Global Warming Status

A perplexing issue with global warming is communicating the seriousness of continuing global temperature increase. At current rate of building hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) infrastructures, global carbon budget lock-in occurs very soon. Human energy greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of carbon increasingly exceed Earth's carbon budget. Latter, the critical 450 ppm carbon dioxide level is exceeded 2030-2040 CE. Resulting human races termination from global warming is 2050-2099 CE, but most likely 2050-2055 CE.

Unless global warming human and natural atmospheric GHGs peak by 2020 CE and start to reduce thereafter, human races begin to end when the carbon level exceeds 450 ppm. Unfortunately, although global warming effects are understood, necessary corrective action responses by the global political industries remain non existent.  

Briefly, we have five years to change the global energy structures to that of clean nuclear energy. Only a rapid and large nuclear energy expansion replacing hydrocarbon energy can prevent "global hydrocarbon infrastructure lock-in." Changing the political approach to energy used is a problem. Since the 1990s, the U.S. and European untoward political industries have suppressed mitigation responses to global warming temperature increase in order to promote continued union coal production. Although all humans now under the age of 30-years are certainly to be destroyed, no political system has identified any aspect of global warming temperature increase as a pressing problem or concern.

NOTE: The first step in problem solving is to identify responsible management; establish baseline metrics; possible solutions, select optimum solutions, needed resources, and identify the implementation timeline with critical paths. Global warming responses require very critical timing for mitigations to be effective. The costs associated with stopping temperature increase is not relevant, but cost efficiencies in reducing global temperatures is important. Recognizing that politics and politicians can be very counterproductive to progress is important. Responses must address the overriding issue to save human races.   

Over the coming five years, the least-cost and only global warming option to lowering global warming is by steadily transforming global human energy systems to zero emissions nuclear energy, which in turn lowers human and natural GHG emissions. Difficult to reduce are Arctic Region's huge amounts of natural methane and carbon emissions that are ocean-current temperature dependent and land surface air temperature dependent. Arctic Region natural methane and carbon emissions form a powerful reinforced positive feedback loop that is directly temperature and regional emissions related.

Unfortunately, too many world leaders and national politicians remain committed to continuing hydrocarbon energy dependence. Necessary planned successful social and environmental responses to global warming temperature increase are essential, many, and varied and involve lives of more than 9 billion people. No nation maintains a viable organization to respond to countering global warming temperature increase. Not in place is the needed central organization to coordinate implementation of identified needed energy, social, and environmental responses.    

Technology is available to mitigate global warming temperature increase, but it is the politicians who are committing Earth to human life termination. Either the politicians now respond, or we all shall terminate 2050-2055 CE.  

No Politician Will Talk About It - Global Warming Water

Water scarcity is even deemed the most immediate environmental risk to the world.

Financial Times sustainability conference in New York City issued dire warnings and a call to arms for investors and corporations around the world along with governments.

"Water scarcity is the new global warming"

Commentary: Management is key to prosperity and survival

By Thomas Kostigen

March 30, 2012

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The global director of water stewardship for Coca-Cola Co. says that water risk isn’t imminent; it’s already manifest.

Greg Koch, who spoke at the Financial Times sustainability conference in New York City on Thursday, issued dire warnings and a call to arms for investors and corporations around the world along with governments.

And he wasn’t alone.

Robert Hormats, Under Secretary of State for Economics, Energy and the Environment says disputes or outright water wars are imminent in the near future.

Here’s why: an increasing population with needs for more energy and food is putting undue demand on the world’s water supply. So much so that by 2025 some two-thirds of the world’s population will experience some type of water shortage, according to myriad estimates.

Water scarcity is even deemed the most immediate environmental risk to the world, according to Usha Rao-Monari, the global head of water, global infrastructure and natural resources for the International Finance Corporation.

There are two sorts of water risks, she says: physical risk, which is not having enough water at the source, and economic risk, which is the cost of moving water around.

Both are extreme and being experienced throughout the world right now.

In terms of solutions, Rao-Monari sees three: financial, innovation, and government policy. Each of these can play a critical role in water quality and delivery.

Not long ago, climate change and carbon emissions were the environmental demons knocking at our doors. 'The Carbon Disclosure Project' (CDP) sprung up out of this threat to measure, disclosure and share information among companies. Now it’s water.

The CDP also has a growing water initiative where companies report their water policies. The CDP Water Disclosure Global Report 2011 finds that 57% of the 190 publicly listed organizations that participated in the survey report board-level oversight of water policies, strategies, or plans. By comparison, a report released by CDP in September 2011 showed that 94% of Global 500 companies report board-level oversight of climate change, suggesting that corporate understanding of water as a business concern trails that of climate change.

To enhance investor analysis of corporate water risk and to support corporate action on water stewardship, CERES, the Boston-based coalition of environmental organizations and corporations, developed a go-to water gauge. Backed by investors managing over $2 trillion in assets, the “Aqua Gauge” provides a benchmark for best practice and enables investors to assess, scorecard and compare companies on their management of water risk.

Brooke Barton, the senior manager for water and corporate programs at CERES, says “investors need to get water on their governance agenda.” This includes not only, say, how water scarcity would affect a beverage maker or food producer, but also municipalities via their bond offerings. If water rates change due to shrinking supply, rates would likely rise and bond prices, in turn, lower.

I have long been vocal about the need for water conservation, efficiency, and management. In the developing world this is especially needed. Geography plays a huge role in water accessibility.

One of the biggest opportunities for social as well as environmental impact is through water investing.

Bennett Freeman, senior vice president for sustainability research and policy for Calvert Investments, notes that China holds 21% of the world’s population but only 7% of global water supply. Its water needs are massive. Therefore, water investment opportunities are massive.

Water is life

The entire developing world, as it develops, will need more water. The oil, gas, and timber industries in Africa, for example, take supply away from the direct consumption needs of freshwater supply. Management will be key to growth and prosperity.

And while the U.S. experiences water shortages throughout a majority of states, there is relative access to fresh water. It’s this skill of management and technology that could be a major U.S. export. Yet, we squander much of our skills and management.

Hormats says this is wrong. The U.S. State Department is seeking to export these skills in conjunction with the private sector, he says. “There is an important opportunity for the State Department to work with private companies and help other countries purify and manage [their water],” Hormats says.

Rao-Monari says that one of the first things that should be done is to put a price on water. She is right. There needs to be an established understanding from which we can manage water. It can exact incentives and penalties — a tool for better management.

Water is both a risk and an opportunity. Tech entrepreneurs and innovators take note. Billions of dollars worth of municipal and private projects are coming down the pike (Barton at CERES mentions projects in Nevada, Utah, and Colorado). And that’s just here in America.

[NOTE: Water remains a legislated political topic. There are many prices for water that vary by water districts. What is very poorly managed by politicians are groundwater and aquifer drafting and recharge. No matter how many water projects there are, politicians and their special interests always take their cut of the action. As it now stands, too many politicians accept the 2050-2055 CE destruction of human races as cost of doing their business as usual.  --DGE]  

Without water there is no energy. Without water there is no food. Without water, in other words, there is no life. Seems like that should be enough of a risk to warrant more attention.

As Koch pointed out, this isn’t a risk happening in the future. We’re dealing with these risks now.

Many people from around the world who came to the FT Sustainable conference agreed.

Water isn’t everywhere and there isn’t always a drop to drink. We need to invest in programs that find ways to get more.

Thomas Kostigen is the author of “The Green Blue Book: The Simple Water-Savings Guide to Everything in Your Life.”

Fin

The hydrologic water cycle describes the cycles water. The current and projected potable water shortage is caused by several factors:

#   The only way to "create" large amounts of potable water is by desalination, which consumes huge amounts of energy (that must be clean nuclear energy).

#   Increased populations require more potable water to support their lives.

#   Increased gross domestic products (GDPs or increased wealth) increase water requirements.

#   Increased atmospheric global warming temperature results in increased amount of moisture suspended within the atmosphere. there is less surface water available and ground aquifers are overdrafted. With global warming there is a net surface riparian and aquifer water loss, evaporation increase, water mining increases, net ice water loss, net ocean level rise, major weather changes, and additional factors that alter the hydrologic cycle.  

#   Most large scale water investments expect to function past 2050-2055 CE. However, if global warming political responses continues the way they have since 1750 CE, it is unlikely human races exist past 2055 CE.

Stresses of increased populations, increased hydrocarbon energy use, increased gross domestic product (GDP), and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most likely projections over time include uncontrolled population growth, limited technology changes, limited changes to energy use, critical political decisions not made, evil politicians, limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy, and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. No one has proposed changes to global warming business as usual politics. There are no formed plans to alter the course of global warming temperature increase.   

The entire developing world, as it develops, will need more water. China holds 21% of the world’s population but only 7% of global water supply. Its water needs are massive. Therefore, water investment opportunities are massive.

Unless natural and human greenhouse gases peak by 2020 CE, in 2030-2040 CE Earth global warming temperature increase shall exceed +2.0°C limit above preindustrial average temperature. Postulated is wipe out of agriculture and cattle ranching occurs as sand dunes and dust bowls appear across five U.S. states, from Texas in the south to Montana in the north. By +3 oC major to massive dust storms sweep the U.S. Midwest. Saltwater inundation of coastal groundwater stores will expand. Groundwater/aquifer pollution such as saltwater encroachment associated with over drafting of aquifers or natural leaching from natural occurring deposits are natural sources of pollution. U.S. Ogallala Aquifer (aka, High Plains Aquifer) is dry.

At +4 oC above 1750 CE preindustrial temperature, the Amazonian rain forest burns in a firestorm of catastrophic ferocity, covering South America with ash and smoke. Once the smoke clears, the interior of Brazil has become desert, and huge amounts of extra carbon have entered the atmosphere, further boosting global warming. The entire Arctic ice cap disappears in the summer months, leaving the North Pole ice-free for the first time in 3 million years. Water supplies run short in California as the Sierra Nevada snow pack melts away. U.S. Ogallala Aquifer (aka, High Plains Aquifer) is dry. Tens of millions displaced as the Kalahari Desert expands across southern Africa. Around +4 oC, rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic Region (like Siberia) sea and land permafrost in the melt zone, releasing vast quantities of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) producing a temperature rise. Melting ice caps and sea level rises have displace more than 100 million people, particularly in Bangladesh, the Nile Delta, and Shanghai. Heat waves and drought make much of the sub-tropics uninhabitable: large-scale migration even takes place within Europe, where deserts are growing in southern Spain, Italy, and Greece. More than half of wild species wiped out, in the worst mass extinction since the end of the dinosaurs. Agriculture collapses in Australia. Decreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semi-arid low latitudes result in the Amazon drying up. With temperature increase, more moisture is present in the air, more surface water evaporation, and more aquifer over drafting occurs. There is a resulting large transfer of potable aquifer water (and surface water) to oceans and atmosphere.  


Catastrophic global warming events are suffering from coordinated benign neglect and political/media misdirection. The main media continues to be active in deceiving humanity as to the peril and catastrophic events of global warming leading up to sure 2050-2099 CE demise of human races, most likely 2050-2055 CE.   

Before investing in environmental projects understand some of the basic physics involved with your investment.  You can always change your investment portfolio, but you cannot change the laws of physics, GDPs, aquifer over drafting, riparian hypoxia, ice melt, rates of global temperature increase, nor population growth.   

U.S. Nuclear Energy

Global warming temperature increase is a response to atmospheric accumulations of human and natural carbon dioxide and methane emission since the 1750 CE start of the industrial revolution.   

President Obama is now somewhat aware of the seriousness of the global warming temperature increase issues. However, the Republican candidates and U.S. Congress appear not to understand the significance of global warming temperature increase.  

All those who are not yet born, and those who are now children and young adults under the age of 30-years, shall die 2050-2099 CE, ending the 160 thousand year journey of mankind.    

Global Warming Temperature Increase

The current greenhouse gas increase above natural global warming concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increased ~39% and methane (CH4) concentration is increased ~164%. Existing carbon dioxide level is ~392 ppm. When carbon dioxide exceeds ~450 ppm, Earth’s physical carbon budget is exceeded and Earth’s carbon sinks become carbon sources resulting in Earth’s temperature increase accelerating rapidly. Within 2050-2099 CE the temperature increase is so great that Earth’s life support systems no longer function, resulting in the death of 9 billion people. Global warming is caused by human increasing use of global warming hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) and increasing releases of Arctic Region global warming methane gas (from methane hydrate vast stores). The ONLY solution available to stop global warming temperature increase is the replacement of hydrocarbon energy used to generate electrical energy with deployment of a rapid and vast build up of nuclear energy. Will this expansion of nuclear energy be enough to save human races from their 2050-2099 CE death? That question is yet to be acknowledged.  

At 2017 CE the in-place global hydrocarbon energy infrastructure shall exceed Earth’s carbon budget; the point of no return is reached, human races are extinguished 2050-2099 CE.

NRC 30-Year Political Nuclear Logjam

Resulting from the 1970s politics, nuclear plant construction costs skyrocketed from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion. This was typical of the time due to increased NRC member regulations after the 1979 CE Three Mile Island accident. In the 1970s, NRC members political nuclear regulations were to make nuclear energy costs very high and force nuclear utility rates to be unaffordable; therefore new nuclear energy was no longer a viable contender as a energy suppler. Since 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members have been building a nuclear energy political energy monopoly by denying nuclear construction with NRC members’ unwarranted and costly “safety” demands.  For more than 30-years, coal, oil, and natural gas greenhouse gas emissions was never reduced with nuclear power replacing hydrocarbon energy. President Obama and the left Democrat political machinery have now completed the more than 30-year U.S. political phase out of nuclear energy. Congressional political machinery is still fighting new U.S. nuclear construction.  

09 February 2012, President Obama’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members have issued the Combined Licenses (COL) to Southern Nuclear Operating Company’s application at the Vogtle site in Georgia. NRC staff is expected to issue the Vogtle site COLs within 10 business days. NRC members COLs should also have block authorized for the construction and conditional operation of many new Westinghouse AP-1000 nuclear power plants in the U.S.

The Combined Construction and Operating License (Regulatory Guide 1.206, COL) replaced the previous Draft Regulatory Guide 1145 as the licensing process for new nuclear power plants in the U.S. The COL is a part of a new "streamlined" or “fast track” process that is hoped to prevent delays in operation that contributed to the mothballing of many plants since the 1980s.

Previously (under Draft Regulatory Guide 1145), the licensing process had two steps, construction and operation, each of which required a different license to be issued. Oppositions raised before a plant started operation versus before it started construction could thus be extremely financially damaging to a utility.

Under new Regulatory Guide 1.206, a COL alone is still not enough to construct a nuclear plant, an Early Site Permit (ESP) application must also be filed. The ESP addresses the site that plant will be built on. ESP is unique to each site. The COL addresses the reactor design and construction. It is my understanding that since the AP-1000 is a “standard design,” the NRC COL approval for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 applies to all AP-1000 reactor design and construction that are backlogged at the NRC.

COL and the ESP could happen simultaneously for Bellefonte Nuclear Station Units 3 and 4 (Hollywood, Alabama), Levy County Units 1 and 2 (Levy County, Florida), Shearon Harris Units 2 and 3 (Wake County, North Carolina), Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (Burke County, Georgia), and William States Lee III Units 1 and 2 (Cherokee County, South Carolina). Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 (Fairfield County, South Carolina) mandatory hearing requirements appear complete.    

A Clouded Future

Neither President Obama nor the Republican candidates or the U.S. Congress have established a viable national or multinational response plan to counter global warming temperature increase.  

Resulting from the 1970s politics, nuclear plant construction costs skyrocketed from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion. This was typical of the time due to increased NRC member regulations after the 1979 CE Three Mile Island accident. In the 1970s, NRC members political nuclear regulations were to make nuclear energy costs very high and force nuclear utility rates to be unaffordable; therefore new nuclear energy was no longer a viable contender as a energy suppler. Since 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members have been building a nuclear energy political energy monopoly by denying nuclear construction with NRC members’ unwarranted and costly “safety” demands.  For more than 30-years, coal, oil, and natural gas greenhouse gas emissions was never reduced with nuclear power replacing hydrocarbon energy. Left Democrat political machinery continue more than 30-year U.S. political of opposition to nuclear energy.

Neither President Obama nor the Republican candidates or the U.S. Congress have established a viable national or multinational response plan to counter global warming temperature increase. A response plan for global warming would take about ten-years to develop. Earth does not have ten-years, it only has five years till 2017 CE to stop building carbon energy infrastructure. Human carbon emissions war to peak 2015-2010 CE and than decrease to zero over time.   

Global hydrocarbon infrastructure lock-in is around 2017 CE, and it takes about 3-4 years to build a large nuclear facility. How is the U.S. going to produce enough clean nuclear energy soon enough to cap and reduce carbon emissions so that human races are saved from total destruction 2050-2099 CE?  

The start of any Republican or Democrat global warming recovery plan is to expand U.S. nuclear energy. To properly expand U.S. nuclear energy it is necessary to replace the politics of the NRC members with an experienced panel of three military nuclear officers and one presidential appointee. To meet Earth’s 2017 CE carbon budget criteria, military nuclear design, construction, and operation experiences within the NRC is required to quickly expand U.S. and global nuclear capacity. Not doing so results in the destruction of 9 billion people.  

Global Warming - Is A Now Under 30-years Event

Politicians and media dominate our lives. With elections more important than the lives of humans, politicians and media never identify global warming temperature increase, that which is going to kill their children.       

The phrases “climate change” and “global warming” have become all but taboo on Capital Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena, and have been since 2010. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) SAID on October 13th, 2011, “It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.” Why?

President Obama spin and reelection teams are redefining the neo communist decades of involvement in critical events. Not only is there political re-identification of global warming, the Obama team is presenting errors, omissions, distortions, and word games, by government departments and internet site/PC hacking that are rewriting history and redefining America’s future. By using many different words to describe a intentionally poorly defined global warming event, President Obama’s teams avoid public awareness of the increasingly great risks posed to all who are now under the age of 30-years.

The administration has clearly responded to increasing hostility (on one end of the political spectrum) towards the effort to address climate change, scrubbing out words like global warming, cap-and-trade, and climate change from agency communication. The media alters their articles and programing to match President Obama’s climate change in “terms and rhetoric.”

Although global warming life-terminal implications were known in the 1990s CE, U.S. political leadership decided to continue expansion of U.S. hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) economies; the global warming event was minimized by U.S. political leadership, and so it remains. U.S. and global clean nuclear energy expansion was withheld to assure that energy increases would be satisfied with national hydrocarbon expansions. Around 2005 CE, there was a push by political criminals and their special interests to promote “alternative renewable green energy.” Promotion of alternatives to energy was successful for politicians and political special interests; taxpayers payed US$ 100s of billions in alternative-renewable energy projects and paper while increases in global warming greenhouse gases continued.

The fate of global temperature increase is determined. Around 450 ppm carbon level, Earth’s atmospheric carbon results in Earth becoming a source of carbon with increased human carbon releases and increased Arctic Region methane release — sometime around 2050-2099 CE Earth temperature regulation enters Modern Global Warming Era thermo runaway; human races end shortly thereafter.  

It is the now under 30-years who are sure to die from global warming.    

The ratio of the administration’s usage of “climate change” versus “energy” has changed significantly since Obama’s 2008 campaign days. “Climate change” rhetoric saw its brief heyday in 2009, thanks to the popularity of the President, the streamlined message of the unified European-U.S. neo communist party government, and the hope for legislative action before the United Nations climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. The ratio of energy to climate rhetoric has steadily increased, and the phrase “climate change” is routinely omitted in favor of clean energy-related diction. President Obama at Copenhagen, Denmark, December 2009 (COP15), redirected global warming responses to neo communist schemes for global transfers of wealth. President Obama and left Democrats have set back valid global warming responses by more than a decade.   

President Obama and left Democrats are avoiding their responsibility in global warming temperature increase with a coordinated attempt to nationally and internationally politically redefine the Modern Global Warming Era physical events. To confuse the public and avoid responding to global warming temperature increase, President Obama’s teams are dividing global warming solutions into many different divergent thoughts.   

There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. These political choices of word and thought are also reflected with unusually rapid changes in news coverage around the world. Now it is politicians who dominate what is said and when it will be said within the news media:   

"A dangerous shift in Obama’s ‘climate change’ rhetoric"

By Maxwell T. Boykoff

Published: January 27, 2012

Washington Post

What happened to “climate change” and “global warming”?

The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary. Instead, they have been replaced by less charged and more consumer-friendly expressions for the warming planet.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010. When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington, saying, “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.” By contrast, Obama used the terms “energy” and “clean energy” nearly two dozen times.

That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.” [Brown University research project LINK: Climate and Development Lab - RUNNING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CHANGING RHETORIC, December 22, 2011]

In 2009, the Obama administration purposefully began to refer to greenhouse gas emissions as “carbon pollution” and “heat-trapping emissions.” This change is evident in statements from top officials such as White House science adviser John Holdren, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Lubchenco told a reporter that the choice of those terms “is intended to make what’s happening more understandable and more accessible to nontechnical audiences.”

These choices are also reflected in news coverage around the world. My colleague Maria Mansfield and I monitor 50 major newspapers in 20 countries, and we documented that explicit mentions of “climate change” and “global warming” dropped by more than a third from 2010 to 2011. [CSTPR LINK: MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING - World Media Coverage; 2004-2011 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change of Global warming]

There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. In 2002, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz issued a widely cited memo advising that the Bush administration should shift its rhetoric on the climate. “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming. . . . ‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming,’ ” the memo said.

Luntz was not alone in wanting to change the terminology. The nonprofit group EcoAmerica issued a report in 2009 arguing that the terms “global warming” and “climate change” both needed re-branding. In their place, the group recommended the phrase “our deteriorating atmosphere.”

But what do we lose when global warming and climate change get repackaged as clean energy? We wind up missing a thorough understanding of the breadth of the problem and the range of possible solutions.

To start, talking only about clean energy omits critical biological and physical factors that contribute to the warming climate. “Clean energy” doesn’t call to mind the ways we use the land and how the environment is changing. Where in the term is the notion of the climate pollution that results from clear-cutting Amazon rain forests? What about methane release in the Arctic, where global warming is exposing new areas of soil in the permafrost?

“Clean energy” also neatly bypasses any idea that we might need to curb our consumption. If the energy is clean, after all, why worry about how much we’re using — or how unequal the access to energy sources might be?

And terms such as “carbon pollution” ignore that climate change isn’t just a carbon issue. Some greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, do not contain carbon, and not all carbon-containing emissions, such as carbon monoxide, trap heat.

When the president moves away from talking about climate change and talks more generally about energy, as he did in the State of the Union, calling for “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” the impact is more than just political.

Calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it. And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can’t alter the fact that, “climate change” or not, the climate is changing.

Maxwell T. Boykoff is an assistant professor in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the author of “Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.”

NOTES:

1. “Climate” included the phrases Climate Change, Changing Climate, Climate Negotiations, Climate Bill, and Global Warming.

2. “Energy” included Clean Energy, Renewable Energy, Green Energy, Energy Economy, Energy Technology, Energy Independence, Energy Dependence, Energy Efficient, Energy Efficiency, Energy Security, Energy Capacity, Energy Supply, Energy-Saving, Energy Plan, Energy Policy, Energy Bill, Energy Jobs, Energy Industry, Energy Production, Energy Use, Energy Grid, Energy Future, Energy Development, Energy Revolution, Energy Prices, and Energy Needs

Fin

How can President Obama not know of global warming temperature increase when his administration is changing thoughts involving multinational decisions, trillions of energy dollars, and the lives of 9 billion people in 2050-2099 CE.

The president’s intentions are revealed by his weak rhetoric and avoidance of anything tainted with the terms climate change or global warming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere doesn’t understand our delicate sleights of tongue, only the gases that continue to belch from our cars and smokestacks.

Carbon budget refers to the contribution of various sources of carbon dioxide on the planet. Carbon budget has nothing to do with political agendas, climate change legislation, carbon controls, carbon storage, economic, or geopolitical carbon footprint. Carbon budget is a physical event. Infrastructure coal plants and oil extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Hydrocarbon infrastructures are going to last another 50 years plus, at least. Nations are now “locking-in the global carbon budget.” International Energy Agency’s (IEA) found we are about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructures to lock-in a hydrocarbon infrastructure and make it extremely difficult — if not impossible — to avoid greatly exceeding 450-ppm carbon dioxide. The point of global warming no-return comes around 2017 CE.  

World Leaders must establish the intent to save human races 2050-2099. This identification of intent is a Modern Global Warming Era temperature reduction goal. A greenhouse gas-reduction statement must contain identified results over time, carbon dioxide and methane atmospheric levels, units of measurements, Earth temperatures, consider all global warming forces, probabilities of achieving events, stated starting levels, and goals. Modern Global Warming Era starting goal for greenhouse natural and human gas reduction is 1750 CE historic carbon dioxide peak levels (~280 ppm) and methane peak levels (~700 ppb). The political and physical goal is to achieve human survival well past 2100 CE.  Tempus Fugit.  

Global Warming - US Energy Accounting

Rev: 23 Jan 2012

Access to affordable energy is a key to any developed nation’s existence. Only increasing nuclear energy by 2020 CE can help human races survive the global warming temperature increase 2050-2099 CE.  

President Obama proposed a Clean Energy Standard (CES) (March 21, 2011) to require that 80% of the nation’s electricity come from clean energy technologies by 2035. The U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee faced general policy identification threshold questions for electric base load and renewable energy sectors, and whether a CES would most effectively achieve them. President Obama’s CES standards would become part of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) long-term regulations.

President Obama did not create current left Democrat energy policies, those policies were there long before he came into office.  

Clean Energy Standard (CES) (March 21, 2011) review request contains fraudulent data reporting. If that CES request was recorded in a U.S. stock market exchange, instead of within the left Democrat U.S. Senate, by omissions and misrepresentations the co conspirator authors would now be serving time in jail.     

Misrepresentation Reporting of U.S. Energy Sector

Electrical energy flow consumed in 2002 U.S. used about: 54.4% coal, 21.2% nuclear, 3.5% natural gas, 8.5% renewable (renewable is identified as 6.5% hydroelectric, 2% biomass/other).  

The CES data reported to be from the U.S. Energy Information Administration information identifies 2010 U.S. “domestic electricity generation was comprised of:” 45% coal, 25% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 10% renewable (renewable identified as hydroelectric power, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass).

CES 2010 energy usage information is not correct: coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewable statements are improper.  The left Democrat political movement is lying about energy usage and consider lies to continue Congressional opposition to global warming reform. Nuclear energy overstatement (8% vs 20%) identifies left Democrat’s reluctance to permit nuclear industry growth. Politicians misrepresenting U.S. energy data has several significant negative domestic and international repercussions, which leads to human life terminations.   

When 2002 hydroelectric power 6.5% is excluded from overall 8.5% renewable energy, what is left is 2% portion of renewable energy. In spite of being very expensive, left Democrat promoted renewable energies do not produce any significant amounts of energy or reduction in global warming greenhouse gases.

Since the 1990s, wind, solar, geothermal, and alcohol fuels (corn ethanol) are developed as corruption schemes for politicians to channel US$ 100s of billions dollars government money to special interests while controlling political special interest US$ trillions within national hydrocarbon economies. The pretext is that renewable energy investments are a solution to global warming temperature increase. For more than three decades the pretext for not building nuclear facilities is that nuclear facilities are “unsafe.” The reality is green energy, hydrocarbon energy, and political special interests destroyed human races while nuclear energy could save human races.        

2003 U.S. Energy Consumption by Major Sources (all energy sectors)

Petroleum 40%

Coal 23%

Natural Gas 23%

NUCLEAR 8% (Recently there have been misreporting of U.S. nuclear energy share. U.S. nuclear is less than 20% of total U.S. electrical output; it is more like 8%.)

*Renewable as Share of Total Energy 6%  

*Conventional Hydroelectric ~45% of Renewable 6% share (hydroelectric is largely dependent upon annual water supplies)

*Wood 34%

*Waste 9% (started in 1980s - municipal solid waste, landfill methane gas, sludge, tires, agricultural byproducts, and other biomass)

*Geothermal 5%

*Alcohol Fuels 5% (Corn ethanol funding started 1992)

*Wind 2%

*Solar 1%

Left Democrat administration continues to tinker with government departments’ data and the reporting of national energy and global warming. All U.S. federal government data and reporting are now considered unreliable. Much of university and college global warming R&D is controlled by left Democrats through control of state and federal government grants and funding. Colleges, universities, and government departments’ reporting is considered unreliable when it comes to left Democrat foundation topics and social history. The Internet has and is being falsified to favor the causes of left Democrats. Media corporations are extremely politically biased, oriented to presenting the public with unrealistic biased views. A significant amount of left Democrat smoke and mirrors political misdirections has been directed at building up U.S. special interest funding for expanding “renewable alternative green energy.”  In effect, since the early 1990s, left Democrat leadership are the cause of delaying real global warming responses.        

With the exception of expanding nuclear power, all other U.S. national energy proposals and policies are NOT viable. U.S. energy policies simply do not reflect real clean energy needs and real energy growth demands. Life-cycle process of all human energies (except nuclear energy and hydroelectric) emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.  For example, electric cars may require more coal plants. Proposals for alternative energy may also, like hydrogen, require more (coal) energy to produce than alternatives provide.  Renewable energy does not provide net new jobs—replacing efficient energy with inefficient sources will no more advance the economy than replacing trucks with horses. Clean inexpensive nuclear energy CAN provide new jobs if political nuclear construction and operating costs are reduced for nuclear energy expansion and the replacement of existing dirty hydrocarbon energy sources. Added benefits of nuclear energy are it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and therefore reduces global warming temperature increase.    

Unlike renewable energy, inexpensive nuclear energy is a tangible long-term economic stimulus. Inexpensive nuclear energy provides economies and increase employment while helping human races survival.    

Expense of Renewable Energy Corruption

Since the 1990s, “renewable” has been promoted, costly, produced insignificant energy, increased global warming, and has been a vehicle for European-U.S. special interest political corruption. Politics and government associated with the global energy sector involving trillions of dollars annually is the makings of a global disaster.  

As a result of their systemic deficiencies, alternative renewable green power sources require massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and requirements that utilities and public buy inefficient power.

Furthermore, while not reducing fossil fuel use, poorly run European “cap and trade” programs will effectively ration our primary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy sources, resulting in energy demands exceeding supplies. Alternative energy policies result in direct and indirect increased cost to the world economy, while producing very little energy and no net reduction of greenhouse gases. Congress and individual U.S. states make long-term energy rules that unnecessarily increase costs to industry rate payers.  

Infrastructure coal plants and hydrocarbon extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, Russia, Japan and the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now with the hydrocarbon infrastructure lasting at least another 50 years. Many nations are locking-in the global carbon budget. Infrastructure “carbon budget” lock, expected 2017, results in 2050-2099 human races termination.

World leaders are to rapidly reduce human carbon dioxide emissions prior to 2020 CE or human races terminate 2050-2099 CE.

Limited Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is “alternatives” to primary energy of petroleum, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and conventional hydroelectric. Renewable alternative green energies are costly and counter-productive to survival of human races. Nuclear energy is expandable with existing technology and resources nationally and globally. How much nuclear and how quickly nuclear energy is expanded defines how long humans survive.  

In response to the global warming challenges, UN’s 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that has helped create “alternative renewable energy” and political special interests. Green alternative has been promoted with U.S. Congressional legislation: U.S. ‘Energy Policy Act’ (1992), ‘Energy Policy Act’ (2005), and ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009). ARRA contains US$ 90 billion in alternative renewable green energy funding. In 2011, carbon cap-and-trade markets involving alternative renewable green energy across the world were valued at ₡ 96 billion euros (US$ 122.63 billion), up 4 percent on 2010. Shutdown of Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository identifies congressional left Democrat opposition to the U.S. nuclear industry. 1990s global political greed and corruption over took the 1960s concern about global warming.

Carbon cap-and-trade markets are trading paper to justify corruption of receiving taxpayer money for constructing hydrocarbon facilities with a promise of future reduced greenhouse gases. None of the cap-and-trade markets result in reduction of greenhouse gases. Carbon cap-and-trade markets are part of global political corruption involving multinational government supporters, the U.N., and US$ 100s billions in global warming funding going to special interest energy frauds. A large portion of ARRA (2009) US$ 90 billion alternative renewable green energy funding promotes global carbon cap-and-trade.  Necessary expansion of nuclear energy has for decades been politically suppressed to continue political special interest frauds while expanding national hydrocarbon economies.

U.S. renewable Wood (2.1%), Waste (0.6%), Geothermal (0.3%), Alcohol Fuels (corn ethanol) (0.2%), Wind (0.1%), Solar (0.1%) provided a very small (total 3.4%) amount of energy to the 2003 energy consumed. Taxpayer and user costs for renewable energy are very large.     

Biomass - Wood, waste, corn ethanol exceeding 2.7% of provided national energy is very unlikely. There are five basic categories of biomass material.   

⇛ Wood - Virgin wood, from forestry, arbour cultural activities or from wood processing

⇛ Waste - Agricultural residues: residues from agriculture harvesting or processing

⇛ Waste - Food waste, from food and drink manufacture, preparation and processing, and post-consumer waste

⇛ Waste - Industrial waste and co-products from manufacturing and industrial processes

⇛ Ethanol - Energy crops: high yield crops grown specifically for energy applications

Ethanol - Corn requires 29% more fossil energy to produce corn ethanol than the corn-ethanol fuel returns. Switch grass-ethanol requires 45% more fossil energy and wood-biomass ethanol requires 57% more than the fuel returnes. In all cases of biomass energy, Earth’s carbon sinks quickly transfer carbon into the atmosphere and warms Earth.  Ethanol energy yield per-volume is very low.

We are feeding cars corn that should be feeding people and reducing the cost of U.S. food stock. The grain required to fill an SUV tank with ethanol one time equals what a person eats in a year. About 40% of U.S. harvested corn feeds cars. It takes a great deal of groundwater irrigation water to make corn-ethanol. Groundwater reserves are generally being depleted from irrigation groundwater over drafting. Groundwater is being transferred to oceans via the hydrological cycle.  

The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production while ethanol does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source, and is not an economical fuel. Ethanol production and use contribute to air, water, and soil pollution and global warming. The vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

Ethanol fuel is widely used in Brazil and in the United States. Together both countries were responsible for 88 percent of the world's ethanol fuel production in 2010; U.S. with 13.2 billion U.S. liquid gallons (bg) (50 billion liters) and Brazil 6.92 bg (26.2 billion liters). 7 billion gallons of ethanol consumes 20% of 2007 corn production. U.S. corn ethanol in 2022 is legislated to burn about 43 billion gallons pre year, requiring about 123% of the U.S. farmland to produce.       

The removal of large tracts of land from food production to make ethanol has dramatically raised world food prices by reducing supplies. There have been food riots, with millions of people exposed to hunger. Corn-ethanol is a “crime against humanity.” Ethanol from corn requires fertilizers that increase nitrous oxide emissions that are themselves greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, only more powerful. More frequent Gulf of Mexico huge hypoxia events are caused by increased corn-ethanol fertilization leaching into tributaries, Mississippi, and on to the Gulf. Riparian hypoxia is an increasing problem within all countries, coastlines, and oceans.   

U.S. Congress is to eliminate ethanol requirements and reinstate gasoline additives MMT (methyl cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl) and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether).      

Hydrogen - Hydrogen as a energy source is not freely available, but must be extracted from molecules such as water. To do so requires more energy than hydrogen product returns. Hydrogen is also flammable, hard to contain, and hard to transport.

Wind and Solar Energy - Thousands of wind turbines are required to provide the power of a standard fossil fuel or nuclear plant. Turbines must be spaced widely apart to prevent the air flow of one from interfering with that of the next, meaning that wind farms must consume hundreds of times the land that standard energy plants require. Wind farm siting must consider migratory bird flights. Solar and wind electrical power must be transported from energy farms to cities. Because wind and solar are highly variable source of energy, wind and solar energy must be backed by traditional base-load electrical sources.

Solar-panel energy farms work best in warm climates and with long hours of direct sunlight. Due to panel designs, manufacture, and installation, solar efficiencies can vary greatly with rapid reliability reductions of solar panel electrical output. Interestingly, environmentalists themselves have recently opposed these installations due to environmental damage and land requirements. Accumulations of installed solar and wind energy have significant unsolvable electrical synchronization issues with the nation’s standard base-load electrical generation.  

Wind and solar are limited in capacity, reliability, locations, expandability, and connection to national base load generators.    

Hydro power - River dams offer a modest contribution to national clean energy needs (about 2.8% at 2003 level), but the most productive sites are already used up, and dams radically alter the environment. Canada may offer additional hydrological sites along the north-south Rocky Mountain Range. However, hydroelectric water storage capacity can be quickly affected by climate changes.   

Nuclear Energy - I see no alternatives to fossil fuels greenhouse gas emissions other than expanding nuclear energy. Because nuclear alone utilizes the energy in the nucleus of the atom, nuclear energy-yield exceeds fossil fuel yields by a factor of billions. Nuclear is about 8% of U.S. energy flow.   

Nuclear plants are safer than coal plants and produce less radiation.  Furthermore, they can directly produce electricity and power our cars by providing electricity for batteries, making a hydrogen infrastructure unnecessary. Nuclear energy is the only energy source suitable for large capacity desalination plants.

1, 2, 3 Steps to Rescue

Saving human races from 2050-2099 Christin Era (CE) global warming temperature increase involves three steps:

Step 1 - Acknowledge global warming temperature increase as a critical problem.  

Step 2 - Identify causes. Propose solutions.   

Step 3 - Implement in enough solutions a timely manor to prevent human races destruction.  

Step 1 - Acknowledge global warming temperature increase as a critical problem.

Increasing rate of natural and human greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane releases results in increased global average temperature that exceeds a life terminating temperature increase. Resulting is human races termination 2050-2099 CE with death of all who are now under the age of 30 years. Termination of all human life is a critical problem that might be resolved only by world leaders’ coordinated rapid responses.  

Step 2 - Identify causes. Propose solutions.

Earth’s human survival is as a spaceship flying through space. Spaceship Earth life support system is a closed system with finite capacity to sustain a finite amount of human life over a decreasing lifespan, "We travel together, passengers on a little space ship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil" -Adlai Stevenson (D), U.N. Ambassador, 1965  

Causes - The predominant scientific opinion on global warming is that Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, caused by humans’ use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and also deforestation, which increase human and natural atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.    

1750 CE Industrial Age start was the start of massive amounts of human global warming gas carbon dioxide emissions. By 1866 CE, global warming accumulations of human gases produced a clear “thumbprint” of human impacts on “climate change.” Earth’s normal biosphere cycle of carbon dioxide had been exceeded. The population and gross domestic product (GDP) growth directly increased hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) energy consumed. The Arctic Region responded with natural global warming gas release of methane. Earth’s global warming temperature increased and has not stopped increasing. Current dip in human greenhouse gas emissions is the result of the global recession GDP drop.   

Although it is not easy to know with precision how long it takes greenhouse gases to decrease their global warming properties by carbon cycle exchange, there are estimates. More than half of the carbon dioxide emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century (giving carbon dioxide lifetime estimated in the order of 30–95 years) with some fraction (about 20%) of emitted carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. Molecule-for-molecule basis, the direct radiative effects of methane is about 72 times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20 years. Reducing greenhouse gases over time to 1750 CE pre industrial levels will never be achieved as long as humans remain on Earth.  

The global “carbon budget” is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. With accumulations of human/natural carbon dioxide, temperature increase, and deforestation; Earth is moving from a carbon-cycle sink to carbon source, which results in greater and more rapid global temperature increase.

Infrastructure coal, oil, and natural gas plants and hydrocarbon extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, Russia, Japan and the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Nations are locking-in the global carbon budget. Nations’ economic hydrocarbon infrastructures are going to last more than 50 years; possibly longer than human races’ survive. Global carbon budget’s lock-in is expected around 2017 CE, which would result in human races termination 2050-2099 CE.

To avoid 2017 CE locking-in the global carbon budget, rapid and large expansion of nuclear energy replacing proposed and existing hydrocarbon facilities is required. Following is 2009 CE listing of annual carbon dioxide emissions estimates (in thousands of CO2 metric tonnes): China 7,037,864, United States 5,290,006, European Union 3,623,402, India 1,629,959, Russia 1,528,568, Japan 1,092,878, and Germany 755,140. Quickly reducing hydrocarbon economies emissions of global warming greenhouse gas is a very large political task.    

Solution - Solution to global warming temperature increase is to reduce global warming by reducing human and natural greenhouse gas emissions.       

Step 3 - Implement in a timely manor enough solutions to prevent human races destruction.

Prior to 2020 CE, world leaders are to rapidly reduce human carbon dioxide emissions, or human races terminate 2050-2099 CE. Since solutions for shifting away from national hydrocarbon economies was delayed more than three decades, implementing rapid solutions to save human races will cost many trillions U.S. dollars over many years.

The Accounting

The U.S. nuclear energy sector is a global asset too valuable to be run by politicians. No longer can human races survival depend upon the whims of appointed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) politicians. The politically controlled untoward NRC are under complete control of CONGRESSIONAL left Democrat leadership. If human global greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 and than be reduced, NRC members are to be fired now and replaced by three senior military nuclear representatives, one nuclear industry representative, and one representative appointed by the President.     

There is no acceptable rational for government investments in alternative renewable green energy. Unfortunately, there are irrational biases against nuclear power by environmentalists, anti nukes, left and right politicians, and special interests widely opposed to nuclear energy, though some environmentalists are taking a second look. President Obama’s team is misrepresenting data to enhance left Democrat election chances, support special interest, and expand special interest political corruption.

Left Democrat’s 2009-2010 U.S. Congress achieved its legislated goals for advancing European-U.S. neo communism and global warming response. Holding onto left Democrat political gains, the 2011-2012 Congress was maneuvered by left Democrats into being a ‘do nothing Congress;’ certainly Washington DC is a dysfunctional left Democrat Obama administration and dysfunctional left Democrat Senate. To a large extent, Congressional global warming responses in 2012 determines who is elected November 2012.

All left Democrat politicians avoid responses that might shift the U.S. from its political special interests or from the U.S. hydrocarbon economy. Republicans are split on the global warming issues. Mr. Gingrich co-sponsored a 1989 bill stating that “climate change” was "resulting from human activities."

Human races terminate 2050-2099 CE, or world leaders reduce human carbon dioxide emissions prior to 2020 CE. Since the nuclear energy solutions necessary to shift away from national hydrocarbon economies was delayed for more than three decades; implementing rapid solutions to save human races will now cost trillions U.S. dollars for many years. Global warming temperature increase is a socially equal problem, there is no other choice but to accept a political priority for timely reduction of human greenhouse gas emissions.