When those hurricanes come thru there

Only 66 million years old!

one of the first things Reagan did was remove the
solar panels from the roof of the White House where
Jimmy Carter had them installed.

the ignorant asshole went to the money industry’s that are killing our planet now

The B movie dumbass actor
That is all.

And failure to use nuclear power are two major reasons.

The second point (nuclear power) potentially wouldn't be necessary if population were at the correct level.

As things stand we probably need to use it, but it does carry risks and the pro- nuclear power arguments are more credible when that is recognized and addressed in any implementation design.

We needed it at least 40 years ago. The population is not going to be controlled enough ever to not need nuclear power, and it’s much safer than any of the other forms of power that we use. Safety aspects have been addressed. Had a nuclear nuclear power plant not been shuttled in our area. We would not be paying sky high costs now for electricity.

The hysteria or whatever word you prefer to use surrounding both population control and nuclear power is going to be the end of human civilization.

In addition in our area many of the same people that were opposed to nuclear power are now opposed to wind power in our area because they don’t want it near them, lol. Not that it matters much because wind power here has no hope of ever generating enough power for anything- same for solar.

... unless you are cheering on the coming environmental catastrophe. In that case we get the biggest bang-for-the-buck by eliminating the wealthiest 10% of the human population, which generally includes most of those who bring up the subject of overpopulation.

We already know how to achieve negative population growth in positive life-affirming ways. These are by the economic and political empowerment of women, the universal availability of birth control, and by realistic sex education. It's no coincidence that "conservatives" oppose all of these. Their political and economic machines, the machines that sustain billionaires, are greased by human suffering.

For now nuclear power is the only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely. Quitting fossil fuels is something we must do. If we don't quit fossil fuels billions of people already born are going to suffer and die.

Like it or not, our civilization that supports 8 billion human beings is dependent on high density energy resources. Without these high density energy resources billions of people are going to suffer and die.

... distracting us from uncomfortable issues we need to discuss such as racism, economic ideologies, consumerism, wealth disparities, xenophobia, misogyny, religion, etc..

Whenever I try to pursue these conversations about "overpopulation" it often leads nowhere.

The two most common responses are "Well, I didn't have any children (or just one or two)" and, more disturbingly, xenophobic or racist rants, which are both ways of saying "I've got mine, everyone else can fuck off and die." I don't talk much to those who believe the population of their own clans is too small and the population of other clans too large, most especially the white supremacists.

I consider myself a humanist and I've got some formal training in evolutionary biologist. This planet has seen the populations of many innovative species grow exponentially and then crash, often ending in extinction. I can read the numbers and do the math. Letting nature sort this mess out is not an acceptable answer to me.

Blaming everything on the fossil fuel companies is another conversation killer.

Everyone on the planet is dependent on high density energy resources, especially fossil fuels, for their survival, starting with our food. For example about half the nitrogen in the food we eat (the proteins, etc.) is made from fossil fuels, and this is true for everyone everywhere -- even those who eat only "organic" food, even those who only eat food they've foraged for in remote forests. Humans have disrupted natural nitrogen cycles just as we've disrupted carbon cycles.

There's no going back to a world where people live comfortably on low density "renewable" energy resources, at least not without a lot of death and suffering. We've already got all the tools we need to avoid that end, technological, economic, and political. We simply have to apply them. Our situation is dire, but it's not hopeless. We need not fall prey to the sociopaths who would exploit our hopelessness.

Did a lot to put the US on the wrong path. We could've gone the way Mr. Tesla (the REAL TESLA) wanted and harnessed the electricity that nature provided. But the shareholders wanted the nation addicted do the power for profit GE was pushing.

And never forget, Tesla's papers disappeared while Trump's uncle was in charge of gathering his things up after he died in poverty.

In favor of two oil men. Treasonous, actually.

...who is to blame for blocking the transition away from climate catastrophies?

And how do we stop them from getting away with it this time?

reagan was working for the fossil fuel industry, so I assume THEY are to blame for blocking the transition away from climate catastrophies...

...and how do we stop them from getting away with it this time?

he was the commander and did their bidding with the most prominent act of taking down the panels to say “don’t worry we’ve got your backs, keep on ruining the earth and keep your money coming to us”.

He did as he was told.

idealistic (or silly) me, thinking I could get a job working in alternate energy projects after college. However, within months after Ronnie took office, there was a domestic oil glut. US was like, we’ve got plenty of oil, we have no use for alternatives. Most of those research projects dried up. I figured then the US will be playing catch up for decades.

I was very young but it really showed me how greed and ignorance could win elections.

India is on track to take over 2nd place from the US

The US could drastically cut greenhouse emissions and the world will still be hit with catastrophic climate change.

It would take a massive world wide effort, something never achieved before, to mitigate climate change.

We could already be in or are nearing a positive feedback loop as the tundras thaw and release previously trapped methane. A very potent greenhouse gas.

This is all true.
At this point, even if the US had the most environmentally friendly policies, unless all the other nations on the globe participate it will go for naught.

I personally have issue with PLASTICS and plastic packaging.
.......I'm getting stared.....will stop now before embarrassing rant.

"It would take a massive world wide effort, something never achieved before, to mitigate climate change."

Let's get to work!

Work as hard as possible to try and prevent or at least mitigate climate change but also, in case that fails, work to prepare to adapt.

...to the devastation that has been already baked-in due to our inaction so far.

If they have the highest emissions, they also have the largest population and a significantly lower standard of living than the US. The West, having started climate change with its own modernisation, can't now blame climate change on underdeveloped countries developing. China also recognizes that the 21st century will belong to the countries that invest heavily in renewable energy infrastructure.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/features/explainer-how-china-is-quietly-becoming-a-renewables-powerhouse/?cf-view

"Wind and solar energy are expected to overtake coal in the country’s electricity production capacity for the first time in 2024, making up 40% of total installed capacity. A report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in January also noted that China commissioned as much solar PV capacity in 2023 as the entire world did in 2022, and that it installed 66% more new wind turbines that year than the year before."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/09/china-to-head-green-energy-boom-with-60-of-new-projects-in-next-six-years

"China set to boast half of world’s renewables by 2030"

https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/china-continues-to-lead-the-world-in-wind-and-solar-with-twice-as-much-capacity-under-construction-as-the-rest-of-the-world-combined/

"China is cementing its position as the global leader in renewables development with 180 GW of utility-scale solar and 159 GW of wind power already under construction. The total of the two is nearly twice as much as the rest of the world combined"

"Despite the gains made in renewable energy production, other sources claim that coal production is still growing in China. A report published by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) in November last year claimed that since the beginning of 2022, Chinese authorities have granted permits for up to 152GW of coal power and started construction on 92GW of additional capacity. This was ten-times the capacity permitted in the rest of the world in the same period."

https://www.power-technology.com/news/wind-and-solar-to-overtake-coal-power-production-in-china-this-year/

Renewables alone can't provide for China's growing demand for electricity.

Another thing to consider is that capacity doesn't always equal actual production. I'll have to double check but I believe I've read that some of of China's solar farms are located in remote areas where demand isn't anywhere near the capacity of the solar farms .

GlobalSurfaceTemperature

Rec

Here’s a great link

https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/jimmy-carters-energy-policy-legacy/

n his speech, President Carter called the crisis “the moral equivalent of war” and called on Americans to conserve energy. He outlined a plan to tackle the crisis, focusing on conservation, efficiency, and domestic technologies to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

President Carter signed energy legislation that created the U.S. Department of Energy, provided incentives for renewables and coal, deregulated oil and natural gas prices, and banned new power plants from using gas or oil. Some of these policies have had a lasting effect. Others drew criticism and were ultimately repealed.

IMHO...

The industrial Revolution started almost 300 years ago...

Freeze humankind to the early 18th Century and climate change would have been SLOWED but not stopped.

By 1750 there were still 800 million people on the planet, burning stuff.

...were getting about 25% efficiency of working heat from the fuel consumed.
That said, per capita consumption was still lower than it is today. But, not as dramatically lower as first impression might suggest.

Did I spell her name correctly? I'm sure it's right.

Pototan. This was really well said.

Yes, Reagan reversed the Carter initiatives, and that was a selfish and stupid mistake. And there is no doubt that Trump will reverse many of the Biden initiatives on combating climate change. But we also need to recognize that ours is not the only heavily polluting country. China and India are as bad as or as worse as we are. And of course both countries have more people than we do. If those two countries do not get on board the climate change crisis will continue unchecked.

Every time we get in the car, turn on our heater, use AI, etc, we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. You can say “oh, I have solar, I’m not pumping CO2”. In fact you are because rather than goi g back to the grid to reduce fossil fuel consumption, you are using it.
It’s important to start with ourselves and reduce our carbon footprint before we blame others. Approximately 50% of voters did not vote for trump. If that 50 % cut CO2 emissions another 50%, the carbon fuel market would crash.
I am an offender and I acknowledge that. I am now walking to work and riding my bike way more since the election but I still have a long way to go. Im working on it. Let’s all commit to ourselves to reduce our carbon footprint by 50%.

I mention that in the OP. It will take 50 years to fix even if the human race had full dedication, which it won't have in our lifetime.

One: In the late 19th century a Dutch chemist was doing research on the properties of gases. He realized that one property of carbon dioxide was that it had the ability to produce a green house effect in a closed system. He predicted that the increased burning of coal (this was before the oil boom hit) would warm the atmosphere to the point of catastrophe. His only error was that he thought it would take two or three hundred years for the effect to be a problem.

Two: We as a society have no intention of ending business as usual. Making money is the be all, end all of our existence. Therefore, we are not going to do anything meaningful to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Alternate energy is just wishful thinking. 2024 again was the hottest year on record while simultaneously the pursuit of business as usual resulted in the greatest burning of coal on record. Even if we magically stopped using fossil fuels today, it is still too late to prevent the coming catastrophe. Get used to the idea that every coming year will be another hottest year on record. The planet is heading for a mass extinction event. It hurts me to know that this beautiful planet and all that lives on it will be destroyed in the geological blink of the eye because of the abject stupidity of one species.

Yes, that's just my opinion and I could be full of shit. But the fact is that physics is a real unforgiving mother.

I'm going to end with one further observation. We humans are very clever, but we are not very wise.

"Mr. Carter, take down those solar water heaters!"

...despite claiming enthusiasm for human rights, he coddled the Shah of Iran, a very brutal dictator, to have access to oil. This ultimately led to his political downfall.

He funded and hyped "coal to oil" schemes, Fischer-Tropsch chemistry, that had only been industrialized in Nazi Germany and in Apartheid era South Africa. Had this been commercialized in the US; it would have led to a climate disaster at unprecedented levels, although in fairness, although scientists were aware of the issue, it was not publicly and politically prominent until the issue was raised to that level, wisely, by Al Gore.

Carter decided to forego used nuclear fuel reprocessing as a "moral example." (Nations around the world ignored his "example" without a single nuclear war breaking out.) This is something of a mixed bag, since at that time the commercial (and military) route was PUREX processing, and cleaner routes exist now. However, had the United States, the world's largest producer of nuclear energy then and now, used MOX fuels, we would have much higher inventories of fissionable actinides which will be essential to address whatever (increasingly remote) chance to at least ameliorate the extreme global heating we now observe. If he were really a nuclear engineer, rather than a military figure in the nuclear Navy, he would have clearly understood the difference between reactor grade plutonium and weapons grade plutonium. Ideally we could have done away with uranium enrichment, thus lowering the prospect of weapons development.

On Plutonium, Nuclear War, and Nuclear Peace

He proposed the "Carter Doctrine" which was a policy by which the United States claimed the right militarily to seize foreign oil fields, something it did in both Iraq wars under each of the Bushes.

Finally, he hyped so called "renewable energy" which has been an expensive and highly damaging disaster, soaking trillions of dollars and doing nothing other than to accelerate the destruction of the atmosphere - adding the destruction of precious ecosystems, increased mining, and the industrialization of much wilderness to the damage - and entrenching the use of dangerous fossil fuels, on which so called "renewable energy" depends.

President Carter was a good man; his post Presidency was the greatest ever, with the possible exception of that of John Quincy Adams, but his energy policies as President were neither wise nor worthy. The applause for his energy policies strikes me as extremely dubious.

He does not stand as President among the pantheon of great Democratic Presidents since the dawn of the 20th century. Only JFK and Woodrow Wilson stand lower in my estimation, and he does not compare with the greater Presidencies of FDR, Harry Truman, Joe Biden, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton.

As a man, he may rank higher than some of these men, but only as a man, not as a President, especially an energy President, as his energy policies were not inspiring at all. They led down the road to disaster.

To answer the question of who is responsible for the extreme global heating we now observe, a mirror would be an extremely useful device to illuminate the answer. Turn the lights on when you use one.

Have a nice weekend.

Carter sure was right about an awful lot of things.

CO2 emissions warned about in 1958. Decade after decade we did little to nothing. Wasn't expedient or profitable. Too much resistance from those who believed what they wanted to believe or figured they'd be dead before the shit hit the fan. Their grandchildren and great grandchildren be damned.

https://www.discover.ukri.org/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-discoveries/index.html

https://www.openculture.com/2024/07/oscar-winning-director-frank-capra-made-a-short-science-film-warning-of-climate-change-in-1958.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/22/gilbert-plass-scientist-raised-dangers-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

Next question?

Energy will become inexpensive and people will ditch the other stuff. We shall see what the people pick.