Michael Klare claims in his TomDispatch article that there is "* No Hope
for Averting Catastrophic Climate Change".   I disagree with this claim
which is not even consistent with what the 2012 World Energy Outlook report

Klare goes on to say "Of all the findings in the 2012 edition of the World
Energy Outlook, the one that merits the greatest international attention is
the one that received the least.  Even if governments take vigorous steps
to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, *the continuing
increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in “a long-term average
global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C. [bold added]*”

The key section in the above quotation is in* bold*.  I don't have the full
report yet, but this is what the online available FactSheet of the report

*" In the Efficient World Scenario, energy‐related CO2 emissions peak
before 2020 and decline to 30.5 Gt in 2035, pointing to a long‐term average
temperature increase of 3 °C. The rapid*

*deployment of energy‐efficient technologies can delay the complete
“lock‐in” of CO2 emissions permitted for a 2 °C trajectory – which is set
to happen in 2017 in the New Policies Scenario –** until 2022, buying five
extra years to reach a global climate agreement. In addition to energy
efficiency, however, low‐carbon technologies will be needed to achieve the
2 °C goal. In the Efficient World Scenario, emissions of local pollutants
are also cut sharply, bringing environmental and health benefits to China
and India in particular."*

*In other words, ** if there is any chance left to avoid catastrophic
climate change C3) reduction in global carbon emissions must start very
soon, with robust substitution of fossil fuels, starting with coal (and
non-conventional petroleum such as tar sands and fracked gas*) by wind and
solar energy as well as carbon sequestration from the atmosphere to the
soil and crust**.  Thus, while C3 looms ever closer, it is not inevitable
as Klare claims it is, based on this report.


*What is most problematic about Klare's pronouncement of inevitability is
that it is disempowering to say the least.  It is a huge disservice to our
children and grandchildren to give up now, accepting the inevitability of
C3.  Our global challenge is to mount the necessary transnational political
power while there is still time to act, even if our chances of success are
rapidly diminishing.  More on this at

**Note that fracked gas may well have a similar carbon footprint to coal,
because of leakage of methane to the atmosphere, so the substitution of
fracked gas for coal will not likely result in a reduction in greenhouse
gas warming impacts. This critical point is not mentioned in Klare's
otherwise informative piece, aside from his claim for the inevitability of
C3. Rather Klare states inaccurately "*One aspect of this energy
“revolution” deserves special attention. The growing availability of cheap
natural gas, thanks to hydro-fracking, has already reduced the use of coal
as a fuel for electrical power plants in the United States.  This would
seem to be an obvious environmental plus, since gas produces less
climate-altering carbon dioxide than does coal."

David Schwartzman*

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> **
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  __._,_.___