[geo] Trump: Hot air and/or hot planet?

2016-11-09 Thread Greg Rau 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/trump-win-raises-questions-about-un-climate-deal/2016/11/09/85a38028-a686-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351_story.html

Quoting the article:"Trump pledged in May to “cancel” the Paris deal.

He has called for stripping regulations to allow unfettered production of 
fossil fuels — a key source of emissions — and rescinding the Clean Power Plan, 
an Obama administration strategy to fight climate change.
In May, Trump told an oil and gas conference in North Dakota he would “save the 
coal industry” and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to global warming 
programs.
“Trump will try and slam the brakes on climate action, which means we need to 
throw all of our weight on the accelerator,” said May Boeve, leader of the 
350.org environmental group.
The pro-fossil fuels American Energy Alliance said Trump’s victory presents a 
chance to reset “harmful energy policies” in the U.S.
“He has laid out an energy plan that puts the needs of American families and 
workers first,” said the group’s president, Thomas Pyle."
GR -  I think it's safe to say that while US emissions have been declining, 
those days appear to be over. We're now putting "the needs of American families 
and workers first", and future generations and the rest of the planet can fend 
for themselves. While leadership in reducing global emissions will once again 
not be coming from the US, we can hope that other countries will quickly and 
(more) effectively fill the vacuum. Meantime, with emissions reduction having 
been dealt another major setback, now is the time to seriously solicit and 
scientifically evaluate alternative GHG/climate management methods in the hope 
that the planet might have acceptable options beyond inadequate or non-existent 
emissions reduction.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Trump: Hot air and/or hot planet?

2016-11-09 Thread Andrew Revkin 
But he also (in mostly-ignored statements) pledged to sustain federal R&D
and move away from fossil fuels>

Prospects for the Environment, and Environmentalism, Under President Trump
http://nyti.ms/2eDpzlU

Prospects for the Environment, and Environmentalism, Under President Trump
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
 NOVEMBER 9,
2016 1:09 PM November 9, 2016 1:09 pm 1

   - Email
   - Share
   - Tweet
   - Save
   - More

Photo
[image: Donald Trump’s name is a prominent feature at the Trump Golf Links
municipal course in the Bronx.]
Donald Trump’s name is a prominent feature at the Trump Golf Links
municipal course in the Bronx.Credit Santiago Mejia/The New York Times

Various Postscripts | President Donald J. Trump

.

Get used to the sound of that, my environment-oriented friends.

Is this end times for environmental progress or, more specifically, climate
progress?

No.

The bad news about climate change is, in a way, the good news:

The main forces determining emission levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide
will be just as much out of President Trump’s hands as they were out of
President Obama’s. The decline in the United States has mainly been due to
market forces shifting electricity generation from coal to abundant and
cheaper natural gas ,
along with environmental regulations built around the traditional basket of
pollutants that even conservatives agreed were worth restricting
.
(Efficiency and gas-mileage standards and other factors help, too, of
course.)

At the same time, the unrelenting *rise* in greenhouse-gas emissions in
developing countries is propelled by an unbending reality identified way
back in 2005

by
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when he said, “The blunt truth about the
politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its
economy in order to meet this challenge.”

At the same time, as well, other fundamental forces will continue to drive
polluted China

 and smog-choked India
 to
move away from unfettered coal combustion as a path to progress. An
expanding middle class is already demanding cleaner air and sustainable
transportation choices — just as similar forces enabled pollution cleanups
in the United States in the last century.

That’s why the Paris Agreement on climate change
 will continue to
register progress on emissions and investments in clean energy or climate
resilience, but only within the limits of what nations already consider
achievable (as others will be explaining in detail because the first
post-Paris round of negotiations

is
under way right now in Marrakech).

Long ago, Jesse Ausubel, a veteran Rockefeller University analyst of global
resource and environmental trends, asserted that, “in general, politicians
are pulling on disconnected levers
” at the
intersection of energy and environmental policy.
View image on Twitter

[image: View image on Twitter]


 Follow 
Andy Revkin
✔@Revkin 

In climate arena, politicians mostly pull on "disconnected levers" (Ausubel
@RockefellerUniv ) http://
nyti.ms/1uKqly1  
7:33 AM - 16 Dec 2014 
 · New York, USA, United States


   -
   
   -
55 Retweets
   
   -
11 like 

As I wrote in 2014
,
that doesn’t mean environmental agendas by politicians are useless, and
environmentalism remains vital as a result. But what approach is most
workable, particularly under a Trump administration with Congress in
Republican control?

It it end times for 20th-centu

Re: [geo] Trump: Hot air and/or hot planet?

2016-11-09 Thread Ronal W. Larson 
Greg and List

This is partially to support your comment and especially to urge more 
dialogue along these lines.   

I say “partially” because much of US energy policy is state directed.  
Mr. Trump received less than 1 out of 3 votes in your home state of California. 
 I guess that California will now speed up, not slow down, its transition to 
RE.  At a GDP of more than $2.5 trillion (6th largest in the world), California 
can support a lot of  CDR activities (and already is supporting biochar).
 
 My state, Colorado, has fewer resources, and we have a split 
legislature, but we also have a state RE history and (now) activist 
responsibility.  The city of Denver is active in these areas - and neither this 
city nor state has been assuming much Federal help.  But (to repeat) my hope is 
for California and your two northern state neighbors.  Thank goodness for their 
progressive histories.

see bit more below


> On Nov 9, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/trump-win-raises-questions-about-un-climate-deal/2016/11/09/85a38028-a686-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351_story.html
>  
> 
> 
> Quoting the article:
> "Trump pledged in May to “cancel” the Paris deal.
> 
> He has called for stripping regulations to allow unfettered production of 
> fossil fuels — a key source of emissions — and rescinding the Clean Power 
> Plan, an Obama administration strategy to fight climate change.
> 
> In May, Trump told an oil and gas conference in North Dakota he would “save 
> the coal industry” and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to global 
> warming programs.
> 
> “Trump will try and slam the brakes on climate action, which means we need to 
> throw all of our weight on the accelerator,” said May Boeve, leader of the 
> 350.org environmental group.
> 
> The pro-fossil fuels American Energy Alliance said Trump’s victory presents a 
> chance to reset “harmful energy policies” in the U.S.
> 
> “He has laid out an energy plan that puts the needs of American families and 
> workers first,” said the group’s president, Thomas Pyle."
> 
> GR -  I think it’s safe to say that while US emissions have been declining, 
> those days appear to be over. [RWL:  doesn’t have to be - if we can keep 
> proving at a state level that RE is now the least cost option.]  We’re now 
> putting “the needs of American families and workers first”, and future 
> generations and the rest of the planet can fend for themselves.  [RWL:  I am 
> arguing that we have not yet fallen that low - and I guess you don’t believe 
> it either - despite an appalling election result.]   While leadership in 
> reducing global emissions will once again not be coming from the US, we can 
> hope that other countries will quickly and (more) effectively fill the 
> vacuum. [RWL:  agreed.]   Meantime, with emissions reduction having been 
> dealt another major setback, now is the time to seriously solicit and 
> scientifically evaluate alternative GHG/climate management methods in the 
> hope that the planet might have acceptable options beyond inadequate or 
> non-existent emissions reduction.  [RWL:   I whole-heartedly agree with the 
> first part of this last sentence.  But, I am arguing we can have both - as RE 
> has already turned the corner.  Both wind and solar are already now least 
> cost options.]  In some cases, CDR can also be least cost.

Ron
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Trump: Hot air and/or hot planet?

2016-11-12 Thread Greg Rau 
Further 
analysis:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/11/trump-presidency-a-disaster-for-the-planet-climate-change





 
  From: MCT-GHGI 
 To: rongretlar...@comcast.net 
Cc: RAU greg ; Geoengineering 

 Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 2:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Trump: Hot air and/or hot planet?
  
The advantage of state RE is that the demand for coal electricity declines as 
market forces make it uneconomical. “Let the market speak” more loudly.

Michael C Trachtenberg, PhD, CEOGreenhouse Gas Industries, LLCLawrenceville, NJ 
08648609-610-6227



On Nov 9, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Ronal W. Larson  wrote:

Greg and List
 This is partially to support your comment and especially to urge more dialogue 
along these lines.   
 I say “partially” because much of US energy policy is state directed.  Mr. 
Trump received less than 1 out of 3 votes in your home state of California.  I 
guess that California will now speed up, not slow down, its transition to RE.  
At a GDP of more than $2.5 trillion (6th largest in the world), California can 
support a lot of  CDR activities (and already is supporting biochar).   My 
state, Colorado, has fewer resources, and we have a split legislature, but we 
also have a state RE history and (now) activist responsibility.  The city of 
Denver is active in these areas - and neither this city nor state has been 
assuming much Federal help.  But (to repeat) my hope is for California and your 
two northern state neighbors.  Thank goodness for their progressive histories.
 see bit more below


On Nov 9, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/trump-win-raises-questions-about-un-climate-deal/2016/11/09/85a38028-a686-11e6-ba46-53db57f0e351_story.html

Quoting the article:"Trump pledged in May to “cancel” the Paris deal.

He has called for stripping regulations to allow unfettered production of 
fossil fuels — a key source of emissions — and rescinding the Clean Power Plan, 
an Obama administration strategy to fight climate change.
In May, Trump told an oil and gas conference in North Dakota he would “save the 
coal industry” and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to global warming 
programs.
“Trump will try and slam the brakes on climate action, which means we need to 
throw all of our weight on the accelerator,” said May Boeve, leader of the 
350.org environmental group.
The pro-fossil fuels American Energy Alliance said Trump’s victory presents a 
chance to reset “harmful energy policies” in the U.S.
“He has laid out an energy plan that puts the needs of American families and 
workers first,” said the group’s president, Thomas Pyle."
GR -  I think it’s safe to say that while US emissions have been declining, 
those days appear to be over. [RWL:  doesn’t have to be - if we can keep 
proving at a state level that RE is now the least cost option.]  We’re now 
putting “the needs of American families and workers first”, and future 
generations and the rest of the planet can fend for themselves.  [RWL:  I am 
arguing that we have not yet fallen that low - and I guess you don’t believe it 
either - despite an appalling election result.]   While leadership in reducing 
global emissions will once again not be coming from the US, we can hope that 
other countries will quickly and (more) effectively fill the vacuum. [RWL:  
agreed.]   Meantime, with emissions reduction having been dealt another major 
setback, now is the time to seriously solicit and scientifically evaluate 
alternative GHG/climate management methods in the hope that the planet might 
have acceptable options beyond inadequate or non-existent emissions reduction.  
[RWL:   I whole-heartedly agree with the first part of this last sentence.  
But, I am arguing we can have both - as RE has already turned the corner.  Both 
wind and solar are already now least cost options.]  In some cases, CDR can 
also be least cost.

Ron


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



   
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou