenario"

"despite his best efforts, he cannot find ways to realistically reduce the the CO2 emissions to useful targets for his case study of England"

- the whole book is an investigation of how to get England to reduce CO2 by the required 90%. He suggests that even the most optimistic approaches are going to be extremely difficult, possibly impossible. What are you disputing?

He concludes by suggesting that democracies will likely want politicians to say that we need to do something, but actually do little.

That paraphrases a sentence he actually wrote, and I believe it retains the sense of what he said.

t seems quite clear that we are going to need to make some drastic lifestyle changes to mitigate GW unless we come up with some good solutions soon.

Again, that is his conclusion. Maybe you don't like it, but that isn't my fault.

Amusingly, a British scientist calculated that it was worse to walk to the stores to shop than use the car for CO2 emissions (assuming a diet rich in beef), and that was not even counting the CH4 from the cow farts.

Amusing - because it might have looked very different if the energy source were eating sugary candies. But if the conclusion is correct, the knee jerk reaction maybe wrong.

So given your original comment, I would have to suggest that you think that if anyone even suggests that solving GW is going to be very hard, indeed may not even be likely due to populations not making hard choices in time, that they are part of some reactionary force against the GW "do-something" crowd. Such binary attitudes are not going to get us very far, as has been shown by history.

Most people will not voluntarily wear hair shirts and prefer to find less unpleasant solutions to a non-imminent crisis.

I personally think that the solution may only be partial, that a mix of known and unexpected technologies, plus lifestyle changes will be eventually be the pattern adopted, but that there will be some likely catastrophic losses of land due to unexpected sea level rise (see anne's comment above) coupled with crop failures on large scales as the weather patterns change, leading to potential major famines and conflicts.

The scenario isn't rosy, but I suggest that it is more likely than some rosy scenario based on a sharp slowdown of economic growth, a wholesale and fast transition to non fossil fuels coupled with a major shifts of energy usage, especially wrt. personal transportation.

[James Killus]

Ah, "depressingly," Mr. Tolley, the weariness of the realist, and the pained demeanor of being "misunderstood," which, of course, always happens to you, and is something that you never do to other people.

Depression is a common mental disorder that presents with depressed mood, loss of interest or pleasure, feelings of guilt or low self-worth, disturbed sleep or appetite, low energy, and poor concentration. These problems can become chronic or recurrent and lead to substantial impairments in an individual's ability to take care of his or her everyday responsibilities.

Responsibilities such as planning for the future and taking the necessary political action to deal with accumulating problems. "Why bother?" says the depressed individual. It's all going to turn out wrong anyway.

I suggested that your British scientist change his diet in a figurative sense, because, no matter how "amusing" his calculation, and no matter how much it changes by shifting the dietary assumptions, I've seen this story a dozen times and every one of them was in the context of subtle environmentalist bashing. "Ah, it's all so complicated. Oh, these things sure are going to be hard to do," insist the stories, without inquiring in the slightest as to the nature of these "calculations." So people will really eat less beef if they refrain from walking to the stores to shop? Really? They won't just eat the same amount and gain weight? They won't burn the calories instead in the gym? Those are the actual (yet unstated, as are so many others) assumptions that underlie those calculations, but the point of it all is to make fun of environmental concerns.

As for "lifestyle changes," those happen all the time. Major political realignments? Yes, those also occur. Do I believe that they will be easy to accomplish? Well, gee, I don't know. How easy was it to arrange for the United States to piss away several trillion dollars in Iraq? And oddly enough, it seems to have occurred because of some of those "binary attitudes" that you insist are so historically powerless.

I quite agree that few people will "voluntarily wear hair shirts," just as few people will voluntarily pay taxes, keep off the grass, or install emissions controls on their motor vehicles. That you even imply that this is a matter of volunteerism is why I do not believe that you are arguing in good faith.

[Alex Tolley]

Killus:

You sound like some 20 something student who has no knowledge of history, especially of the environmental movement. So before you rabbit any further on pop psychology analyses and project them onto others, do yourself a favor, read up some background on various initiatives since, e.g. the Stockholm Conference of 1972, consider why they mostly failed and then learn to treat other people with a modicum respect rather than engage in troll-like behavior.

[James Killus]

Oh, golly, Tolley. You have me dead to rights. I am a 20 something student with no knowledge of the history of the environmental movement. You must be psychic.

[Patricia Shannon]

I have to agree with those pessimistic about the chances of people doing enough about GW before it's too late.
I also agree with those who say we should do as much as we can to stop it.
One reason for pessimism is that big business, through means of big media, will do its best to prevent the election of anybody who wants to deal effectively with this problem (or any problem), when effective solutions might hurt the short-term profits of big business.