"Moderation" and Montreal

Sometimes "moderate solutions" just won't cut it. They often don't amount to solutions at all, as when it comes to climate change and greenhouse gases. The middle ground in the U.S., if properly informed, would insist on aggressively updating our energy systems. The reasonability of the extremist claim that everything is fine, and that our country shouldn't "foreclose" its "economic growth" by trying our level best to reduce climate change, if that position ever was reasonable, has now evaporated like a melted glacier. The half-measure "agreement" to disagree at the Montreal conference is not good enough. Americans should demand better.

cont'd after link

What, exactly, would the "modest curbs" proposed by Senator McCain and other moderates accomplish?

This from the NYT: 'As the meetings under the treaties roll on through 2012 and beyond...the pace of growth in Asia, both in economies and the use of coal and oil, the main source of carbon dioxide emissions, will be explosive. "Even if everybody adhered perfectly to Kyoto, China could wipe that out in maybe six months, nine months," Dr. Smil said. "We're cooked."'

Bill Clinton is right (as usual): focus needs to be put on the economic stimulus of an overhaul of the nation's energy system, which goes hand-in-hand with the environmental necessity. We can create jobs with new economic stimulus packages that aim to reduce our country's emissions, not just their "intensity".

Global emissions growth demands that we try to reduce our contribution to it in real terms, and find a way to make it economically desirable for developing nations to limit their output. Throwing up our hands and saying "not our problem" would be a disaster.