More and more people are buying into the fact that Global Warming is real, but as many comments here on RK and elsewhere attest, the acceptance that all of us must do something isn't really dawning on people.

We hear about the need to meet projected energy demand as it increases, we hear about economic issues both macro and micro, we hear about how the economy is in a tough spot now so we can't make changes that would hurt anyone, people don't like to be told what to do or they need to conserve, etc, etc.

Those are all good points in their own right.  However, the strength of these points should not be measured in an vacuum, but with respect to how real/dangerous Global Warming is.  And to me that is the next battle - it's not about convincing most people that Global Warming is real, it's about convincing them, as Dr. Hansen says, that this is a very real threat that must be dealt with immediately.  

Most would prefer that we wait for a comfortable easy solution to come along, but if you believe scientists like Dr. Hansen, we can't wait that long.  So the battle is about whether or not to believe the experts who have dedicated their lives to studying this stuff.

" Global Warming is real, ... that this is a very real threat that must be dealt with immediately."  

There are other enormous factors which give sound reason to move from fossil, asap.  Energy independence, energy security and moral economic reasons are compelling concerns to motivate politicans, consumers and industry, your Inhofe's and Limbaugh's not withstanding.

"Most would prefer that we wait for a comfortable easy solution to come along, ... we can't wait that long."

The market has and is continuing to present solutions; federal legislation (EPAct 2005 and EISA 2007) has set the course; gov't funding for R&D is unfolding, but rushing these investments for answers before gov't R&D presents their options as viable, profitable, market-ready solutions, may lead to betamax-type technology and delayed achievements.  For example DOE's 1st attempt for ccs, was too narrowed and costly, and was shelved this year for 6 other pilots, much to the dismay of certain Illinois politicans.  But as we now see, it was for good reason, but one which most likely denied industry ccs for another 5 to 10 years.

"So the battle is about whether or not to believe the experts who have dedicated their lives to studying this stuff."

This logic also applies to the experts who dedicate their lives in finding and developing solutions within the energy industry.  Utilities, regulators and market participants are the primary people who can lead the charge.  

If the transformation requires a Manhattan or Apollo project, these experts will tell Congress.  Last fall, several leading utility CEO's made that assertion regarding smart grid technology.  Today, energy industrymen are telling Congress about our troubles in light sweet oil and natural gas capacities.  The transformation does not mean the complete shelving of all kinds of fossil, because it isn't going to be as quick as a flip of a switch.  

PS - for some, we must realize it is the federal gov't who invents or initiates alot of what we have in energy, or finds the solutions to major stumbling blocks on already existing concepts.  The gov't funds these efforts thru its numerous national labs, universities and joint industry consortiums.  The net results, however, are inefficient designs requiring further tranformation by market participants, who, depending upon the development stage, may still receive funding.  But gov't shouldn't be made to make these things profitable and market ready; however, assisting with incentives certainly speeds up some expensive solutions, which are proven to be ahead of their time.    

I wanted to read Dr. Hansen's original testimony of 1988, but unfortunately THOMAS(library of Congress) on-line records starts w/the 101st Congress(1989). I searched "james hansen" in the 101st Congress and it was deja-vu..what follows is from 1989.

Documents Senate: May 9, 1989, Leadership On Global Warming

White House Admits Censoring Testimony

(BY PHILIP SHABECOFF)

Washington, May 8: The White House confirmed today that it had censored Congressional testimony on the effects of global warming by a top Government scientist, but it insisted that the changes reflected policy decisions, not scientific conclusions.

Marlin Fitzwater, the White House press secretary, said the Office of Management and Budget had changed conclusions about global warming data contained in the testimony of Dr. James T. Hansen , director of the space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He said the action was taken because the ideas presented were `not necessarily those of all scientists who have considered this matter.'

In his original test, before it was changed, Dr. Hansen asserted that computer projections showed that global warming caused by pollution from human activity would cause upheavals in the earth's climate. He warned of substantial increases in temperature, drought in mid-latitudes, severe storms and other stresses.

But his testimony was changed to make his conclusions seem less certain.

In response to questions at the regular White House briefing this morning, Mr. Fitzwater said that an official of the Office of Management and Budget `five levels down from the top' had changed Dr. Hansen's testimony to reflect that `there are many points of view on the global warming issue and many of them conflict with those stated by Dr. Hansen .'

 
search THOMAS here

Come on November 2008 and Obama!!..perhaps we can finally enter the 21st Century and embrace the change for a cleaner energy future

I actually remember exactly where I was when I read the NY Times story 20 years ago about Hansen's testimony. I was walking to a mall in Chapel Hill, NC on a blisteringly hot day when the headline caught my eye.  I remember buying the Times, reading the story and thinking "this is big."

It's tragic that it has taken so long for our "leaders" to figure out that this is an enormous challenge requiring a herculean response -- and they're still not there yet. Eric is exactly on point -- now that people recognize that there is a problem, they need to understand the magnitude and urgency of it.

We also need to stop fooling people that with just a few tiny steps of buying the right toothpaste and breakfast cereal, they can change the world.  I can't tolerate the "lazy environmentalist" approach.  We need major infrastructural changes, not just a few nice gestures here or there.

O is ahead 15 points in the polls and it's time to turn this election season into a movement to create a referendum on specific change.

He has the opportunity to make his 100 days as transformational and filled with hope as his 2004 DNC convention speech, his Iowa or SC victory speeches or his great speeches on Race or Fathers.

Political reality has made McCain almost irrelevant in this election and for me the question has become whether Obama will wake up November 5 and say "now what"?

Everything's happening.  The organization, the money, the politics, the polls.  But progressives and Democrats have yet to map the contours of the next great era in American politics.  Will this be the 4 years we marked time or will it be the beginning of 20, 30, or 50 years of an enduring Democratic majority that transformed mankind?

Meanwhile, your tax dollars at work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...