Comments on: Can Bloomberg change the planet? A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: fashionvista coupons Mon, 06 Oct 2014 07:03:10 +0000 Really cool thing has been seen with journal. appreciate you the idea

By: coupons Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:36:32 +0000 Site visitors distributing the ideas through responses help make your blog site seriously exclusive.

By: traducator daneza romana Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:07:42 +0000 rather then getting all these cons, ipad device offers similar to very hot wedding cake. . -= Sourish

By: realist50 Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:44:00 +0000 Will Mayor Bloomberg back his stated belief by no longer taking weekend trips on a private jet? I can accept that none of us perfectly match our deeds with our beliefs, especially on issues requiring collective action, but his hypocrisy on CO2 is beyond reasonable.

By: TFF Sun, 04 Nov 2012 01:41:43 +0000 Very true, y2kurtus. We need to learn to live with much more violent weather than we’ve been accustomed to in the past. That’s bad news for agricultural productivity, however, which relies on an appropriate balance of sun and rain, rather than alternating drought and flood.

Do we choose to starve just to keep the lights on? I doubt we reach that point in this generation, but your children’s children may be facing that choice.

FWIW, we have at least another century of fossil fuels available should we choose to continue burning them at the present rate. Not about to run out any time soon.

By: y2kurtus Sat, 03 Nov 2012 02:21:47 +0000 “The U.S. is one of the world’s biggest obstacles to real progress on climate-change issues.”

Very true… our lifestyle is envied by most of the planet… half of which seems quite willing to work to attain it.

If bloomberg the man, mayor and company, is to make climate change his personal cause I’ll make a very specific prediction: he’ll soon pivot away from carbon pollution prevention and toward mitigation.

Felix you were an early voice in the financial space writing about climate science. Are you brave enough to admit that democracies will not vote for lower growth or higher energy prices?

We may slow the growth of carbon emissions… but make no mistake it will be due to energy scarcity not some global effort to reduce our impact. Nominal carbon emissions will fall only when we start to run out of stuff to burn.

We banned CFC’s and DDT because there were workable alternatives. My children’s children will still get most of their energy from fossil sources. It’s not that we don’t understand we helped cause Katrina and Sandy… it’s just that we’re not going to turn the lights off to prevent the lights from going off.

By: thispaceforsale Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:38:07 +0000 It was disappointed the debates did not address this issue as both candidates/parties have starkly different views. Or at least, Romney may have different views, it’s difficult to know his position at the moment.
The American public is addicted to paying little upfront costs for energy. In many ways, we’ve been sold an interest free loan we thought we’d never have to pay back, when it reality, it’s actually an adjustable rate that is starting t come due.

By: SteveHamlin Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:15:48 +0000 @AllBlack: your post is almost entirely correct, and contains a lot of good policy advice. That advice would still be good even if AGW is true.

So why state “Links between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and dangerous climate change remain at best tenuous” when that is not a fair statement about the global scientific consensus of those best equipped to know, and undercuts your good policy advice?

Don’t turn your audience off before you make your good points, if you don’t have to.

By: FifthDecade Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:34:00 +0000 Nice article.

There are two groups talking about this: those who will lose a LOT of money if fossil fuels become unfashionable; and those for whom money is not more important than scientific fact.

By: RicardoPires Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:28:44 +0000 Climate Change will no longer be ignored. The Earth has been sending us signals for a long time and now the 770 companies and interest groups that hire more than 2300 lobbyists to prevent any US policy action on climate change might be losing the battle. We spend more on subsidizing coal and oil, than we do on tackling climate change! It’s perverse.

UNICEF produced a very interesting video debate on this, also with expert written commentaries, etc.

Video: NU&feature=player_embedded

Commentaries:  /