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 <m...@ghgi.us>
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
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 <rongretlar...@comcast.net> 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 <gh...@sbcglobal.net> 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 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.
