Getting serious about climate change: Ann Arbor eyes 90% reduction in emissions by 2050
A graphic illustration comparing the different contributors toward greenhouse gas emissions in Ann Arbor from 2000 to 2010.
Courtesy of City of Ann Arbor
"One of the important things we're looking at is stormwater — the amount of extreme storms is likely to increase," said Matt Naud, the city's environmental coordinator.
Working with the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA) center at the University of Michigan, city officials are expecting a rise in the intensity and frequency of storms, which could mean more erosion and sewage overflows.
They also say Ann Arbor can expect anywhere from a 1.8- to 5.4-degree increase in temperature by 2050, leading to significantly increased energy demands.
Matt Naud
Naud, joined by two of his colleagues, presented some of the initial results of the task force's work to the Ann Arbor City Council during a special work session Monday night.
"We do think that climate change is a really important issue we should be focusing on," Naud told council members. "We think we've got a number of really important and doable steps that we can take. And each of those steps will be brought to you as individual projects."
The city's Climate Action Plan initiative is being funded by a $50,000 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality pollution prevention grant. Part of that money has paid to contract with the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition.
Jenny Oorbeck of the Clean Energy Coalition joined Naud at Monday's meeting, highlighting the likely targets coming out of the final Climate Action Plan later this fall.
That includes a new goal of having the community's greenhouse gas emissions fall 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2025, and then 90 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.
"We set that target to align with U-M's climate goals," Oorbeck said of the 2025 goal. "Beyond that, we are trying to align with the latest consensus on climate science."
Oorbeck said more than 80 actions — some small, some large — have been identified as necessary to reach those goals. She didn't go into detail on them Monday night.
Nate Geisler, the city's energy programs associate, presented figures showing the 2.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions that came from different segments of the community in 2010 and how that's changed in the past decade.
He said less than 2 percent came from the city's municipal operations. The commercial/industrial sector contributed 25 percent or 560,944 metric tons, while residential properties contributed 22 percent or 479,728 metric tons.
Transportation contributed 22 percent or 746,772 metric tons, while the University of Michigan contributed 30 percent or 671,605 metric tons.
A chart presented by Geisler showed a drastic drop in emissions by commercial and industrial properties over the last decade while U-M's carbon footprint grew significantly.
He said part of that is because the former Pfizer campus in Ann Arbor was switched into the university's hands, but beyond that U-M just went through a growth period.
Fortunately, Geisler said, the university is taking steps through its office of sustainability to address emissions. Two U-M representatives serve on the climate task force.
Naud said quite a bit of analysis has gone into the project thanks to the help of a diverse task force that includes members from various community groups that are actively working on climate change and understanding what it means for Ann Arbor.
"And how we can work to both mitigate the effects of climate change and adapt to the changes we know are coming," Naud added.
Naud said he was presenting the initial results of the task force's work to council Monday night to get feedback before a more formal plan is presented in the fall.
The city already met a previous goal from 2006 of having 20 percent of energy use for municipal operations coming from renewable sources by 2010.
The council last year also set a goal of having community greenhouse gas emissions 8 percent below 2000 levels by 2015, with municipal emissions 50 percent below 2000 levels by then.
Naud said the task force in the Climate Action Plan effort is going beyond municipal operations and looking at what Ann Arbor can do as a broader community.
"We've been working with the University of Michigan," he said. "There's a lot of good climate science out there."
A look at the estimated CO2 emission levels by sector in Ann Arbor in 2010.
Courtesy of City of Ann Arbor
"We also need to have that similar type of focus on transportation emissions," she said. "How do we eliminate these fossil fuels? If we're really going to get to that 90 percent reduction, we can't do it without doing these drastic things."
She pointed out DTE Energy still generates 75 percent of its electricity from coal and 20 percent from nuclear. The utility company, which serves Ann Arbor, is working to meet Michigan's Renewable Portfolio Standard of generating 10 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2015, and as of September reported it was at more than 5 percent.
Mayor John Hieftje said the city has looked at creating its own electric utility, which is something other Michigan cities have done, but found it would be a long, arduous and expensive process, but he said it's "surely it's a great solution that would help."
"Absolutely," Naud agreed.
"And I think some of the models in California where the utilities and cities partner in community energy planning, that's something that would be much more doable," he added.
Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, wondered what Ann Arbor would look like in 2050 after implementing everything the climate task force is talking about.
He wondered: Would there be solar panels on every roof and windmills throughout town? Would everyone be driving electric cars?
Naud said that's something that requires deeper thought, but he pointed out the top two users of energy in Ann Arbor are the city's water and wastewater treatment plants, followed by street lights. He said the two plants could be powered year round by three 1.6-megawatt wind turbines like the ones DTE Energy is installing in Michigan's Thumb region.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
shepard145
Sat, Jun 16, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Who pays for the lavishly self titled "Clean Energy Coalition"? A group of private investors who see a great new business opportunity to abandon economical coal/nuclear energy in favor of expensive, unreliable sources that will make the entire earth colder? The answer is DEMOCRATS GIVING AWAY MORE OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Are Matt here and his buddies experienced electrical engineers who once worked as planners for MAJOR UTILITIES and understand the real world challenges of providing reliable power to Michigan at the most economical cost? ....or a bunch of taxpayer paid professional "environmentalists" glomming onto this eco fad, HAPPY TO TELL ANN ARBOR WHERE THEIR POWER SHOULD COME FROM? Will Matt go broke if his recommendations are implemented and FAIL? ..or will he just dance away into the sunset as another check from obama arrives in the mail? Ever heard of Solyndra? SOMEBODY ASK THEM!! WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT QUALIFIES THEM TO PRESENT THIS NONSENSE TO COUNCIL!! Ask them how many degrees colder the earth will get if Ann Arbor spends their taxpayers into bankruptcy with this nonsensical scheme! …love the reference to national embarrassment CALIFORNIA, speaking of bankruptcy. The CEC is a POLITICAL OPERATION with ZERO CONSEQUENCES when their recommendations result in utter FAILURE with AA residents stuck with the bill. These are the monorail salesman of our generation, telling the dumb what they need as they stuff their pockets with more taxpayer cash sent by democrat party representatives in Washington. Lets hook Matt's house up to a windmill in Washtenaw county and see how he does......oh, and without the evil cheap energy coal/nuclear "grid" he is so frightened of. Matt can then track the earth's temperature and report to Council each month how much colder the earth gets as he sits in the dark most of the year! LOL
BobbyJohn
Thu, Jun 14, 2012 : 5 p.m.
ATTENTION When there is talk of how effective wind energy is in the thumb of Michigan, that is because wind speeds are higher up there than in Washtenaw county. The amount of energy produced by just ONE more MPH of wind speed TRIPLES the amount of energy produced. Wind energy is simply not appropriate for Washtenaw, not enough energy is produced. If the grid is improved, then we can transmit energy from the thumb to our area, but please don't waste money putting in windmills here. Windmills are expensive, very high maintenance, and have a limited life span.
BobbyJohn
Thu, Jun 14, 2012 : 5:02 p.m.
Sorry, I understated the difference in energy with one more MPH of wind speed. That should read CUBES, rather than triples.
SEC Fan
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.
did they say why their target is based upon the CY2000 numbers? Cumulatively speaking, the total emissions for CY 2000 and CY 2010 are almost identical.
Tanzor
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 3:10 p.m.
So, Ann Arbor's governing body is concerned and proactive regarding energy consumption – right? We just built a 50,000,000 dollar underground parking structure that will consume large amounts energy due to its design. The underground parking structure requires ventilation, lighting and other mechanical systems consuming allot of energy 24 hours a day, every day. Within a few blocks are parking structures which typicality have considerable open capacity, in my 20+ years in Ann Arbor I have never been unable to find a parking spot. Naud and his deeper thought, He said Ann Arbor's water and sewer utilities could be powered year round by wind turbines, come on, be serious, wind turbines only produce energy when the wind is blowing , step outside Mr Naud, feel the wind?
SEC Fan
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 6:01 p.m.
and don't forget the number of cars their encouraging to come in and fill these spots...
Peter
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 5:42 p.m.
If only there was some mystical way to 'store' energy in some sort of 'battery' that could allow us to use energy generated at other times. If only.
Jeffersonian Liberal
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.
Ask one of these koolaid drinking fools what is the optimum earths temperature? False computer models plus eco-morons equals redistribution of wealth.
SEC Fan
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 6:03 p.m.
ooh...i like kool-aid.
outdoor6709
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.
If the U of M wants to reduce its co2 foot print it would cancel U of M football. CO2 emmisions and methane are caused by the traffic jams, tailgating and other excesses on otherwise nice Saturday afternoons. The only way for AA to reduce its carbon output by 90% is for 90% of the population to leave. My vote would be for the people who decided man made global warming wasn't selling and changed the issue to climate change (something that always happens) should be the first to go.
A2comments
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 10:47 a.m.
Mayor John Hieftje said the city has looked at creating its own electric utility, which is something other Michigan cities have done, but found it would be a long, arduous and expensive process, but he said it's "surely it's a great solution that would help." Said it before, nice to live outside Ann Arbor. Because setting up your own utility is greener?
shepard145
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:59 a.m.
Lets see a chart comparing standard of living data to the "carbon emission" fraud. Get it? Why do democrats and obama salivating at their efforts to end American Exceptionalism and the decline of America. They view America's high standard of living and leading GDP as a problem to be solved at YOUR EXPENSE. Vote like your future depends on it.
shepard145
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:48 a.m.
Lets all celebrate Ann Arbor's new eco enlightenment by idling our lawn mowers in our front yards all during the next Council meeting!
RunsWithScissors
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:03 a.m.
"Ann Arbor eyes 90% reduction in emissions by 2050" I'm no rocket scientist, but my calculations show that by 2050 the Baby Boomer generation will have fizzled out (easily 80% of AA population) and the antics of AA city government will scare away nearly everyone else. The remaining few souls and a couple of tumbleweeds could conceivably produce a tenth of the emissions reported in 2012. In effect, this is an easily achievable goal.
SEC Fan
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 12:52 a.m.
huh? I thought all this warming was due to cow flatulence? How many cows are there in Ann Arbor?
Brad
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 11:32 p.m.
Odds are that I will reduce my contribution to Ann Arbor emissions by 100% by 2050. Just doing my part.
SEC Fan
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 10:30 p.m.
Guess building that new parking structure was a mistake after all...
shepard145
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 10:29 p.m.
Very amusing – are they serving eco Kool-Aid at the meetings? As others have written, this entire issue is hilarious to anyone who knows that these eco hysterics are claiming: a. CO2 levels govern the earth's temperature. b. CO2 released by VARIABLE human activity controls the earth's temperature. c. CO2 released by variable American Consumer choices and daily activity controls the earth's temperature. d. With enough GOVERNMENT TAXES, LAWS, MONITORING AND OVERSIGHT of ANN ARBOR RESIDENTS and BUSINESSES, Ann Arbor City Council will change the earth's weather. GET IT!! THIS IS BEYOND MORONIC. The City of Ann Arbor does not know enough to be embarrassed at their sophomoric scam they've bought into. Leave the eco fantasies to UM. They have already made themselves the laughing stock of the country, issuing worthless ECO degrees to graduates with no useful skills or knowledge.
Steve
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
What are your credentials on this issue?
G. Orwell
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 9:04 p.m.
Stop the LIES! The earth is not in danger because of CO2. A naturally occurring and beneficial and essential gas (plants need it to survive and grow). The earth is in danger from GMOs, nuclear (Tuna is irradiated from Fukashima), Toxins in our food and drinks, toxic waste dumping by big corp., etc. where are the fake and controlled environmentalists on these issues?
G. Orwell
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.
@Laura You are correct. There are activism all around the country and world against real environmental issues. However, the activism comes at local levels because most of the big environmental organizations and advocates have been co-opted and controlled. How come, if they care so much about the environment and earth, Al Gore, Green Peace, The Sierra Club, WWF, etc. do not speak out against GMOs, nuclear, fracking, etc. They only talk about CO2 and climate change. The EPA and FDA are tools of Big Ag, Monsanto and Big Pharma. The EPA actually wants to outlaw dust and children worling on farms. Please look it up. The EPA puts in regulations to shut down family farms while allowing Big Ag immunity from these same regulations because the regulations are written by Big Ag.
Laura
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 10:06 a.m.
I don't understand your argument? There are environmentalists locally and around the world working on the issues you cite. There was an entire festival in Ann Arbor in Fall 2011 dedicated to education about the dangers of GMO's. Our local Ecology Center has a history of activism on issues surrounding toxins. Numerous actors in our local sustainable food movement are trying to advance healthy, less toxic food practices. There are national and/or international organizations devoted to these issues, and an Environmental Protection Agency that should be in place and empowered to protect us from the concerns you bring up. Climate change may get the most air time in the media, but it certainly isn't the only issue on the plate for people doing environmental work.
annarboral
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.
There is one green action that the city could undetrtake that would actually accomplish something. It's called efficient traffic control. Every time an auto is forced to stop it wastes all the energy it used to attain that speed. Then it must idle until the traffoic signal changes and must then use again energy to return to the legal speed limit. All this tim,e it is not only wasting energy it is also creating pollution. Traffic flow could be enhanced in so many ways it staggers the imagination. A couple of starting points would be turning off traffic signals during non-peak periods and convert them to flashing yellows & reds. That doesn't happen until midnight now. Another is to convert left turn lights from red to flashing red so they can turn when traffic clears. You could also set up timed lights (and maintain the timing). There are many, many more similar actions that could be done at little or low cost. Please stop talking aboput GREEN and actually do something that really helps.
say it plain
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 10:08 p.m.
oh yes, yes, yes! The constant stopping around here is obscene. None of their cute little initiatives would do as much as fixing traffic flow, and we'd all be happier citizens for it to boot! There are places in this city where you're lucky to get 25 feet forward in your vehicle before needing to stop, regardless of traffic volume, it's just silly!
G. Orwell
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.
Where is the scientific evidence that CO2 causes global warming? Now called climate change since people were waking up to the lie that the earth was no longer warming after 1998. All the data showing global warming was fraudulent and now admitted. Just Google, "climategate" and "climategate 2." These people will keep lying because trillions of dollars of carbon taxes are at risk. Who stands to gain? Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and friends. Don't be duped by con-artists.
Peter
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 5:39 p.m.
Here's about 855,000 or so papers that address your question: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=co2+climate+change&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C23&as_sdtp=
demistify
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.
There is much confusion in this discussion due to clashing buzzwords: Carbon dioxide is produced by the burning of coal and hydrocarbons. This is equally true whether the combustibles were generated millions of years ago ("fossil fuels": coal, oil, natural gas) or more recently ("renewable": ethanol, biodiesel, wood, dung). The combustion products of all of these include chemicals and particulates deleterious to health (smog, carcinogens, silicosis, mercury, sulfur, etc.). Electric cars are powered by batteries. This essentially eliminates emissions at the car itself. The emissions occur at the power plant producing the electricity. Most of the DTE plants burn coal. The net effect is of no value to reduce carbon dioxide and other pollutants, it just redistributes them geographically. Nuclear and hydroelectric power are the major carbon-free sources of energy. Both are under ideological attack in the United States for reasons unrelated to climate. Others contribute much less power, either because of limited availability (geothermal in Iceland, tidal in the Bay of Fundy) or because they are currently too expensive without major public subsidies (wind, solar). They do make sense now in niche applications.
Stan Hyne
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 11:36 p.m.
You are right on much of the problem. If on a hot day you take a walk in the woods you will notice it is much cooler. The trees protect the earth. Over the past years we have taken the insulation coat off the earth. Michigan used to be woods. The northern part of the state was huge pines, much of the lower was trees and swamp. Ohio was the great swamp. Now we have bare fields. Cities with houses with roofs, and sidewalks and roads all reflecting heat. Nothing to hold the water, or modify the suns rays. We can expect to have harder rains, stronger winds, hotter days, and dryer summers.
Stephen Landes
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.
1) I believe in climate change -- the earth has always had climate change, is experiencing it now, and will always experience it in the future. No humans need apply in order to make this happen. 2) We should strive to be as efficient in using natural resources as possible and that requires a neutral metric that can balance the use of all resources: use economic analysis as the tool and present value as the metric. Compare, prioritize, do not spend money where a realistic positive return cannot be expected. 3) We cannot afford to manage issues one at a time: many issues are inter-related, many issues need to be prioritized, all are occurring simultaneously. Spending large amounts of money trying to prevent climate change means not having enough money to address current serious problems that dramatically affect life. We could do more good for ourselves and the rest of humanity by focusing on clean water for everyone, controlling/eliminating malaria, and assuring literacy for everyone -- all could be done for a fraction of the cost of what proponents of man-made climate change want to spend to reduce CO2 atmospheric concentration by 1% across the globe with far greater benefits.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
The problem is the word "believe" here. That's where East Anglia has munged up the scientific discussion. They clearly believe in their theories and are prepared to do anything to protect them. At this point AGW is no longer a theory and has become a religion.
DonBee
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 1:15 a.m.
Mr Landes - Well said sir. Whether one believes in climate change or not, one should always strive to be good to the planet and one's fellow (wo)man. If the cost of doing it better is close to the same as doing it worse, I vote for better, but all resources are finite, so using all of them wisely is a great idea.
Mike
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.
This is one of the more logical repsonses I have read to climate change. There is only so much money available to address problems of any kind anymore. We have spent ourselves beyond our ability to pay and many want to continue to spend more based on a theory. Mr Landes is correct that what little money we as a nation have left should be spent wisely.
Hammer
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:33 p.m.
AGW = Hoax
Barzoom
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:15 p.m.
Personally, I'm in favor of warmer winters without snow.
Steve
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:12 p.m.
I figured Ann Arbor would have more climate experts than most towns its size but I must be underestimating, judging by the authority with which some of you speak. State your credentials or kindly admit you don't really know what you're talking about.
shepard145
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 10:11 p.m.
"climate experts" LOL More like eco climate hustlers running scams to generate millions in farcical federal grants issued by slow witted obama eco fascists. Hopefully after November this entire fraud will come to a quick end as adults once again lead the nation and the children are shoved to the sideline where they belong and the flow of eco dollars is stopped cold. PLay time is over - time for all the navel gazers to get real jobs. .....and good luck with that carrying around some absurd eco diploma.
Laura
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 3:33 a.m.
I'm with Steve. Who on this post has real credentials to talk climate science? What national or international consortium of scientists denies human-exacerbated climate change? I would love to know... I'm refreshed to be in a city where the government even acknowledges the issue, and I agree that we are facing complex immediate and long-term problems that are intertwined. It seems difficult for any government plan to adequately address so many of the wicked problems we face simultaneously. Personally, I'd take small steps over nothing, and am curious to see what this plan actually entails.
Allencic
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.
The end result of all of this will amount to nothing more than "a fart in a windstorm."
DonBee
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.
No you will have to capture that - those bodily functions contain greenhouse gases that can not be allowed to escape.
Macabre Sunset
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 6:17 p.m.
In 2050, the panhandlers downtown will be accused of secretly spending their money on electricity. It would be nice if the people responsible for Ann Arbor's future planning would take the climate alarmists' promises with just a grain of salt. Already, Al Gore's scary movie is out of date. Climate change needs further study. The assumption that man has caused these changes, and, therefore, we will observe this hockey-stick disaster in climbing temperatures, is far from proven. Given the behavior of the East Anglia professors in charge of long-term temperature analysis who are responsible for these claims, this is, so far, more a political discussion than a realistic one.
shepard145
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:53 a.m.
I hope the next ice age begins soon - would be great to see a massive drop-off in the sun's energy occur suddenly and, sell the boat, no more summer for 15 centuries or so - survival of the fittest baby! LOL You liberals would be free to cry about something new - your own immanent starvation.
DonBee
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 1:12 a.m.
bhall - Riddle me this, why are the ice caps on Mars receding at the same rate as on Earth? I don't have an answer to this question and the people I ask, can't tell me either. Also, why did they boo the creator of the model they are using for temperature change out of a meeting when he talked about backcasting issues?
Macabre Sunset
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 6:57 p.m.
We can see we're in a warming trend, absolutely. We cannot yet conclude the level of man's participation. We simply don't have a reliable measure of normal fluctuation. And the East Anglia cabal deliberately focuses journals on articles that artificially lower past estimates of fluctuation.
bhall
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 6:39 p.m.
The science is pretty clear. Human activities are causing the planet to warm. We can see this by the changes in the location and movement of plants and animals. We can see this in the measurements of air and ocean temperatures. The horse is out of the barn, so to speak, in terms of climate change. We are already living with it. Politics gets involved in how we value the future. Do we value short-term gain today at the expense of future generations?
martini man
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.
Oh boy ..another study group, with a predetermined result . It's all BS but it would be nice if it worked. Maybe another study group can be formed and financed by the taxpayers, to see if the first study was feasible. And what's a few thousand dollars extra tuition when you are saving the city ..if not the world ??? Mary Sue ..you go girl !!!!
Ross
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 5:59 p.m.
So much for your PATHETIC sustainability initiative, University of Michigan / Mary Sue Coleman. 35 % increase in emissions from 2000 to 2010 !! That is ridiculous and disgusting! You should be ashamed of yourselves for letting this happen.
Dog Guy
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.
10%? Wouldn't coating that corrugated shed and the Hurinal with titanium dioxide clean the air by at least 10%?
Top Cat
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 5:28 p.m.
I guess the City has enough policeman and fireman so that with all the surplus money sloshing around, they can pay toward this buffoonery. Mr. Naud has a job in search of a purpose. This always leads to mischief.
tdw
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
I wounder if city council will ask Al Gore to give up his private jet , limos and a few of his mansions
say it plain
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
nah, but maybe they'll ask him to buy a condo or two in downtown Ann Arbor to add to his investment portfolio... or waive a speaker fee to come to some green-energy VC conference they'll co-sponsor lol...
Superior Twp voter
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.
What a pile of BS. "Feel good" BS. Could barely make it through the entire diatribe - it's all about money and control. In 1980 we were told that an extended period of cooling would lead to shorter growing seasons and marked increases in polar icecaps (Time magazine) - a new "Ice Age." No countries do more to safeguard our environments than the USA and Japan. So now go ahead and hate on me all you want - you'll feel better for it I would guess.
Peter
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 4:44 a.m.
Cite one, Don. By title, author, date, you know, so we can check your work. Just one.
Stephen Landes
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
DonBee -- a lot of people have very short memories; more of them have very selective memories; few are open minded enough to consider data and studies that run contrary to the "consensus".
DonBee
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.
Mr Rabinsky - There were dozens of scientific papers and a whole community worried about global cooling, the UN had a conference or two on it. There were plans to use powdered coal on the ice caps to reduce the reflection of the sun into space on a massive scale. I have 3 volumes of papers from that conference on my shelf at home.
Mark Rabinsky
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 6:31 p.m.
This is my favorite climate denier argument. Because someone wrote a small two paragraph article in Time Magazine 20 years ago, this must mean that the piles upon piles of peer reviewed research done and published in scientific journals by climate scientists since must also be false. You're grasping at straws.
Michael Bodary
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.
Right Craig! Beckmann (poor substitute for Ufer) gets all his facts from Fox Noise. Sponsored by Big Oil and Kock Brothers
Mike K
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.
That was a priceless come back Unusual Suspect. Had one of those earlier today elsewhere. I call it "the Bush deflection".
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.
Progressive playbook copy-paste rule violation: You forgot to including some Bush-blaming in there somewhere.
jinxplayer
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.
Why would it take 38 years to accomplish this? We decided to go to the moon and did it in less than a decade, I don't see why cutting emissions is going to take 4 decades to do.
Stan Hyne
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 : 11:12 p.m.
Not a problem. Stop heating and cooling your house. Stop cooking with gas or electricity. Unplug your refrigerator and freezer. Use solar heating for water. Use solar cells to charge some batteries for an occasional light or computer use. Don't drive, use a bike or walk. This is the way they do it in some countries. They also don't have clean water or a long life expectancy. The only possible adequate power source that does not contribute to global warming is nukes.
DonBee
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
jinxplayer - How long will it take to: 1) Refit every house with solar thermal heating and ice based cooling systems? 2) Replace very car with an electric car ? 3) Remove all the gas stoves and dryers from homes and replace them with electric ones ? 4) Replace all the generation of electricity in the state with wind. solar, hydro, biomass or biogas? 5) Add significant insulation and better windows to most of the housing and commercial building stock in the community? 6) Move all remaining industry out of the Ann Arbor city limits - if it does anything other than light assembly 7) Install massive battery systems to hold the excess electricity when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, so that we have electricity when they are not? 8) Stop all bar-b-queing with anything other than natural wood products? This is just a small sample of the radical changes that would be required to hit this goal. Most of the housing stock in town is not even close to being ready to do this, and much of it should be torn down and replaced if this is a real goal. Getting to 90% less is not a trivial matter, every single person will have to change their habits significantly. And with population growth over the next 38 years and growth in consumer electronics (cell phones, tablets, computers, gadgets of all sorts) the remaining 10% probably will mean that each person will actually only be able to do 5% of what they do today. This is a radical goal.
say it plain
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 5:18 p.m.
oh, right, and emissions are a myth lol...
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 5:03 p.m.
The difference is the moon actually exists.
say it plain
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.
well, of course, it's because getting to the moon had a whole military-industrial-educational complex behind it, while cutting emissions has many powerful monied lobbyists representing powerful monied industries--and their noise-making 'media' (propaganda) branch lobbying for the support of the gullible too!--*against* it! They tend to not invest in the clean-energy corporate outfits, to maybe hedge their bets a little, so we'd be lucky if it only took 4 decades to do! Then of course there's also the developing world, who wants to emit like we do, so perhaps the attempt is useless anyhow.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.
According to the voice of Michigan football, Frank Beckmann, there is no such thing as man made climate change. Its a socialist conspiracy.
Steve
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.
@ Mike Compare the salary of the highest paid climate scientist to the an oil company CEO or even a anti-climate change propagandist. They differ by an order of magnitude or two. You don't go into climate science to make big bucks, you go to Wall Street, Washington or Houston. As with anything, ask cui bono (and of course the opposite). Fossil fuel companies will lose big, green tech will win some of that. Climate scientists however will just keep chugging along, as scientists do.
shepard145
Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 2:46 a.m.
Frank Beckmann is surely no genius but he's smarter then Al Gore. His opinions are accurate and there is no conspiracy - only politicians doing what they do - grabbing all the power they can. What you confuse with conspiracy is the reality that democrats are using the human controlled global weather fraud to massively expand their ability to tax and regulate this nation. ...and your biggest problem with Beckmann's argument will be that it's based on facts - something the eco fraud crowd is pretty light on. As a "true eco believer", I'm sure your surprised to know that the East Anglia University eco fraud investigation determined that everything was fine - no problems here! LOL
Mike
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 9:26 p.m.
The funding on the other side of the coin stands to gain millions by getting taxpayer money to study this "problem" and then penalize all of us by creating a tax scheme based on our carbon footprint. This will also drive up the cost of energy, the cost of all goods and services, and really have little impact except to line the pockets of politicians, academics, and those who "invest" in these exchanges.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.
Mark read my post immediately above yours. In it I am pretty much debunking Franks climate web site. So ya all in all it was a joke.
Mark Rabinsky
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 6:22 p.m.
@craig...this is a joke right? Because when I think of experts on climate science I don't necessarily think of Frank Beckmann.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.
What about my post suggests to you I have never read his links? Plus several of his links were dead the last time I checked. Plus they are mostly circular links that site each other as sources. Plus when you dig deeper 70% of his sources are or were funded to some degree by Exxon, BP and other Oil companies. So not only have I read his "research", I've gone to the next level and researched his 'research".
Mike
Tue, Jun 12, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.
Did you read the research contained on his website? Obviously not...........