Global Warming's New Math

[Joseph Tracy]

Cheap energy replaces human labor. There will always be work to do to live and survive and enjoy a life. Oil as capital owned by a warlord/corporation does not create jobs it steals them. BP s not solving any problems, and it would not take as highly practical and skilled  a thinker as Mckibben of Klein to move us in the right direction. Their are solutions, but they are rather radical : only fear prevents us from seizing them. I don't need Monsanto, don't need Citi-Bank, don't need The CIA or the Armed Forces and neither does anyone else.  Anger has nothing to do with what Mckibben says. It is a matter of practical choices with known consequences
On Jul 22, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Rich wrote:

> Mckibben and co call it simple greed but is it really that simple? I don't discount the aggressive obliviousness of the energy companies but surely it seems our systems which are fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels  are not so easily displaced. Forget the stock price for a minute; what about the seismic shift on employment just to name one. How many us rely on oil for our jobs. It's galling having to rely on bp to solve our problems but I doubt naomi Klein or McKibben can solve it either. Their anger is noted; give me something more useful to think about
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 22, 2012, at 2:31 PM, "Monte Davis" <montedavis at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> The core argument, without caveats and qualifications:
>> 
>> 1) From Kyoto through Copenhagen, a 2 degree C. global increase has been
>> widely accepted as a threshold we really don't wanna cross;
>> 2) We can calculate how much more fossil-fuel burning will get us there;
>> 3) Current proven reserves held by energy co's and nation/companies are
>> about *six times* that  amount;
>> 4) The stock price of energy companies (and the credit-worthiness of Saudi
>> Arabia, Venezuela, USA states fracking their shale, et al) is tightly
>> correlated with their reserves. Ergo, any combination of policies/actions
>> that would be effective in keeping the increase under 2 degrees would in
>> effect say to all those parties: "Five-sixths of that collective asset just
>> became worthless." (Yeah, I know, coal & oil & gas are also feedstocks for
>> polymers, fertilizers etc, but at this level that's a detail. Yeah,  I know,
>> CO2 capture & sequestration is possible -- but do the math, and it would
>> require infrastructure -- and expenditure -- on the same scale as all
>> today's pipelines and refineries and tankers and coal trains.)
>> 
>> Some of you are no doubt saying "duhh," but it snapped my head around even
>> though I've been reading McKibben & co for a long time. It's the difference
>> between a handwaved "the fossil-fuel industry can't keep growing in future
>> decades as it has for the last century or two"... and saying to that
>> industry, the world's largest: "five-sixths of the biggest asset investors
>> recognize in you *right now* is a mirage." That makes it much easier to
>> understand the fervor of denial.   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
>> Of Dave Monroe
>> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:35 PM
>> To: pynchon -l
>> Subject: Global Warming's New Math
>> 
>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-mat
>> h-20120719
>>