If a giant reflective mesh is built around the earth, with the idea that the changed thermal balance of the earth is counteracted with reducing the amount of sunlight received, then there is a clear potential for unintended consequences. What will be the impact of reduced sunlight on plant life and agriculture? I have come to suspect that agricultural productivity, and not sea level rise, is probably the most important impact of climate change for humans.

Regarding cultural norms, I think that the picture you have presented of American attitudes is somewhat caricatured. There are those who believe that the only goal of public policy is to maximize individual autonomy, but I would submit that a large majority of Americans understand that reasonable trade-offs between individual autonomy and the need to manage societal problems, such as environmental problems, are appropriate. Of course, the conception of "reasonable" will vary widely. At any rate, policy needs to be formed in the culture that presently exists, not in a culture that we may prefer to have.

Another barrier for reasonable energy/climate policies is the plethora of proposed solutions that are unrealistic, overhyped, or carry negative side effects that are too severe. Some come with strong political entrenchment. These solutions include ethanol production, speculative advances in nuclear power, "clean" coal, new urbanism, and many others. People need to have a more realistic sense of what the problem is and what the options are before a reasonable policy solution can emerge.

I wanted to add more on this subject. There are a range of views regarding the severity of the impact of climate change. They range from the denial view (no impact at all, or it is beneficial) to the ultimately dire (extinction of humans). Neither of these extremes are supported by the science. What the science gives is a projection of average worldwide temperature going up a degree or two Celcius, give or take, over the next century, as well as some models, which are still rough at this stage, of how this will impact precipitation patterns, agriculture, etc.

Having run around in sustainability circles, I have found that there is an instinct to gravitate toward the more dire predictions, and I suspect that the reason for this is the belief that dire predictions are necessary in order to motivate citizens and policymakers to make the right decisions.

This belief is mistaken for several reasons. First, it plays right into the hands of the skeptics who accuse climate scientists of "alarmism". I fear that the science itself is undermined when some people go out on a limb and say things such as that a 100 foot sea level rise (!) is likely in the next century. Second, the range of predictions of doom discussed in this article have created in the minds of most Americans a healthy skepticism of anything that sounds too dire. Third, fear is not as effective a motivator as people tend to think. Ask yourself, how many people do you know who have converted because they heard from a preacher, "Believe X, Y, Z, and repent or you're going to hell"? Not very many. Again, if you want to motivate good policy, we need a realistic and cautious assessment of the climate situation, which is cause for concern but not panic.

Roger,
If you are looking to raise discussion by a wildly provocative statement then you have succeeded.
Yes it's possible that we may get to green fascism, and I am glad you pose it without quits or irony, but do you really believe that it will work? And that the kind of people who usually get control of political process -- much of our current City Council --

Is not likely to be effective because venality rises to the top. Urging voluntary vast new government powers (yes that is what you are saying) just not going to happen voluntarily. So to answer your question, No, the situation with WW2 is not at all analogous to the carbon problem. WW2 was obvious and presumed to be temporary. The kind of changes you are talking about is permanent and subtler.

I find the idea of green fascism to be really creepy.

Let's get real. Right now, today, oyster growers are reporting that growth is down in their oysterbeds, probably related to a change in the pH of the seawater that is inhibiting shell formation. Corals, worldwide, are in a massive extinction event. And this is happening at 390 ppm of CO2, while nobody has any idea of how to stop short of 450 ppm.

Now, you may argue that in the 20th century we destroyed 98% of our marine resources, and now we're happy with Happy Meals. Every small bay in Puget Sound had an oyster industry (and a fishing fleet) and now those bays are surrounded with suburban homes and signs warning against red tides, but the people who moved here in the past 30 years are happy with this. It's the miracle of free enterprise! Nothing to see here, folks, no need to panic.

But let's not get confused. Americans are not skeptical about climate change because of many different opinions, they are skeptical because oil companies have spent millions of dollars putting bogus 'experts' on television shows and editorial pages owned by extreme rightwingers. And fear has turned out to be an excellent motivator, as these 'experts' have described a worldwide plot to steal our freedoms under the guise of preventing climate change, and Americans have dutifully screamed and jumped on the chair like a cartoon housewife from the 50s sighting a mouse.

Now consider this- it is within the power of the oil producers to keep the price high enough to make the supplies last, but low enough that most consumers won't be motivated to change to a different energy source- and they can probably do this for another 20 years.

Won't that be fun?

If the theory of global warming is true, there is no way to make any meaningful reduction in ghg emissions as long as the human population keeps increasing. Population growth has been the biggest culprit over the last century, and continues to be the biggest culprit. The author does not even mention the disaster that is population growth.

I just ignore, and laugh at, any author who is too stupid to write that the biggest problem in the world is population growth. Unless governments put in place serious policies to stop population growth, everything else they may try is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

In other words, "driving less" is such a stupid, ineffective means of making even a tiny dent in ghg emissions that it is just competely laughable. Nobody is going to take that seriously, except the people who hate cars just on principle. China alone is adding millions of cars each year to its roadways, and building thousands of miles of new highways every year. So, people in Seattle should "drive less" and that will stop global warming? lol

Or, we could quit scaring people by being so radically nutty about this topic and find 60 votes in the US Senate.

Ward's book is a must read! Especially for those that are supporting the Bored Tunnel project.

Ward estimates that Sea Level Rise (SLR) by 2050 will be 3 feet (just 40 years from now), and by 2010, 9-10 feet. If his projections are possible, then let's not waste time replacing the seawall. Instead, we shoud be focused on building dikes.

By raising the sea level 9-10 feet in the next 90 years, any low land within that elevation will be gradually innudated. The shape,configuration and function of our city will look nothing like it does today or in the past.

Imagine Magnolia as an island. That the new waterfront will lap at Western and First Ave. Pioneer Square and the ID will look like Venice. ALL of the Duwamish River basin will be gone all the way down to Tukwila and Renton. There will be a water course up Dearborn, down Rainier and connect with South Lake Washington. The Locks will be unnecessary. The Fishiing fleet will have direct access into the sound as will all the Ship Canal.

So, where does one build the miles of dikes? What land is to be salvaged? When does one start building in order to prepare for such a flood?

While this catastrophie is happening all over the world, resources will be stretched to the limit, making dike building a local problem.

So why build the Tunnel when, even if the South portal is raised to prohibit water pouring in, all the roads and land around it will be inundated?

When one looks at a map and sees what can survive a 10' SLR, the only thing that won't be under water will be the Alaskan Way Viaduct. And, with a retrofit of its foundations, can withstand the rise as well as earthquakes. It's significance to the future city will be critical for access to downtown, west Seattle, and North Seattle.

Perhaps we should start now, figuring out the locations of Dikes and use any funding avaailable to start the construction which will easily take decades to complete. Rather than wasting $5 billion on the curent waterfront, imagine how many miles of dike can be built to save what useful land we already have.

Or Not!

Can we afford to wait? I agree with Professor Peter ward! And if the waterfront cities don't start the process now, I suggest everyone who owns waterfront propety within 10-15 feet of current Sea levels, sell while you can. And, we should start looking for new cities to relocate too that have the best chance of securing long term sources of frest water and productive agricultural land.

Art