Wonder how the ordinary US citizen can adapt.

Underground housing?

Moving north?

Not a solution to the general problem.

But individuas/communites have to form local plans on the high

probability that governements are gridlocked.

ct

Thanks for that, Thom! A recent little book by Karen Shragg, "Move Upstream, A Call to Solve (Human) Overpopulation", asks to consider the root, headwater cause of this and all the myriad other environmental impacts of modern men and women: overpopulation. The technological fixes for our overpopulation problem have been in existence for some time now, and we only need to be motivated to use them to reduce our population world-wide. Averaging one-child per couple, by voluntary contraception, will bring our worldwide population down from its current 7.3 billion back to 2.5 billion in 2,100. If we choose to ignore this well-spring problem, we will face world-wide species extinctions, including our own, if the huge volume of ecological research on numerous mammalian species is a guide, and, of course, it is. We have an inborn mammalian population regulation mechanism in our endocrine and autonomic nervous systems. I've blogged about it, and the free e-book, "Stress R Us" that fully describes it, elsewhere on this fabulous website. According to the animal models, all human reproduction will turn off at the highpoint of our population expansion. The real question, then, is how far we are from that point of no return. Any guesses? Thanks for this opportunity! Glad you have seen through the Hillary for President B.S.

i'll "do something".... when you "get" China & India, -to do their part.

I wonder if the device to which you refer employs coal-direct chemical looping or CDCL. For the past few years the energy community has been excited about the work started at Ohio State. The process reportedly strips 96.5 percent of the carbon released during the process while increasing the cost of electricity by 28.8 percent. And the "energy penalty" of the process is a fraction of current methods. But the question is what to do with the CO2?

The "ideal" scenarion calls for pumping it deep underground inot old oil and gas wells. Last year DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory published its fifth edition of the Carbon Storage Atlas studying the solution. For me this solution makes me just as nervous as the nuclear solution as it all depends on someone ensuring stability of the products of the production of energy.

I grew up with the view of the beautiful Rockies and deplore the thought of our continuing destruction of our natural beauty. I also grew up with the spectre of Rocky Flats (now a wind farm). Both these strong memories make me look askance at the "clean energy" solution.

I saw a post the other day talking about Fukushima in Japan; it's leaking again. Also, wild pigs are turning up in Japanese residential areas full of radiation. No one is talking about this, either.

The people who have managed to get themselves into positions of authority have their heads stuck in the sand and are refusing to see anything except their "right to make money". We are in the hands of mad men and exactly what it will take to turn this around, I don't know. Probably some horrific natural disaster that no one can ignore.

To Erin Rose:

Japanese media are talking about this, I know as I live in Japan. The problem is that western news aren't picking up the stories because translation from Japanese to English is just too much trouble for them.

Fukushima hasn't stopped leaking since the 2011 quake and resultant tsunami that damaged the facility. It's big news in Japan and has been since the quake. The people are protesting every day, it's in the news daily and as a result, nuclear facilities have either been shut down or running on limited capacity. We are in a constant energy conservation mode here which they call 'setsuden' (節電). Energy use has been drastically decreased, particularly during the hot, humid summers where air conditioning is kept at about 28 degrees celcius (about 82 F).

It's uncomfortable but worth the effort. We spend a lot of time wishing spring and autumn were longer seasons!

Have an article about the extreme dangers of climate change and sure enough a couple Big Oil Sockpuppets show up doing the usual nonsensical fear-mongering about Fukushima. As usual no numbers, no knowledge, no analysis, just the usual:

"those horrible radiation thingies leaking into the ocean, how scary, the world is doomed, the end is near, nuclear is bad, gas is good"

So Climate Change, and the #1 source of clean energy on the planet is nuclear energy, and unlike the Sockpuppets fav natural gas energy source, which releases 100X the radiation to the environment, and a millionX other emissions, Nuclear actually contains its wastes. Funny how these cretins never complain about the fracking radiation emissions released right into our homes, our drinking water sources, local lakes, rivers, land & air. The sockpuppets don't want to talk about their giant Porter Ranch radiation leak right into Los Angeles. Radiation being one small part of what was being released.

"... wild pigs, full of radiation...".

It is hard to imagine how anyone on this planet could be stupid enough to believe crap like that. Idiots.

Wsliko. I do Google. http://saskpowerccs.com/ccs-projects/boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project/ sask power is capturing the carbon from a coal generator plant so they elimate CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Cheap reliable energy with no carbon footprint. Could you imagine doing this world wide how much better it would be for reducing polution. The same technology is being used in the oil sands. But this with mess up many government plans to re distribution of wealth. Who can we hammer with a carbon tax that does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. Real CO2 reductions just imagine.

The endlessly touted Sask Power boundary dam Coal power plant CCS plant is a just a joke. It cost $600M to upgrade the lousy 139MW plant, causing a loss of 29MW of electricity. A trivial 1 MT CO2 captured per year. So just for the upgrade, not the whole plant that's $1350/tonne of CO2 captured annually not including the 29MW electricity loss, worth about $13M per year added cost, and added cost of CO2 injection and transport.

Projected cost of the Bruce Power Nuplex was $620/tonne CO2/yr avoided, that's total cost = 1/2 Boundary dam but actually produces electricity as a freebie while the CCS project consumes 29MW of electricity.

With Nuclear levelized cost nearly the same as Coal in Canada, in reality there is zero cost to replacing CO2 with Nuclear and as a freebie replacing millions of tonnes of SOx, NOx, mercury, arsenic, lead, ash and sludge toxic emissions.

And even if you take very pessimistic cost data for nuclear you are at most looking at a $20/tonne/yr CO2 avoidance cost. Boundary dam is easily well over $100/tonne/yr CO2 capture cost. And that is for a trivial amount of CO2. Try putting meaningful amounts of CO2 into the ground and that would be a total pipe dream. It is no accident that CCS still amounts to zip in spite of over 20 yrs of hype.

A crazy idea.

legislate against greed now!!!!!!!!!!!

As long as the righties are stricken with denial, we're doomed to a premature man made ending! Regarding man made genocide.... I'd give anything to know what Socrate's comment would be on such an idiotic- no brainer-planet ending subject, such as documented man-made climate change,.... REMEMBER, his Athenian "establishment" political system fnn killed him???...seriously!

Truth is Truth...always has been, always will be , so f U Fox News.... and the handful of twisted progressives making their living off this conservative fascist broadcast!...