GOP: EPA no longer allowed to regulate greenhouse gasses

[Thanas]

Salon

In this week's most obvious serving of dog-bites-man news, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted on Tuesday to approve a measure designed to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. This was not unexpected: House Republicans declared their crusade against the EPA on Day One of the new Congress.

But along the way, three Democrats on the committee put Republicans neatly on record by proposing three short amendments to the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011."

Henry Waxman, D-Calif., asked Congress to concede that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level."

Diana DeGette, D-Colo.'s, amendment asked Congress to accept "the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that the 'scientific evidence is compelling' that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from anthropogenic emissions 'are the root cause of recently observed climate change.'"

Jay Inslee, D-Wash., asked Congress to accept that "the public health of current generations is endangered and that the threat to public health for both current and future generations will likely mount over time as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and result in ever greater rates of climate change."

Every single Republican on the committee voted against all three amendments, with the sole exception of Tennessee's Martha Blackburn, who declined to vote on DeGette's amendment.

* Continue reading

It is possible to understand how people might disagree that climate change is a threat to public health (we'll all just start farming wheat in Siberia or northern Canada) or that humans are the main cause of rising temperatures (sunspots! natural variation!). But I still find it confounding that 31 Republicans are willing to deny, flat-out, that temperatures are rising, period. But let's outsource this argument:

Last spring, the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences reviewed the available facts and declared that "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."

The NAS position makes things nice and tidy. The House Republicans in charge of energy policy are unanimous in their contradiction of the findings of the United States' most august body of scientists. As was reported last fall by National Journal's Ron Brownstein, no other major political party in the world has staked out such a clear position.

I hope to live long enough to see the day when the American Republican position on climate change is seen universally as the 21st century equivalent to older beliefs that the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. But if that pleasure isn't granted me, I'm pretty sure my kids will enjoy the honor.

[wautd]

Salon

I hope to live long enough to see the day when the American Republican position on climate change is seen universally as the 21st century equivalent to older beliefs that the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. But if that pleasure isn't granted me, I'm pretty sure my kids will enjoy the honor.

... by which it'll already be too late unfortunatly.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The key to the Far Right position on this, the important bit, isn't that climate change is happening, it is that it is NOT caused by Man.
Because lets be honest one of the core tenants of the Far Right movement is "If it doesn't effect me, it's not my problem." Time and again I have heard Republicans say things to the effect of "Well, the Earth MAY be warming up, but theres no evidence it's cause by man... Its all a 'Natural' thing, so it's not our problem."

This is where it gets into the "La La La I can't heeaar you!!" type of thing.

Because let's be honest, what it REALLY comes down to is that the nasty mean EPA makes it harder to make money. All those stupid rules and regulations make it too hard for "hard working Americans" to make a buck. And if you can "prove" that IF climate change is going on, that it isn't "your" fault, then that is all the more reason why the EP isn't needed!

The long and short of it is that I can foresee a time when the polar icecaps have melted, when the costal areas of the world have all become a new Venice, and thousands of small island nations no longer exist, I can foresee future Republicans watching it all, from a giant pile of money, and saying "Well, it's not MY problem."

[Simon_Jester]

Hopefully, well before that time, people will have gotten sick of putting up with Republicans, much as they eventually got sick of putting up with the Communists before them.

I think we should put this in some historical perspective: ten years ago, the idea of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases wasn't even seriously on the table. Five years ago, it certainly wasn't on the table. One year ago it very much was on the table, and might well have happened if we'd had a Congress and president of remotely the caliber that we had during, say, FDR's Hundred Days.

Political realities change. We're still going to have to deal with global warming because they didn't change fast enough ("fast enough" would have been if we'd figured out all this was going to be a major problem and acted accordingly in 1980 or so, I think), but they do change.

[Thanas]

I think we should put this in some historical perspective: ten years ago, the idea of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases wasn't even seriously on the table. Five years ago, it certainly wasn't on the table. One year ago it very much was on the table, and might well have happened if we'd had a Congress and president of remotely the caliber that we had during, say, FDR's Hundred Days.

It was on the table since 1990 in Europe, and regulation powers were given to the state since 1995. So America has not even achieved the level Europe did sixteen years ago.

And it is not as if Europeans have some sort of magic gene or something that makes them inherently better at this than the USA.

[Lonestar]

The key to the Far Right position on this, the important bit, isn't that climate change is happening, it is that it is NOT caused by Man.

I would read the article in the OP. They killed an amendment stating that climate change is occurring, with no statement one way or the other indicating that was a Human-driven event.

[JME2]

...

Goddammit, I hate these lunatics so fucking much.

[Simon_Jester]

It was on the table since 1990 in Europe, and regulation powers were given to the state since 1995. So America has not even achieved the level Europe did sixteen years ago.

And it is not as if Europeans have some sort of magic gene or something that makes them inherently better at this than the USA.

You can, of course, state that the US is behind Europe on this issue. I do not dispute this. However, you entirely missed my point, which serves me right for not spelling it out.

My point is that the political realities do shift within a given country. In the US, the viability of regulation of greenhouse gas has been prone to drastic shifts- out of the question under Bush, possible but not tried in 2009-10, now impossible because of a Republican majority that I, for one, doubt the stability of.

I have no idea what the situation will look like in two years' time, let alone in five or six. But this is not a permanent defeat, only a temporary one. Which, yes, means many more tons of carbon going into the atmosphere. And which, yes, reflects very poorly on all sorts of things.

But "we do better than this in Europe" is not a refutation of "politics is volatile and things which are done now are often reversed later."

[Zaune]

The long and short of it is that I can foresee a time when the polar icecaps have melted, when the costal areas of the world have all become a new Venice, and thousands of small island nations no longer exist, I can foresee future Republicans watching it all, from a giant pile of money, and saying "Well, it's not MY problem."

That, I think, is the heart of the problem. North America isn't actually in all that bad a position to weather the effects of climate change, is it? You've got a large amount of good farmland, the capital and industrial base to make marginal areas productive through technological solutions and if all else fails, the firepower to acquire needed resources by force.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The long and short of it is that I can foresee a time when the polar icecaps have melted, when the costal areas of the world have all become a new Venice, and thousands of small island nations no longer exist, I can foresee future Republicans watching it all, from a giant pile of money, and saying "Well, it's not MY problem."

That, I think, is the heart of the problem. North America isn't actually in all that bad a position to weather the effects of climate change, is it? You've got a large amount of good farmland, the capital and industrial base to make marginal areas productive through technological solutions and if all else fails, the firepower to acquire needed resources by force.

Oh it gets worse then that. I have seen on more nutty right wing sights people who WANT to advance global warming and melting the ice caps because... The parts of America that will be most effected are all costal cities, IE, heavily Liberal areas. Boston, NY, San Fran, LA, etc etc. The amount of "we don't care about the world at all" from the right is really staggering at times.

[Crossroads Inc.]

GHETTO EDIT:
If you want an example of the thinking on the right, check out This Piece by Willie soon.

All you really need to know is how he ends it...

Which should we fear most? Climate change that some say might happen 50 or 100 years from now? Or an energy-deprived life of continued poverty, misery, disease, and forgotten hopes and dreams?

Our future is in our hands.

[JME2]

Oh it gets worse then that. I have seen on more nutty right wing sights people who WANT to advance global warming and melting the ice caps because... The parts of America that will be most effected are all costal cities, IE, heavily Liberal areas. Boston, NY, San Fran, LA, etc etc. The amount of "we don't care about the world at all" from the right is really staggering at times.

...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

You've got a large amount of good farmland, the capital and industrial base to make marginal areas productive through technological solutions and if all else fails, the firepower to acquire needed resources by force.

To say the right wing is just raring to put that option into play is like pointing to a redwood tree and saying it's a large plant. They're at this point of engineering all options out of this crisis of crises we seem to be stuck in so the ONLY solution left is monumental amounts of firepower and killing. They are definitely in a mood for punishment this time.

[MKSheppard]

So Crossroads, why do you hate Yellow and Brown people?

Why do you want to condemn them to a life of living in crippling poverty?



Why do you want these people's children to never have the same opportunities that you do?

In China and India, climate change is viewed as a plot by the industrialized West to maintain it's lead over the East.

To them, the West polluted it's way to prosperity for it's peoples, and wants to remove that option for billions of Chinese and Indians, condemning them to lifetimes of crippling poverty and substandard living conditions.

All this so that the West can feel good about themselves for 'saving the planet', as they sip their horribly overpriced coffee that's made from 'organically grown coffee beans' that are produced by giant plantations in the third world and exported to the US/Europe.

That's what fighting 'climate change' entails -- forcing the great masses of the non-first world into peonage AGAIN, so that the self esteem of a small percentage of a small percentage of the world's population can be raised.

Well, guess what? It isn't the 19th century anymore, where the brown/yellow people are subservient little peons who do what Their Betters [tm] tell them to do.

[Zaune]

That's what fighting 'climate change' entails -- forcing the great masses of the non-first world into peonage AGAIN, so that the self esteem of a small percentage of a small percentage of the world's population can be raised.

Well, guess what? It isn't the 19th century anymore, where the brown/yellow people are subservient little peons who do what Their Betters [tm] tell them to do.

I have trouble discerning sarcasm and/or irony from plain text at the best of times, but since Shep does actually raise a valid concern I'll assume it isn't.

Yes, the rest of the world has a right to the same standard of living that we enjoy in Europe and North America. Yes, they are not to blame for much of the situation we're in and don't deserve to be penalised for it.
But if we let climate change go unchecked, it's going to be those same coloured people who take it in the ass the hardest. How many millions of people are just one bad harvest from starving right now? And how many more couldn't hope to survive ten years of bad harvests?

[Patrick Degan]

Furthermore, imagine what's going to ensue when Bangladesh goes underwater.

[MKSheppard]

Furthermore, imagine what's going to ensue when Bangladesh goes underwater.

Actually no.

Bangladesh is pretty much well above sea level. By roughly 3 or more meters.
(Source, NASA SRTM v2 DEMs).

The maximum possible global sea level rise according to the IPPC Third Report is 770 to 880mm.

So Bangladesh is safe from climate change-caused sea-level flooding.

So why is there a popular image of Bangladesh as a death trap?

It's because no point there is more than 17~ meters above sea level; so it's at risk from tidal waves or hurricane storm surges.

(The recent Tsunami that hit Japan was about 3.5 to 4 meters high.)

But as we've seen recently in Japan, a high GDP -- which brings about stronger building standards and a reduction in corruption, making said building standards more likely to be enforced -- significantly reduces the human and materiel toll.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So Crossroads, why do you hate Yellow and Brown people?

Why do you want to condemn them to a life of living in crippling poverty?



Why do you want these people's children to never have the same opportunities that you do?

In China and India, climate change is viewed as a plot by the industrialized West to maintain it's lead over the East.

To them, the West polluted it's way to prosperity for it's peoples, and wants to remove that option for billions of Chinese and Indians, condemning them to lifetimes of crippling poverty and substandard living conditions.

All this so that the West can feel good about themselves for 'saving the planet', as they sip their horribly overpriced coffee that's made from 'organically grown coffee beans' that are produced by giant plantations in the third world and exported to the US/Europe.

That's what fighting 'climate change' entails -- forcing the great masses of the non-first world into peonage AGAIN, so that the self esteem of a small percentage of a small percentage of the world's population can be raised.

Well, guess what? It isn't the 19th century anymore, where the brown/yellow people are subservient little peons who do what Their Betters [tm] tell them to do.

False choice. The simple and elegant solution is that we help them through the period of industrial adolescence so that they can attain a high GDP without the staggering amount of pollution that comes with it.

Of course doing that would require raising our taxes.

[Simon_Jester]

So Crossroads, why do you hate Yellow and Brown people?

Why do you want to condemn them to a life of living in crippling poverty?

Why do you want these people's children to never have the same opportunities that you do?

In China and India, climate change is viewed as a plot by the industrialized West to maintain it's lead over the East.

And does it not strike you as odd, that this would justify us in the United States not regulating our own fucking greenhouse gas emissions?

For God's sake, man, pull your head out of your ass for a minute. You are perfectly capable of intelligent thought, on those occasions when you don't prefer to go "hur hur libruls" instead of bothering to think.

Shep, do yourself a favor, for the sake of growing a real working brain, instead of a half-brain that can't think about anything that doesn't go "bang." Think about the following- really think. Maybe even break out those research skills for, again, something that doesn't go "bang."


1) Why would you oppose regulation of CO2 emissions in the First World based on this argument?
Logically, if you're complaining about how the Third World will be forced back into peonage if they control greenhouse gas emissions, then it would make one hell of a lot more sense to regulate our own emissions, since we're the ones with the luxury to do so. Europe already does this, because they are not idiots and give a fuck about limiting the extent of this problem. Democrats favor doing this in the US, because they are not idiots and give a fuck about limiting the extent of this problem. Why don't Republicans favor doing this in the US? It's not like we're going to end up reduced to subsistence farming just because there's an extra tax on gasoline and coal fired power plants. That will not be the end of the world for us, and you know it damned well, or could prove it quite easily using the same fucking basic math skills you so happily apply to things that go "bang."

2) How do you expect the Third World to handle energy supply shortages?
China can't duplicate the American "car in every garage" process because it isn't 1935-55 anymore. We are damn near peak oil if we're not there already. Gas prices have skyrocketed in the past decade, with no end in sight. By the time China is in a position to supply the fruits of modern industry to everyone in the country (as the US did in the mid-20th century), the price of fossil fuels will have gotten high enough that they won't be able to do it cheap anyway. Emissions limits or no emissions limits. This is why China is going nuclear in a big way. They, unlike you, are smart enough to plan for a future that won't look like the past. And I would bet a lot that they're not stupid enough to think they can give every family in China a Hummer, for the same reason. So no, they are not being "reduced to peonage" if they promise not to turn out the kind of CO2 emissions you get in America where everyone wants their Hummer and coal-fired electric plants are the name of the game. Because they won't be able to do that anyway by the time they're in any position to do so. They will live in a world where electricity is more expensive and oil-based fuels even more so, and they will fucking deal, carbon emissions treaties or no.

3) How do you expect the Third World to cope with the environmental consequences of global warming?
Like it or not, that's gonna have effects. We have already seen effects, or haven't you noticed those ships running through the Northwest Passage in the past few years? They are going to get bigger. Croplands are going to dry up, sea levels are going to rise, we're going to see more and more energetic weather. It's gonna happen. What are they going to do then? Will this not also threaten them with economic collapse?


So basically, Shep, this argument of yours is utter fucking bullshit, and you are smart enough to know it, but you are trolling because you like using your unofficial license to be a shithead more than you like using your brain.

And I'm hoping I can pluck some residual sense of shame, or at least pride, with this. Because the way you're acting now shows a truly amazing lack of both shame and pride. Shame, because you throw out an obvious bullshit argument as if it were meaningful or relevant, in an attempt to get your jollies out of being a shithead. Pride, because you do not care whether you are full of shit or not.

Maybe you're capable of being less of an idiot than this on subjects that don't go "bang." Maybe not. I don't know.

[MKSheppard]

False choice. The simple and elegant solution is that we help them through the period of industrial adolescence so that they can attain a high GDP without the staggering amount of pollution that comes with it.

Of course doing that would require raising our taxes.

We've done monetary transfer via taxes to the developing world through official development assistance for the last sixty or so years; and if your premise worked, then Africa would be a global powerhouse, or at least competitive on the world market, not a total absolute shithole.

The Chinese model on the other hand, namely how far the country has come in the last 30 years, shows the superiority of capitalist trade for building up economies.

Use the profit from exporting cheap crap to re-invest in better factories and industries so you can offer more value added goods than cheap injection molded white plastic lawn chairs.

Repeat as necessary until you are producing high speed trains, wide body jetliners, nuclear power plants, computers, automobiles, shipping, etc.

The cheap stuff then becomes too expensive (ha!) to produce within the People's Republic of China as Chinese workers demand better wages. It moves to Vietnam or Bangladesh where it can take advantage of low wages; and begins to uplift the people there.

[MKSheppard]

1) Why would you oppose regulation of CO2 emissions in the First World based on this argument?

As of 2007, China was the largest GHG emitter; contributing 22% of the global total, against 19% for the US and 14% for the EU, with India coming up at the back with 5.5%

China and India will not cripple their own economic growth and stunt the aspirations of their peoples to fulfill the wish-fantasies of environmentalists around the world. Internal growth in those two countries alone will erase any possible gains we make by limiting the first world's GHG.

So why commit economic seppku?

China can't duplicate the American "car in every garage" process because it isn't 1935-55 anymore.

Actually, they're trying very damn hard at that. 13.7 million automobiles produced in 2009, versus only 2 million in 2000 and 1 million in 1992. Virtually all of the production goes to the internal market, with only a couple hundred thousand being exported.

Auto trade projections being done now estimate that auto production in China will be about 40 million by 2020. That rate of production will be enough to give everyone in China (1.3 bn) a car in 34.6 years.

By contrast, if we assume the US automobile industry nearly doubles to 10m cars (up from it's 5.7m today), it would take 34.1 years to give everyone in the US (341m) a car.

the price of fossil fuels will have gotten high enough that they won't be able to do it cheap anyway.

Actually, right now we are in a huge glut worldwide regarding natural gas, due to a whole clutch of technologies becoming available that enable previously untouchable gas fields and formations to be opened up.

A lot of gas-to-liquid technology is also becoming available that are simpler and cheaper to use than the classical Fischer-Tropsch technology.

In fact, there are proposals right now to convert supertankers into floating GTL refineries that would suck up gas and then convert it into synthetic crude which would be then offloaded into conventional supertankers via buoys.

This is why China is going nuclear in a big way.

Actually, they only look like they're going nuclear in a big way, because nobody else is really building nuclear power plants.

They've been building around 500+ coal plants in the last couple years, at a rate of one every two weeks back in 2007. A lot of these plants replace older, smaller plants that polluted a lot. The latest coal plants are the cleanest and most efficient in the world.

And I would bet a lot that they're not stupid enough to think they can give every family in China a Hummer, for the same reason.

Haw. I suggest you read Xinhua, the most reliable and trusted news service in the world, next to the People's Cyberhourly:

Link from Fall 2010

Demands for sports utility vehicle (SUV) and multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) remained strong in the market. SUV sales surged 120 percent from a year ago to 814,100 units in the first eight months while MPV sales almost doubled to 274,200 units in the period.

BTW, back in 2008, there were 447,700 SUVs sold in China, to give you an idea of how fast growing this segment is.

Link from Summer 2010

"The male Chinese market is huge and it's an untapped wealth. The key driver here is not only that they want to look good and have the money to splurge but it's also to express their masculinity.

"It's an expression of confidence in society and to show their wealth. Take the power suit as an example." Indeed, a tailored suit gives the impression of power, importance and confidence to the wearer. Other manifestations of masculinity include buying big cars. An estimated 20 new models of SUVs are expected to be launched in China this year alone.

BTW, this explosive growth is even with a 40% sales tax on SUVs, Sports cars, and luxobarges...and sales keep going up and up. Johnny Chinaman wants his LandBarge and his Doomveee. God help anyone who tells him he can't have it.

Hence why China is spending a lot lately on a military with increasingly global reach so they can freedomize people in the name of the MIDDLE KINGDOM to keep the spice oil flowing.

BTW; if you had actually read anything about cars, you would know that small, efficient vehicles are horrible flops in the developing world. People in those countries, when they spend the money to make a vehicle purchase, they want to make a STATEMENT. They want to say that they are rich and affluent. A econobox does not do that.

A Doomvee does that.

So no, they are not being "reduced to peonage" if they promise not to turn out the kind of CO2 emissions you get in America where everyone wants their Hummer and coal-fired electric plants are the name of the game.

See above. China sure likes it's DOOMVEES and COAL PLANTS.

They will live in a world where electricity is more expensive

China certainly won't live in that world.

Once again, Xinhua, the world's most reliable source:

Link to December 2010 Article

China's installed power generating capacity will grow from this year's 950 million kilowatts to 1.885 billion kilowatts by 2020....

...Electricity now costs about 0.6 yuan per kWh in China, the report said, forecasting the price to climb to 0.8 yuan per kWh by 2020.

To put that in context, that's 9.14 cents/kWh to 12.18 cents/kWh in US prices.

Right now, PEPCO's most expensive residental rates for Maryland is 11.8 cents/kWh.

...damnit. Johnny Chinaman pays less for his electricity than I do here in the States.

and oil-based fuels even more so, and they will fucking deal, carbon emissions treaties or no.

The EIA estimates that crude oil will be in a range from $51 to $210 by 2035 (depending on a variety of results/effects). At the high end, that translates to $7.25 a gallon in the Eastern USA if the ratio of crude oil prices to gas prices continues.

The prices would be painful in the US, but it would be interesting to speculate on the effects such prices would have on European tax policies, wrt fuel surcharges, given that their gasoline prices are already $8/gallon in Germany (I checked just now).

It does no good if you have the best maintained roads in the world if nobody can afford to drive on them.

By 2020, though...

Shockwave Generator

Even if it requires other doodads that drop it's efficiency to 30-40% vs the 60% efficient prototype models; it's still twice as efficient as a conventional ICE, and is much lighter.

Nanowire batteries

They're getting close to the 500 charge cycles that consumer electronics devices demand as a minimum with the nanowire prototypes, and expect 3,000 cycles by next year, which brings them into viability for vehicles.

In tests, they've gotten power densities of up to eight times that of conventional li-ion batteries.

I tend towards a more conservative 3x density for vehicle applications of this technology.

That brings forth the following specs:

Chevy Volt style vehicle: 130~ miles versus today's 40~ miles.
Tesla S style vehicle: 480~ miles versus today's 160~ miles.

For Commercial air travel, there's always the Soviet Union to show us the way with the Tupolev 155. First flew with cryogenic hydrogen, and then later with liquefied natural gas.

They planned an improved version, the Tu-156; shown below.



The fall of the USSR effectively ended it's development.

You can make hydrogen through either cracking it with electricity (Hay nuclear power!) or steam cracking of natural gas to make bulk H2.

Did I mention earlier we have a massive glut of natural gas? So much that it's making nuclear plants look uneconomic?

Once jet fuel prices rise enough with no relief in sight, expect a fairly rapid turnover to alternative fuels like this. The airlines already showed how fast they were willing to retire perfectly serviceable planes in the early 2000s due to rising fuel prices.

haven't you noticed those ships running through the Northwest Passage in the past few years?

Enables cheaper shipping prices, which is a plus to offset rising fuel prices. These ships could also be powered by either natural gas or hydrogen. In fact, I would not be surprised if plans for LNG conversion have been drawn up for some of the more popular marine motive plants.

Croplands are going to dry up

While at the same time, other croplands become available. Food is becoming increasingly fungible, with ethanol fuel consumption in the US affecting food prices globally, along with random stuff like the Great Russian Wildfires of 2010 affecting grain prices.

sea levels are going to rise

Worst case is 0.7 to 0.8 meters. Even mighty Bangladesh will not die from that.

we're going to see more and more energetic weather. It's gonna happen. What are they going to do then? Will this not also threaten them with economic collapse?

Economic losses and human losses from natural disasters are significantly reduced the richer a population becomes.

The 2001 IPCC panel noticed that 65% of all deaths from natural disasters from 1985-1999 took place in nations with below $760 per capita incomes. Link

[MKSheppard]

Oh, as a random aside, I suggest you read up on BYD (the Chinese Car Company).

Those kunning Chinese are now producing the F3DM, which is essentially a Volt Clone with 50~ mile battery range, and a gasoline range extender.

It's been on sale since 2008. WHO IS IMITATING WHO?

[MKSheppard]

By the way; last year IBM tested a solar cell made from copper/tin/zinc/sulfur/selenium. All of these are pretty abundant.

Efficiency was 9.6%, which beat the 6.7% efficiency of earlier cells made from the same stuff.

Knocking it down to 9% for mass production gets me these numbers based off solar surface irradances:

18 W/m2 minimum for most of the planet
10 W/m2 for European latitudes.

Your typical Wal-Mart in the US is 95 x 120m. It has a flat roof for cheapness. That's about 11,400 m2 that can be used for solar generation; or an output of 205 kW when the sun is out shining.

You could possibly run almost all of Wal-Mart's operations off that. (I have no idea how much of a load a typical SUPERCENTER has).

Wal-Mart of course could use this to tout themselves as ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, and make the stores ever cheaper -- since they almost never have to pay for electricity, it lets them undercut other businesses!

...and the effect of WALMART and other big box stores like BEST BUY getting these kits would drive down prices...making it affordable for other people.

Just for fun I zoomed into a random village in Africa and found a metal hut about 7.5 x 50m. Covered in panels, it would generate about 6.7 kW. That would be enough to run televisions, fans, computers, well pumps, etc.

But you won't get that without the huge energy intensive factory in a first world country (or China) making the solar panels...or the big open pit mines mining the raw materials to make the panels themselves....

Here's another Gimmick WAL-MART could do, to take advantage of their big-boxness, once cheap solar panels increase in efficiency enough to make this practical.

Offer FREE RECHARGES in the parking lots for VIP CLUB MEMBERS.

The ZERO CARBON FOOTPRINT shopping experience!

[Hillary]

As of 2007, China was the largest GHG emitter; contributing 22% of the global total, against 19% for the US and 14% for the EU, with India coming up at the back with 5.5%

China and India will not cripple their own economic growth and stunt the aspirations of their peoples to fulfill the wish-fantasies of environmentalists around the world. Internal growth in those two countries alone will erase any possible gains we make by limiting the first world's GHG.

So why commit economic seppku?

Just on this point. Yes China has the largest GHG emissions; but it also has the largest population. GHG emissions per person, on the other hand, tell a very different story.

Looking at the 2007 stats (yes, Wiki I know), China comes in No 80 in terms of emissions per capita, just over a quarter of that of the USA. India manages 145 on the list, with the US emissions per capita 13.5 times India's level.

If you look at cumulative emissions per country (which of course is the reason we are where we are) it is even more apparent that this is a problem of the first world's making, as well as being one where the first world is still causing much more than its fair share.

[someone_else]

Why do you want to condemn them to a life of living in crippling poverty?
Why do you want these people's children to never have the same opportunities that you do?

How is that (and the image) relevant in a discussion about US keeping in check its own carbon emissions?
Seems like a "THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!" trick, and I have a heart of stone.

Anyway, the choice seems to be either life like this or future death of hunger.

Croplands are going to dry up

While at the same time, other croplands become available.

This. Can I have a source please?
So far, I know that climate where I live tends to become more and more tropical (i.e. no more 4 seasons, but only two), but not that previously very cold areas are becoming more useful for farming.

There is also fishing, but that's a so overlooked issue that is also so critical for human life and so linked with global warming....
Also linked to overfishing, but that's another issue.