Clyde Burnett, Boulder County.   Earth’s response to the global warming caused by the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect includes ice melt, sea level rise, episodes of extreme weather and disastrous worldwide wildfires. Our related climate change costs counter the deniers’ propaganda warnings of costs of transition to renewables. The 2017 disaster costs were more than $300 billion. Miami Beach is spending $400 million for pumps and repairs to streets due to flooding from sea level rise. Now we have the Mountain-Ear report, by Boulder County’s Dr Chinoski, of climate change costs and allocations of $96-$157 million for the future.

The belated increase of public understanding of the climate science and the extreme weather evidence of climate change should inspire Federal, State and other local actions to move ahead. The Trump Administration and the Republican Congress show no sign of such a movement. It is time for local groups to get together for discussions about solutions to the extreme climate change danger and for urgent election plans to correct our federal inactivity.

It is time to begin to give attention to the disaster costs and pay the piper for environmental leadership and the mitigation costs of renewable transitions. Let us consider methods for local activity, with advice from the Nederland group. Such group activity could unite to yield significant results with small individual costs. Every bit counts toward the goal of zero greenhouse gas emission.

We need the local commitment of each citizen to contribute to solar and wind power. One can make limited purchase of rooftop solar panels or solar hot water (See photo). One needs to think of this as an investment; of course, the principle is no longer accessible, but neither is a vacation expenditure. The return depends on our local incident solar energy and is generally small, but remember that eventually the energy is free. This method exposes the owner to a potential need for upkeep. An alternative is to invest in an independent supplier of solar or wind energy; the advantage is that the upkeep is their responsibility.

Question: What kind of local group could consider climate change mitigation?

Answer: The Nederland commitment for 100% renewables is such an example. The Mountain-Ear article by Lauren Berger asks for advice on more general actions. Such a group could discuss ideas for individual contributions, such as considerations to convert a fraction of coal-based annual electric power bills.

Actual transportation energy use could be calculated from vehicle mileage.

Appropriate allowances could be established based on the efficiency of attic or roof insulation and triple pane windows. Members of such a group could study investment in local or flatland solar or wind farms. There would also be a natural opportunity for movement to new governmental leadership.

Question: How could this work to get more federal tax relief?

Answer: That would be highly appropriate. Seek expert tax advice.

There is another advantage in such discussions. Jeremy Deaton writes in Nexus Media about environmental melancholia. We have a “post-traumatic stress disorder” following the reality of climate change and triggered by observations of increases of extreme weather.

Citizens of such a group would have discussions countering such melancholia. These discussions could naturally identify specific problems and move toward possible solutions. Such a group activity has demonstrated past successes. Forest problems were studied and given attention by the Magnolia Forest Group and the former LKF.

There would also be opportunities for consensus developments regarding general societal problems such as awful Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities concerning our immigrant families.