If carbon legislation fails, what should be plan B?

The good news in the USA is that we have a backup plan - the EPA will regulate GHG emissions if we fail to pass cap and trade legislation (assuming the 'Dirty Air Act' doesn't pass, which I highly doubt it will).

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/20/the-dirty-ai...

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/26/murkowski-di...

But you seem to be looking for a more hypothetical Plan B than that. Assuming all carbon regulation efforts somehow failed, I think the best backup plan would be massive investment into alternative fuel and energy technologies. We then have to hope they can be developed, become cost-competitive, and be implemented rapidly enough to reduce our emissions sufficiently to avoid catastrophic climate change. Realistically this plan would almost surely fail to do so, however.

But it's variation on the conservative 'the free market solves all problems' solution. Let the free market solve them, except give alternative energy technologies a bit of a leg up with massive investments/subsidies.

Realistically though, when people are arguing that things like economic stimulus packages and health care reform are too expensive, I don't see how you convince them to invest heavily in alternative energy technologies right now. But since this is all hypothetical, that's my Plan B.

As for geoengineering, I think it's Plan Z. It won't solve acidification and is incredibly risky. It's nothing more than a last ditch desperation option if all else fails.

Plan B is obvious: repeal the recent foolish decision to define a harmless trace gas that is necessary to all life as a Pollutant. That will get the EPA off everyone's back, as regulation of CO2 levels is just as foolish as taxing it. The ETS is a corruption of the free market - effectively the governments of the world tax everything and use the money to send false signals to the economy. CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.

A Manhattan Plan to develop fusion power would be a great idea - we're going to need something like this when the oil runs out anyway. Tell me though - what will we do with all the heat generated by fusiion - that could actually cause more warming than the predictions for Carbon.

All the technology is plan A.

Plan B is as Lovelock suggests, run for the hills, and take a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock#Climat...

Ok, sorry that was not very constructive.

Plan B on the political level you are talking of is to all just go it alone piecemeal with low carbon systems and technology without subsidies. Market forces will kick in eventually (especially when Chine start making a mint) but it will probably commit us to much greater total emissions, so;

Plan B is geoengineering, but not the sulphur sun block type, as this will increase acidification.

Massive scale re-sequestration by biochar, artificial carbon capture technologies and reforestation.

Technology development is plan b.

If there are geo thermal and solar power plants, and electric cars that are simply better then the alternative, people will buy them.

I believe we're not too far off from that with a little investment in development.

These technologies will replace the existing ones, not because greener is better, but because better is better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ

Trees need CO2.

Don't fall for the global warming myth. It's just a few elite trying to make money off carbon trading and using a lie to do it.

We are in a natural cycle that you can do NOTHING about. Accept it.

controlled fusion has been blessed with virtually unlimited government funding at times over the past 60 years both by the western powers & the evil empire(sic) during the cold war.

so if massive funding could solve the fusion problem all our homes & industry's would already be powered by fusion.

in your hypothetical situation of putting all our eggs in one basket I wouldn't seek new ways to create heat at all but would try to find ways to access the unlimited heat that already exists everywhere beneath our feet.

our current drilling technology cant economically reach deep enough everywhere for high temperature steam turbines or we would already be doing that too.

more available research money should be devoted to low temperature differential power systems.

both low tech solutions such as in the 200 year old sterling engine that has been made to operate at a 2c temperature differential which can be economically reached in every back yard http://www.energy-based.nrct.go.th/Article/Ts-3%20...

and exotic high tech solutions such as utilizing quantum tunneling as described in this self promoting link.http://www.powerchips.gi/press/IGC_Paper_15Sept03.... should be explored in a shotgun approach.

efficiency doesn't matter when your heat source is inexhaustible & free as geothermal heat(&ocean heat) truly is.

1% efficiency is quite sufficient.

Dana, former master of science answer. My answer to that is NOPE. The EPA will if everything goes good in the 2010 elections be facing hearings from people like Darrell Issa who will be Chair of the House Oversight Committee and Rohrabacher who is slated to be Chair of the Science Committee. These house hearings will postphone anything that EPA may try to do in the future on regulating CO2 ( which is almost ridiculous even to write).

The EPA has become a political football of the party in power. Most definitely the Republicans will take back at least one of the houses in 2010 and in 2012 Repubs should have control of 2 of the 3 branches of government and control. Obama most likely will be out in 2012.

Imaginary hearings eh Dana, former master of science. If you only knew.

How about:

Passing REDD - big difference there and much more achievable.

I like the idea of a Manhattan project for fusion / terrapower.

As Dana said, if a market-based plan cannot pass the Senate (legislative branch), then the EPA (executive branch) is mandated by the Supreme Court (Judacial Branch) to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. We'll get 1970s style government regulation rather than the much better market-based solutions. For the EPA to not regulate it would require both houses of Congress to agree to amend the Clear Skies legislation and specifically allow CO2 and that will not happen.

We may very well end up with worst case regulation in America just because of how politics work. Senators from small rural states will not support Waxman-Markey because their constituants are higher uses of gasoline -- it is just a cost of rural and agricultual living. So they will oppose legislation only to get re-elected; they will understand that the resulting regulation will be much worse for their consituents but they won't get blamed for that.

Blow up Plan C and move on to Plan D, if that fails i go to Plan E

Geoengineering.

If it turns out climate sensitivity is above the central IPCC value, especially if there are tipping points (meaning we end up with a ridiculously high sensitivity), then that would be catastrophic and could end human civilisation.

The only way to prevent that is geoengineering. And it seems the only reasonably safe way of doing that are mirrors in orbit.