Bills In US Congress Propose Lowering of Federal Diesel Fuel Tax
Mitsubishi Motors Will Increase Lightweight Engine Production by 35%

Devil in the Details: Three “Profoundly Disturbing” Carbon Scenarios

by Jack Rosebro

Projected social, economic, and environmental changes associated with each scenario. Click to enlarge.

The Stockholm Network, a London-based pan-European think tank which also functions as a networking hub for 130 other market-driven think tanks in Europe, has released the report Carbon Scenarios: Blue Sky Thinking for a Green Future. The report charts the results of an exercise in which three possible futures for climate change, envisioned by a diverse panel of participants, were used to develop emissions models which were then run through a climate model by the UK’s Meteorological Office Hadley Centre to determine the projected rise in global temperatures associated with each alternative future.

The general outlook of the scenarios has been termed “profoundly disturbing” by one participant, climate researcher and author Mark Lynas.

General overview of the three scenarios. Click to enlarge.

Arguing that “debate on climate change has now shifted decisively from science to policy, generating a new set of questions and challenges,” lead authors Paul Domjan and Gulya Isyanova note that the shift is nevertheless hampered by “a lack of clear, synthesized data on the climatic, economic, technological, political and even social consequences of different policy options; how these developments would interact; and their plausible impact on different countries.

All three of the report’s scenarios define “success” as a greater than 90% chance of less than 2ºC (3.6ºF) warming above pre-industrial levels, which is the most commonly accepted scientific threshold for successful mitigation of adverse effects of climate change, as well as a stated goal of the EU, UK, and UN. None of the scenarios see that goal met, although one, Step Change, could achieve a weaker goal of a greater than 90% chance of a little less than 3ºC warming above pre-industrial levels.

This means that all scenarios see the total disappearance of Arctic sea ice; spreading deserts and water stress in the sub-tropics; extreme weather and floods; and melting glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas. Hence the need to focus far more on adaptation: these are impacts that humanity is going to have to deal with, whatever now happens at the policy level.

—Mark Lynas

The scenarios share the same storyline at first:

With accusations still ringing in their ears that the Bali 2007 conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was nothing more than a talking shop,” the authors write, “ministers at the Poznán [Poland] 2008 conference* try to get down to business and agree on a post-2012 framework. After some wrangling, however, nothing concrete is achieved.“ Oil and food prices remain high in following years, and the climate begins “changing in front of our eyes.” The December 2009 UNFCCC Conference of Parties, widely viewed as the best hope for a “new Kyoto” agreement on GHG reduction, is about to convene in Copenhagen.

At this point, each scenario’s storyline goes its own separate way.

The scenarios are respectively called Kyoto Plus, a future in which a global framework for climate change mitigation is in place by 2012 using currently proposed mechanisms, Agree and Ignore, which assumes “backsliding and delays” as many countries fail to match intent with actions, and Step Change, in which random and severe weather events prompt sudden policy changes. The intent of the scenarios was to examine how think tanks can bring together experts on “neutral turf” to explore the most effective ways to inform future climate change policy.

Kyoto Plus. This scenario envisions significant yet conventional efforts toward the mitigation of the effects of climate change through a gradual movement toward a global agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beginning in 2012. The current climate policy context is extended; however, neither EU, UK, or UN GHG reduction goals are met. Most of the world’s “green technology” is deployed in the West.

By January 2012, the US adopts a carbon cap-and-trade scheme that is largely modeled on California’s carbon market, with a “safety valve” mechanism that initially requires the US to sell additional permits to emit GHGs when the price of permits hits a predetermined ceiling. A similar cap-and-trade system goes into effect through much of the world by the end of that year.

While possible backsliding has been avoided in the first few years of the new framework and more and more countries are moving up the ladder towards a national cap, international tensions remain.” The warming trend is more than 90% likely to be held to no more than 3.15ºC (5.67ºF) by 2100, and the world’s economy grows, albeit slowly.

Agree and Ignore. In Agree and Ignore, short-term concerns about economic competitiveness lead to a fragmented, regionalized patchwork of policies. While leaders agree on the need to mitigate climate change, systematic action is minimal at best. Climate policy is, by and large, hampered by dysfunctional political processes in this scenario: the political reality of four- or five-year voting cycles, along with voter expectations, are out of step with the time-scale of climate change, which requires“short-term sacrifice for long-term benefits.”

Foot-dragging, ineffective national carbon markets, and the absence of a global carbon market or cap lead to an overall weakening and deterioration of international GHG reduction agreements. Progress gives way to backsliding, and global GHG production gradually rises rather than falling, leveling off by 2050 and stabilizing at that level until at least 2100. Warming is more than 90% likely to be held to no more than 4.8ºC (8.64ºF), economic growth is severely constrained, and the effects of climate change beyond 2100 are significant.

Step Change. In response to the disappointing results of the previous two scenarios, Step Change was specifically designed to explore whether or not a plausible future could be constructed in which global warming is limited to 2ºC or less. To achieve this, the panel asked:

  • Could global policy take a radically different course?
  • What could trigger this change?
  • What would the likely results be?

Here, significant climate-related events prior to 2012 catalyze a major shift in global climate change policies. Although the initial costs of such policies are higher, long-term economic growth is more robust. Despite failing to limit warming to 2ºC or less, this scenario envisions the lowest amount of global warming, with a 90% chance of an increase of 2.85ºC (5.13ºF) or less by 2100, and a peaking of emissions as early as 2017.

The shift in policy nevertheless comes with a heavy price:

Having already experienced a particularly hot summer in 2009, Europe goes on to have another scorching one in 2010: hotter than in 2003, with wildfires worse than those of 2007. Emergency services struggle to cope, and low rainfall leads to serious water rationing, especially in the Mediterranean and some of the newer EU Member States.

The Indian subcontinent continues to experience a heavy and long monsoon season, leading to serious flooding and loss of life, especially in Bangladesh. High temperatures and low rainfall also cause several crops to fail in Africa, leading to tensions around water usage terms in the Lake Victoria and the Nile River regions. As a result, many parts of the Indian subcontinent and Africa experience famine.

The combined demands on the UN World Food Programme are of an unprecedented level, and it is unable to cope. Hundreds of thousands starve. However, although these humanitarian crises receive media coverage in the West, they vie for attention with the much documented and highly-publicized acceleration in the disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic, which by this point has been projected to completely disappear by 2025.

The authors take pains to distinguish scenario from prediction:

We are not saying that the events in this [Step Change] scenario are probable. Rather, we would argue that they are possible, and provide a useful exercise in thinking through the causal implications of two statistically unlikely but not impossible occurrences: firstly, the simultaneous onslaught of several extreme events, and secondly, a quick and straightforward international response. In other words, we are considering the best possible solution to the worst possible problem.

Carbon Scenarios emphasizes that new market measures are needed in light of the likely failure of existing market mechanisms to achieve even a 3ºC limit on warming above pre-industrial levels, and one of the drivers of the relative success of Step Change is the introduction of a global, upstream cap on actual carbon production, rather than a cap which estimates the effects of trading and sequestration schemes. The transparency of such a cap encourages participation and simplifies the carbon market. A portion of revenue from that market is set aside to provide incentives for developing economies to come on board.

What Policy?

Three key policy lessons emerged from the scenario-building sessions:

  • Mitigation alone is no longer enough;
  • The potential for many delays is, at present, embedded in the UNFCCC process; and
  • Wealth transfer is key
Past and projected CO2 emissions for developed and developing countries. Click to enlarge. Source: EIA International Energy Outlook 2007

Although the West is responsible for the majority of past GHG emissions, emerging economies will be responsible for the majority of future emissions. Underdeveloped countries, which are the least responsible for GHG emissions, will suffer the greatest impacts of climate change. A successful global climate policy will therefore requires mechanisms to transfer some wealth from developed to developing countries.

Developing countries will only agree to an international climate scheme that gives a credible guarantee of, and a clear framework for, this wealth transfer,” contend the authors of Carbon Scenarios. The Agree and Ignore scenario achieves a leveling rather than a reduction of GHG emissions, and only does so by 2050, in part because emerging economies are not incentivized to adopt emissions reduction policies.

The exercise also yielded a list of future issues that were seen to be likely to drive global climate change policy:

  • Climate policies of China and the United States, as the world’s two dominant emitters of greenhouse gases, and their influence on the policies of other countries.

  • Continuing tension between the West and developing countries: emerging economies that could see reduced GDP growth as a result of climate policy, as well as poorer countries that have the most to lose from impacts of climate change.

  • The role of extreme weather events in shaping public perception of the direct consequences of climate change, as well as the need to address consequences and the willingness to pay to do that.

In the words of the authors, “the horse has bolted, but there is still scope to contain the greatest extent of damage [from climate change] through innovative and efficient policy.” “When the panel of experts set out to develop a set of scenarios about climate change,” remarked lead author Paul Domjan, “the general public thought there was a trade-off between economic growth and carbon reduction. In fact, the scenario that delivers the most carbon reduction, also delivers long-term economic growth by replacing a pick ’n’ mix of complicated, confusing and opaque policies with a clear, long-term carbon price.

The UNFCCC Talks in Bonn

Carbon Scenarios: Blue Sky Thinking for a Green Future was released just prior to the latest round of UN-sponsored global climate change negotiations in Bonn, which concluded Friday. The Stockholm Network explained the timing of the release:

While the UK and the EU will probably just manage to meet their goal of reducing emissions by 20% [compared to 1990 levels] by 2020, the bulk of future emissions will come from the developing world. However, without the assistance of the developed world, they will not realistically be able to curb their emissions. We need to create a framework that is transparent and credible in order to bring this about... Discussions at the UNFCCC meeting in Bonn are therefore crucial and need to move beyond the flaws inherent in the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation.

However, the Bonn conference, which was attended by around 2000 representatives from more than 170 countries, produced little more than an acknowledgment that progress was not moving fast enough. Representatives of the World Wildlife Federation (WWF), for example, labeled progress as “feeble” and complained that nations were presenting nothing more than “shopping lists” rather than blueprints for action.

Although Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that he was encouraged that the talks were beginning to shift from discussions to negotiations in Bonn, particularly with respect to adaptation, he nevertheless termed the challenge to develop agreements in time for the Copenhagen meeting as “daunting.” A week earlier, at the beginning of the Bonn talks, de Boer had spoken in more enthusiastic terms, stating: “I really am confident that at the end of the day, the deal will be struck.”

Added Harald Dovland, chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol, “We need a completely new spirit of cooperation from here, because if we continue in this mode of work, I fear we will not succeed in achieving the goals set in the work programme.

The next set of UNFCCC talks will be held in Ghana in August, and the last round of negotiations in 2008 are to be held in Poznán, Poland in December. Additional talks will be scheduled in 2009, leading up to the Copenhagen meeting in December of that year. In addition to setting new targets for reducing emissions, the Copenhagen talks have been mandated to produce agreements on how to help developing nations and emerging economies adapt to shifts in the climate, as well as how the international community is going to finance the measures.

*The Poznán (Poland) 2008 conference is referred to as COP (Conference of Parties) 14, and is a UNFCCC event. The UNFCCC meets regularly to discuss international responses to findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).




John Taylor writes: The EV1 proved that the electric car was viable with a 100 km range. We see lots of improvement since. Your second post link shows the Chevy Volt getting a 40 km range, a rather backward step. We best stop expecting GM to lead the way forward, and begin looking to other companies with vision.

Come on, John! The Volt

GM leading the way forward! EVs without range extenders today are just stupid. Check back in 5 or 10 years and the situation will be different. Do you have any idea what the Volt means? That 90% of drivers would use little or no gas? How on God's green Earth can you suggest that shows a lack of vision? For the first time in half a century, GM actually shows some vision; they should be recognized for it. For once, Toyota is following on PHEVs.


It is a fact that scientist have been aware of climate problems resulting from pollution for many years. 40 years ago I did my PhD on high powered electric batteries(sodium/sulfur)and although published many papers could not get a job in this area and had to resort to school teaching. Ford bought the battery patent. (end of story except for military apps). One conclusion I have made over many years is that we are all pawns in a game played by big business. Oil companies who make~50 billion profit each year have the power to exert tremendous influence over governments / media etc (HEGONOMY) and stifle or buy out viable alternatives which have the potential to reduce their profits. (After all isn't the bottom line the major factor that drives business?). It has been expedient for oil companies to encourage the use of oil guzzling monsters (and secure supply as in Iraq). True capitalism should allow effective competition - but unfortunately we only have croney capitalism - it is a fact that mass produced small electric cars sourced by renewable energy sources would be a much cheaper, cleaner alternative to using oil fuels for urban transport in most countries. Of course car and oil companies will persuade us otherwise. RESULT - We have all energy junkies. We need to go cold turkey on energy use and change our filthy bad habits.


It is a fact that scientist have been aware of climate problems resulting from pollution for many years. 40 years ago I did my PhD on high powered electric batteries(sodium/sulfur)and although published many papers could not get a job in this area and had to resort to school teaching. Ford bought the battery patent. (end of story except for military apps). One conclusion I have made over many years is that we are all pawns in a game played by big business. Oil companies who make~50 billion profit each year have the power to exert tremendous influence over governments / media etc (HEGONOMY) and stifle or buy out viable alternatives which have the potential to reduce their profits. (After all isn't the bottom line the major factor that drives business?). It has been expedient for oil companies to encourage the use of oil guzzling monsters (and secure supply as in Iraq). True capitalism should allow effective competition - but unfortunately we only have croney capitalism - it is a fact that mass produced small electric cars sourced by renewable energy sources would be a much cheaper, cleaner alternative to using oil fuels for urban transport in most countries. Of course car and oil companies will persuade us otherwise. RESULT - We are all energy junkies. We need to go cold turkey on energy use and change our filthy bad habits.


Hi George.
I'd like to tell you that I believe in GM and the much bandied about volt, but the evidence shows me not to.
The volt is built like a brick, gets a pitiful range on E-power, and needs an oil based infrastructure. It also does away with any need for a cleaner greener electrical infrastructure or green energy.

The long awaited volt will hit the showrooms only when other Electric Cars are fully available from other sources and not before.

GM plans to make it's real money from OIL, and keeping us addicted to this limited fuel. Letting people slip away from the oil monopoly just when it has the greatest profits is not in the GM plan. As Arthur notices, Ford is playing the same game.


@John Taylor
@ mahonj ~> “+ there is a shortage of windmills due to huge demand.”
This shortage is being rectified by doubling production capacity each year.
Can U find a reference to this ?
I can't.
I think it is increasing at more like 25% p/a.
Which is impressive, but a long way from 100%


It'll all happpen but the rate of change will be determined by 'social leaders' who put their money where their mouth is and accept the fact that trailblazers may lose a little (time, money, frustration) as the technology matures. But rest assured, the trailblazers are key to getting the change underway. Other social leaders (and they can exist in any socio-economic group) are needed to advertise and lead by example, a less energy intensive lifestyle and still others are needed to pressure the government to be partners in this change. Each of us should do as our talents and resources permit.\

Ask yourself if you are doing all that you can.


wesley bruce

Ok the three Luddite socialist models so nicely described clearly don't work! So where's the real solution? The model that's missing is the one George Bush has been pushing.
"Its the technology stupid!"

The 80 or so break through renewables per year we're seeing now all get capital, factory floors and buy up old energy technology distribution network (or get bought by them). A down turn in the rest of the world economy only serves to free up such capital,labour and factories.

We see a global deployment with biofuels at $30 a gallon and renewables and clean coal at $4.5 dollars a kilowatt.
Metal air battery's, Nickel Zinc, cheap lithium and better ultra-capacitors combined with lightweight but stronger car bodies [carbon, aluminium, plastic panels with air bags in them and the crumple zone] result in clean cars that go 130 km on a charge. Some of these cars are biofuel plug-in hybrids for those that need more flexability.
These are recharged by an integrated mix of solar PV, Solar thermal, wind, wave, run of the river hydro/currents plus waste to energy in most cities. All new car-parks are designed with charging points and many old ones are also equipped.

A massive investment in fast trains in the Midwest of the USA, Australia, China, India and Eastern Europe is done with bond financing.

Throw in a massive 5 year deployment of clean energy systems clean coal technology in ALL the coal power plants. And then turn the CO2 into man made carbonates. Mine slurry & tailings plus CO2 = building materials. What? Who told you clean coal would take 15 years? Oh those that can't do it, that's who?

All these technologies are coming out of the labs world wide in a massive and truly amazing deployment. When you add up the capacity of each of these technologies they can power the world three times over.

Oil, gas and dirty coal may be obsolete within 15 years and green house reversing may begin within 20. Yes I said reversing! If the carbon in biomass is fed to clean coal power plants, then turned into carbonate building materials [chalk, plaster] then we can pull the carbon out of the atmosphere as fast as we put it there.

Carbon pricing will work in some rich countries but the third world can't afford them. However all these technologies will be profitable even in the third world.


Yeah Wesley, wave the magic wand, it'll happen.


US military uses roughly 3% of total national oil consumption. ~350,000 bbl/day


Bush did a classic tech rush and it worked... But NONE of the options was ever going to "win". Failure was not an option it was factory insta;;ed'/

The good news is bush did in fact do something very useful and spent alot of money getting us the tools we needed. The qiestion is how much will be destroyed before this is all over and did he make good enough choices and will we.

We dont have to worry about pop control.. mother nature is a wonder at that and has billions of years of on the job experience.

We dont need to worry about wich is the right choice.. we just need to make em akk and pray we arnt the losers...

We dont have to be right we dont have to win we just have to not die.

One thing is certain... the world 1000 years from now will be alien to the people of today... but I expect it will be an interesting place indeed. And if the blasted medical ind would move its arse I intend to be interested and alive in it... as a head in a jar if need be.

John Taylor

@ mahonj ~ My apologies. China is doubling it's production capacity of wind turbines each year.
The rest of the world is increasing at more like 25%. Which is still impressive and will see world energy changing to wind as a primary power source if it keeps up.

I suspect wind power installation will soon become the new "gold rush" with a few large companies staking out the best areas to install wind machines.

@ Wesley ~> Sure, keep on believing in Bush. Ignore the statistics showing he has the worst environmental record ever. Who needs polar bears? Ignore the disastrous drop in the USA economy even during a free spending war effort. Keep on believing.
Living in a fantasy of self delusion is very satisfying...


You know everytime the subject of electric cars rolls around we end up rehashing the same old arguments, such as; 'batteries not good enough yet' or my personal favorite 'coal power recharging EVs is just as dirty as ICE cars.'

What this site needs is a FAQ and/or myth page. I mean REALLY, these arguments have been answered before. For example the recharging myth was answered 12 years ago when the EV1 first came out- -
Other myths answered here- -


@John Taylor trolleth:

"Volt... It also does away with any need for a cleaner greener electrical infrastructure or green energy."

How does a serial hybrid (ethanol/butanol) EV do away with a need to clean up the grid? If anything far more attention is being paid to the grid than ever before. And most of that attention is to augment the baseload with alternatives, PV, solar thermal, biomass, wind, etc.

In your immortal words: "Living in a fantasy of self delusion is very satisfying..."

And no one "needs" polar bears. Bush said he'd like to capture them all and put em in zoos (and maybe "study" them.) It's environmental anthropology.

Roger Pham

Stan, Wesley, Axil,

The details of climate and economic change projection is unimportant. We still need to declare WAR on Global Warming. Like the Iraq war that was started based on flimsy rumor of WMD that was non-existent, we now need a NEW WAR based on existing global warming data thus far, since OBAMA is going to pull the troops out of Iraq soon! Our defense contractors will be hurting and thousands of American workers in the defense industry will soon be out of job.

How are we gonna fight this WAR on Global Warming? Well, of course, with the THE GREEN ARMY as Axil proposed. Like Bush, Obama will now be leading this war... Axil will be the Secretary of Defense...
Haliburton, Lockheed-Martin, TExtron, Raytheon...and even GE...starting donating to Obama's cause...what y'all waiting for? It's gonna be biziness as usual...another trillion USD in budget...lavish lucrative no-bid cost-plus contracts...only no lives will be lost, unlike 100,000's in the Iraq war...our troops will be setting up wind turbines and solar panels instead of serving as live targets in Iraq for Al Qaeda to practice on...Our troops will be deployed to friendly regions of the world...or here at home with their families...SAy good bye to Iran and Al Qaeda and other rogue regimes since we won't be needing their oil any more...There...the war on terror will be over!

Unless the other guy gets in and keeps hurling stones...

John Taylor

So sulleny , now you think I'm a “troll” for noticing that a car designed to recharge using oil based fuel is still addicted to oil? Since you have demonstrated deficient intellect I shall attempt to explain this in sufficient detail for you. The Volt is designed to use oil, not public recharging “pay-for-plugs” thus, it fails to generate or support or use the infrastructure needed for fully electric cars.

I suggest you, find correct information, don't just post fibs and expect your rudeness to suffice.
You have demonstrated yourself to be an oil shill.


J T,

your comments so greatly lack insight or authority one must see you as a wee beastie living restlessly under a bridge. Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass can hardly be called "oil based." And as 80% of daily auto miles are under cumulative 40 miles, the Volt battery will provide all the energy required without liquid fuel. You must however plug your Volt in at night or at work or at public charging stations that will provide an early bonanza for whatever quick witted soul franchises them.

In the interest of complete disclosure I am compensated to write commentary about environment by a team of hilarious comedy writers. None of us shill for oil, though some have cadged for drinks.

John Taylor

sulleny, you are free to delude yourself into thinking GM will save us from oil. There is zero evidence to support this, and lots of examples to show them as an oil-focused company.

Calling me names because I don't buy into your GM lovin' silliness is hardly a way to convince anyone of anything.

Please find me some evidence that the volt is going to run on Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass as you contend. I can't find this plan being pursued by GM.

Once again, fully Electric cars need public recharging as an infrastructure. The GM volt is designed to not build this infrastructure.



Your dour views on battery readiness are unjustified. GM has two excellent candidate manufacturers for it Volt program. Volume production will address the cost issue and generate incremental improvements. Greed (market potential) has attracted innovation in battery technology that will lead to further improvements in performance and costs.

As for energy costs, once again greed, as epitomized by oil interests, is rescuing us by giving us the incentive to innovate. Sustainable energy solutions – solar, wind et al. – are becoming cheaper. For example, solar electric is expected to reach grid parity for California in several years. After grid parity is reached, electrical energy prices will drop continually – what a concept.


John Taylor:

I shall not do the work for you. To answer your questions I refer you to the "Search" function at the following website :

and I apologize for name calling.

Go ahead true believers. Make your pilgrimages to worship at the UN IPCC; and worship in the glory of true revelation of GAIA. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the revealed religious dogma and truth.

Its Profits, Algore and J. Hansen. A stupid failed evangelist, and a messianic computer modeler are its Profits. Both have gone on record, and are quoted to say, its sometimes necessary to exaggerate and prevaricate, for the greater good.

Both corrupt Prophets, er Profits, can be proved and documented to have made millions off their truth deficiency. (See its possible to "ad hominem" these dopes too.)

But here we have their own on-record quotes, and documented profits to punish them, rather than speculative insults that someone must be a tool of Big Oil, without evidence. The truth hurts.

Here’s what James E. Hansen, a leading figure in the global-warming pessimist camp, has to say about the need for scientific honesty:

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming... " Admitting he lied and exaggerated. Lying is a greater good. The End justifies the Means...

As for the Algore, in his own words:

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation of factual presentations' on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis..."

I love that political euphemism for lying:

'over-representation of factual presentations'. That is a great justification to find a way to say... I lied.

Paraphrasing his own words, 'The End justifies the Means' that I, Algore felt morally justified in using, the Big Lie, to a greater good.

The ignorant televangelist doesn't believe his own fire and brimstone sermons. The one that predicts sea level to rise 20 to 60 feet higher in half a century, still managed to purchase a sea front Mansion...

I'm sure Herr Hitler or Himmler, and Eichmann, said similar justifications too.

Except in the real world the embarassinfgg truth is that hasn't been any Global Warming, man-made or natural, for approaching a decade. Even the dedicated acolytes are now predicting another several decades of cooling. The 'Greater Good' scam is becoming undone.

John Taylor

@ sulleny tks for the apology. It was deserved and accepted.
As for me using a search function to find information ... it is you who contends this exists, and it is up to you to present the evidence and basis for your claim. I shall respond to any evidence brought to my attention. There are a variety of options presented for the Volt, and it is not up to me to guess what you intended to reference.
My point was, and still is, that none of the Volt options involves public electrical recharging being made available.


"truth deficiency...", "demonstrated deficient intellect"

Note: bio-cerebral pattern recognition class #224 indicates a probability density of ~78.83% the author is but one person.

Roger Pham

Shhhhh, Stan...
don't post another word against Global Warming...That is going to hurt Obama's next WAR on Global WARming. As patriotic as you are, surely you don't want to see more American workers out of work, do you?

We will need another WAR in order to boost our economy, like the WWII that pulled America out of the Great Depression, but we don't need to kill anymore people, ergo,... the WAR on Global WARming will be perfect.
Unlike the Vietnam War or Iraq war which put America in heavy debts, the WAR on Global WARming will pay for itself with savings of not having to pay for fossil fuels FOREVER. There will be job growth as industries will be sprouting, producing wind turbines, power electronics and solar panels, and solar thermal electricity and home solar thermal collectors etc...More job growth will lead to increase tax revenue which will help pay off America's heavy debt burden...The benefit of this new WAR on Global WARming will be enormous...

Say, Stan, does your wife work for the CIA? If so, be extra careful, or her identity may be revealed by the next Administration, like what happened to Ambassador Wilson and his wife Valerie Plaime.

The comments to this entry are closed.