Last Friday, on a whim, I created an open thread called Winds of Change, Comfortably Numb. Like the song from the video, the winds of change are blowing -- quite literally, too: the climate is changing, in social & political ways as well as ecological terms.¹

_____

The future's in the air
I can feel it everywhere
Blowing with the wind of change
_____

New studies were published over the weekend that serve to reinforce some previous data about the issue of global climate change. In his piece Warming and Storms, Uncertainty and Ethics, Andrew C. Revkin writes about how those studies may impact our approach to human-induced global warming:

_____

Over the weekend, a pair of very different climate studies — one physical, one social — illustrated two uncomfortable, and related, realities confronting society as it grapples with possible responses to human-driven global warming.
_____

Revkin is right: both studies, particularly when combined, leave us with some disturbing things to mull over.

Alarm is mounting with the news of the Antartic ice-cap melt Unless Al Gore is biding his time because he is still a potential dark horse in the present election campaign (something I very much doubt) I think this would be a good time for him to step forward as a spokesman for the energy policy in the next administration. Perhaps Clinton and Obama could agree that whichever wins they will propose his appointment to the cabinet to carry forward a program that they both endorse.

There's an interesting diary over on DailyKos right now -- it caught my interest, at least. It's Confused priorities: the scramble to exploit the Arctic sea bed by JohnnyRook.

Here's two of the comments -- one by NoBigGovernment, and my response. Both are, IMO, points worth keeping in mind while reading thru:

Unfortunately

Why are our leaders and the leaders of these other nations wasting time and money on seeing who can get access to the most underwater fossil fuels instead of investing in the renewable energy that might make it possible to keep New York, St. Petersburg, Vancouver, Copenhagen etc. above the waterline?

because they have to at this point. I think all reasonable nations are in fact investing in renewables, but in the meantime we need fuel to continue to make the world go round so to speak.

You just can't flip a switch and move from fossil fuels. Granted we could, and should, move faster but it's difficult to fault people for being somewhat prudent.

by NoBigGovernment on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:02:54 PM EST

_______________

"Prudent is as prudent does" so to speak...

...the BushCheney (CheneyBush?) Administration and Big Oil Republicans have done everything they can to force continued dependence on fossil fuels, when they should have been more prudent with the nation's resources and forward-thinking.

Instead, they essentially created a reality that is forcing us into greater, prolonged dependency but without any additional oversight, conservation, intelligent distribution or development of alternatives.

You are very correct that we need to be prudent with regard to a potentially untapped resource (vs. the relatively imprudent push by some to open the Arctic Refuge, which is a piddling amount in exchange for the potential damage/cost/impact).

However, we should eye any movement by BushCheney as an initial foray into yet another attempt to overfeed, gorge and run rampant instead of developing a sound policy for the securing, developing, use and distribution of energy and fuel sources.  

We must extricate BushCheney and their primary cheerleaders/benefactors from the process first, then put proper foundational structures into effect (rules, regs, laws and plans)...

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
  Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:28:43 PM EST

I do believe a genuine plan is needed to ensure that our economy and nation can adequately operate while slowly weaning itself off of oil. I do not, however, believe that the Republicans, Big Oil, the Bush Administration or anyone currently embedded with any or all of the above should have anything to do with it.

There are also some major corporations and other political parties who need to either recommit to the nation's priorites -- which should include a proper degree of planning for current and future needs -- or be banned from participating in the work of the people.

What do you think?

Every so often, a video comes around that makes a simple, straightforward, no bullsh!t case for using logic.

This man's logic appears inescapable. (Hat-tip g'ma of DelphiForums.)

What do ~you~ think?

Is Gore our Gort?

An Op-Editude

Al Gore’s real and riveting message about global warming may seem alien to many, especially the world’s behemoth energy producers who envision their day of reckoning if they obey his admonitions and follow his teachings. And to political knuckleheads like President Bush, who steadfastly refuse to watch his award-winning call-to-arms film for reasons that defy logic and who, like a befuddled ship’s captain afraid to change course for fear his crew would criticize him for setting bad compass headings to begin with, prefers the pride of self-righteousness as he and his Panglossian world view down with the ship.

In his speech yesterday in the Oslo, Norway, where he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize shared with Mr. Pachauri, the Chairman of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Mr. Albert Arnold Gore told his audience there and those of us watching from afar that unless we, the inhabitants of Planet Earth, change our profligate energy ways, and soon, the tiny spherical blue ball we live on will reach a point from which returning to the safety we once knew will only be accomplished with the greatest of efforts of the human race working together.

And since we don’t have a great track record in that department, there is, in my view, cause for worry.