Hi Carol, I just saw that article on the front page of the Globe. Pretty scary stuff. A rise of 10 degrees in average temperature by 2080, we're already 2 degrees warmer. By 2100, we could see much of Boston at risk for flooding. By the middle of the century, 2050, some states could see 60 additional days a year over 90 degrees.

It's all caused by greenhouse emissions, is that right? There was a lot of talk about alternative energy in the article, but no mention of cars. I thought that made up a big part of the problem with greenhouse emissions?

I guess when I read that article, the last thing on my mind are my gardening practices. What kind of defensive strategies can you make for weather that is too hot? We might not be able to grow certain crops any more. How many crops could tolerate 10 degree warmer temperatures? You have more ability to adjust to colder temperatures than hotter, I would think.

Reading the article made me think I should understand greenhouse emissions better and see if there isn't more our family could possibly do to make a difference. I don't think making changes are impossible, but what does seem impossible to me, is getting everyone on the same page, and willing to do something about it.

I don't think we'll ever make progress if we wait until everyone's on the same page. Changing the outcome is going to require that everyone does what they can, regardless of the guy next door and his SUV.

Personally, I've planted more trees on my tiny in-town lot, because I think shade is already becoming more important, for anyone who wants to spend time outdoors. I'm also staying away from plants that need a lot of water, just as a general rule - hydrangeas excluded, for now - and I pay much more attention to mulching everything in sight. And, I admit I've enjoyed being in a warmer zone, so that I can now grow things that were much more of a risk, just 20 years ago.

We looked into putting solar panels on our garage, since our house doesn't have good sun exposure, and is too full of gables besides, but we haven't taken the next step, which would involve a major re-build of that structure.

My concern is that the small changes we've seen so far will suddenly be eclipsed by major, irreversible changes. Tipping points might occur when changes in ocean temperature reach a point that disrupts the normal circulation patterns that have moderated weather for millennia, or when the loss of glacial coverage at the poles causes so much more heat to be absorbed that's currently being reflected back into space - once these points are passed, it will be so much harder to do anything to help.

The average homeowner can't do much of anything to change the situation. You may feel better about things and feel like you're doing "your part" to change some of your practices but in reality you aren't accomplishing anything. It's exactly the same argument that I make to you guys about chemicals. Do you actually think that you are contaminating the groundwater by filling up your one gallon sprayer with a solution of the chemical of your choice and spraying it around your property. If so, then another reality check is in order. To solve this issue will require several fundamental changes to the way this country operates. The power plants and factories that spew millions of metric tons of gases into the atmosphere are what need to be changed but this will never happen because they can bribe Congress to do anything they want them to do. The government could mandate that every new home in the US have solar panels on the roof. The combined output would be tremendous. But there is no political will to make this happen and as long as bribes are the law of the land, it never will happen. It's all about money.

I do and I donâÂÂt agree with Tree Oracle in this instance. I do agree, that as long as corporations are allowed to spew gases into the atmosphere we canâÂÂt fix this. It's not just in this country though. And stripping the rainforest and clearing land for more development, doesn't help either.

I also agree that the US government has some power to change that and has failed to do so. The article points to legislation being blocked by Democrats in coal producing states, and Republicans who question the science. IâÂÂm not positive that bribes are the reason action has not been taken, but I suspect that it is. I wonder would we get the country back on track if lobbyists were not allowed?

I agree that Solar panels on every roof would make a big difference. It is quite an investment for the individual family to make, and if the government werenâÂÂt spending money on everything else, they could help fund it and make it a reality.

But I think there has to be more that we all can do. What is frustrating to me, is that this latest article really didnâÂÂt offer any recommendations about what needs to happen, except to say we should pass legislation in the near future, but that it was unlikely to happen.

We either have to change the status quo in Washington, or we have to work around them, if that is possible. IâÂÂm a big believer in grass roots action and I donâÂÂt think we can afford to sit back and wait for someone else to do something. And I think we all keep thinking that we won't have to make any personal sacrifices in the process, and I think that is unrealistic.

But as gardeners who love the land and green spaces and beautiful gardens, I would think we would all be that much more motivated than the average person, to try to do something. I can't imagine that by 2050, we might be having 60 more days of over 90 degree temperatures in Massachusetts. That's just 25 years away.

Maybe we could brainstorm ideas of what we could do? I was thinking of a massive letter writing effort. If we could agree on some basic things that need to happen and every person in the country wrote a letter and sent it to Congress all on the same day demanding it be done, would that have an effect?

Or maybe we could find the funds to send our own lobbyists to Congress?

And there are a lot of billionaires like Bill Gates who are putting their money to charities, perhaps we could appeal to them to fund solar panels?

That is just off the top of my head and I realize I need to be better informed to come up with more specific ideas.

Solar panels have to come from somewhere. They take energy, and materials to make, and for many years, produced about as much energy over their lifetimes as it took to make them in the first place.

Mad_gallica, I wonder if that is true of the latest version of them?

Mad, exactly right! Same for wind turbines, and the materials that make up just about any other power plant. Same logic applies to electric cars. Guess how that electricity was made. It was from either coal, gas, or oil. Even if it came from nuclear, hydroelectric, and some other means, there was a substantial amount of coal, gas, or oil that was used to make the materials used in constructing the dam, nuclear power plant, etc. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to make a difference. I find it somewhat crazy that we can put a man on the moon if we have the willpower to do so but yet we can't solve the energy/pollution problems of the world. It's not going to happen as long as corporations have their hand in the pockets of Congress. Money and corruption rule this world.

Yes, solar panels have to come from somewhere, but so do oil rigs and drills, and machines to dig coal and frack for gas, and every other machine or product or facility that is used to produce any kind of other energy, so that's not a really good excuse NOT to use solar panels. Could they be manufactured in a more environmentally-friendly way? Probably. Everything we use in every aspect or our live probably could be.

I went to a seminar on solar energy a few years back, and one of the questions I asked was if and how the panels could be recycled/disposed of at the end of their lifetime. The guy couldn't answer me because he said in 30+ years he had never heard of a panel not being productive enough to dispose of. I'm sure somewhere in the world panels have been discarded, but thought he raised an interesting point.

Dee

Plants evolved to be multicellular, reproducing organisms at about 540 million years ago. Humans didn't evolve until many thousand years ago. Earth and it's systems will readjust to evolutionary equilibrium soon after the humans are made extinct by consequences of their own collective actions.

Evolution aside, Money truly is the evil in this situation. There's a financial capital to be made selling fossil fuels when it's the best fuel source another's dollar can buy. No country will seek energy means outside of the petrochemical industry until another energy sector becomes more financially beneficial. Solar, wind, and other sustainable/non-GHG energy sources just don't provide the substantial energy per dollar that petrochemicals can.

Once solar energy becomes as profitable in returns as petrochemicals I think humans will come to realize that it is the ultimate energy source. Again, for 540 millions year plants have been perfecting the use of solar energy (photosynthesis to convert solar radiation into their own energy) and have been storing this energy inside the Earth as they are buried through time. Man will be forced to realize that extracting this energy from the Earth and expelling the energy as byproducts into the atmosphere is undoing this 540 million years of solar energy storage. Humans have been mining for petrochemicals industrially (since the late 1700 and early 1800s upon escaping the Malthusian Trap) at such a rate that oil fields in the Middle East are suspected to be over half-empty. All the while, the sun has continued to beat down, day after day after day, on Earth providing heat energy from GH effect.

It's a damn crime, but until solar energy is perceived to be "capitalize-able", the people with money will invest in petrochemicals. The cycle will continue until Earth is unlivable.