Here are the first four paragprahs of the lenghty UN news release about: The World Economic andSocial Survey 2011: The Great Green Technological Transformation.

Geneva, 5 July 2011 – Over the next three to four decades, humankind must bring about a fundamental technological overhaul of production processes worldwide to end poverty and avert the likely catastrophic impacts of climate change and environmental degradation, the United Nations said in a report issued today.

Major investments will be needed worldwide in the development and scaling up of clean energy technologies, sustainable farming and forestry techniques, climate-proofing of infrastructure, and in technologies reducing non-biodegradable waste production, according to

The report says the technological overhaul will need to be on the scale of the first industrial revolution. Over the next 40 years, $1.9 trillion per year will be needed for incremental investments in green technologies. At least one-half, or $1.1 trillion per year, of the required investments will need to be made in developing countries to meet their rapidly increasing food and energy demands through the application of green technologies.

I'm feeling a bit weird about some of the social and economics stuff we're putting up for posts now.

This is a science blog - isn't the point to use skeptical scientific analysis to report on outcomes and point out which arguments are wrong?

B.: Why would SkS post this? What does it have to do with the SkS mission, as discussed here?

The SkS mission statement is still a "work-in-progress." Until it is finalized, we will continue to make decisions about what articles to post by the seat of our pants.

It could be used as a way to tease out economic methods, or to look at the science of impacts or something. That's fine as far as I'm concerned!

There are plenty of non-science blogs to pump out 'ACT NOW' propaganda!

I think the discussion has gone in the way that our main goal is to act through clarifying the science. Mixing in broad & sweeping conclusions about changes to society is going to be highly counterproductive, because it will set off all the alarms of the conservatives without advancing our main goal. It will reduce the effectiveness of SkS.

All very well Badger.

But I think some members get the impression you are trying to steer SkS in a particular direction??
Or maybe it's just me that thinks that??

SkS is a useful resource for those that need support for campaigns. I don't think it needs to be campaigning itself.
In many respects, some environmentalists need re-educating as well as skeptics!
SkS is useful for that.

If you read my posts, you will see that I have consistently advocated that SkS stick to the science. Given that John Cook and Dana believe otherwise, I do not intend to keep barking up that tree.  

You imply that the UN report cited above is a piece of propoganda. I take issue with that.

Thanks Neal for the pointer to the mission statement thread.

There is a problem with this forum in that it is difficult to know what is going on unless you check every subject area.

On important issues it would be useful if we knew where something was being discussed.

"There are plenty of non-science blogs to pump out 'ACT NOW' propaganda!"

Strange, but I get the impression that some contributers here don't fully recognize the urgency of our predicament. You can belittle those that are wanting immediate action, but in the end those people will be proven right, and reticent scientists wrong. Global hunger is not that many years away, and starvation and excrutiating death is already plaguing Africa. 

The vibe I get from Badger's comments is that, like me, he is concerned about the lack of progress. I don't agree with every one of his suggestions, but I appreciate the effort that he puts in, in order to propel things forward. Like most endeavours in life, to me at least, that's what really counts.

Thanks for the kind words.

"Ours is not to reason why. Ours is to do or die."

- My reason for wanting to exclude this from coverage is that it will confuse people about our main thrust, which is information/clarificatiion, not action-oriented. This confusion will corrode our credibility with unaligned readers - quite legitimately.

- "Ours is not to reason why. Ours is to do or die." Boy, do I disagree with that!