My car is my freedom. The political left will take your freedom for any excuse including this cooked up nonsense. The planet has always had temperature fluctuations and it always will. The planet had Dinosaurs long ago but they were killed off by a massive temp change. Co2 is emitted by the ocean and geothermal disturbances. China is emitting Co2 and they care not one bit what western environmentalists say. They are drilling all over the South China sea for oil and natural gas and they will drill in Antarctica as well as soon as they need to. This is just so much nonsense cooked up by liberal billionaires to box the common man in so they can enjoy the world without tripping over the rest of us. If you're stupid enough to trade your freedom for this nonsense, then give up your car and stay home, I wish to be free.
9
Living in NYC, I find it positively revolting and stupefying...the number of NYers who are totally fixated on owning cars...on having parking spots allocated to them...on acting like they 'own' the roads...and who see it as their inalienable 'right' to own a private vehicle.
In NYC, we have MTA trains/buses (granted, the system could be better, but that's a whole 'nother story...). We have Citibike, taxis, Ubers. Metro North, LIRR, PATH. Zipcars. Food delivery services, laundry pickup/dropoff. You name it. So why so many feel the need for a personal vehicle is beyond me. Clearly some are 'addicted' to their cars, and the notion of giving it up is akin to some gun nuts refusing to want to give up any of their arsenals.
Not only are many NYers addicted to their cars, but now, more often than not, those 'cars' are now in the form of monster SUVs. Course, their rationales for their SUVs is that they feel 'safer', and that 'because everyone else has an SUV, I too now need one so that in case I'm hit by one, my car isn't overpowered by the other's SUV (again, a rationale akin to gun nuts saying they need ARs to compete with other people with ARs) Is anyone noticing a trend here? ;-)
How our former 'families of 6' managed to vacation in One station wagon is beyond me. We've become such 'consumers', so self-centered, so spoiled. SUVs are a scourge, in so many ways: pollution, more dangerous for pedestrians, block the views of smaller cars, hog parking spaces, etc.
15
Our economic structure is such that, if people want to have a roof over their heads and want to eat, they have to do whatever it takes to make money.
That’s why if you are a coal miner, an oil producer, someone who creates products and plans obsolescence, you do what you need to do to pay the bills - consequences be damned.
A recent article described a small town that embraced fracking because it brought needed revenue to their town.
People need to live today, and that’s why they don’t worry about future consequences.
It’s really up to our leaders to come up with policies that reward responsible behavior and make living without destroying the environment possible.
Our current economic structure will seal our fate.
12
A family earning a decent salary cannot afford to put solar panels on their house or to buy an electric car. Why?
10
The Trump administration is planning to open up protected land for drilling for oil, while they destroy environmental regulation and push for defund Planned Parenthood. They want to force the past onto the world. The world cannot go back to the past. It has to deal with now.
Deny, deny, deny rather than face the reality of what is? How is this responsible governing?
8
Not to belabor the obvious, but a "speeding freight train" accelerates ... very ... slowly.
2
Progress will be made once the Europeans stop driving big their gas guzzling Benz's. Thanks.
2
What increases the consumption of fossil fuels, coal, natural resources, water, etc. and hence the production of larger emissions, waste and environmental burden? .....
Consumption of people. No agreements will be effective unless human consumption is restrained. Growing consumption creates space for businesses, increasing and expanding production, producing what people do not need, or using unnecessary designs, materials, manufacturing processes, and so on. for products that people do not need. If we are to reduce the burden on the environment, we must reduce consumption ....
7
Actually, speeding freight trains are very massive and do not accelerate very fast at all, so the analogy fails, because it implies that the large momentum of the train, not its acceleration per se, makes it hard to stop. It was a statement by a scientist, so a proper application of basic physics is not too much to ask, is it?
8
@Agent GG
Excellent!
1
I would love to see emissions data by wealth. How much co2 do the international 1% emit with their multiple huge mansions, personal jets, yachts, chauffeured SUVs and goods consumption? How much do they emit when they push for another percent of profit? How much when they order takeout from hundreds of miles away? Tax their fuel at the same rate as everyone else and they won’t even notice.
Earth could have been a paradise. Maybe it still could be if we all curb our consumption. Imagine living as indigenous people did, only with zero emission mass transit and modern medicine. And with reverence for the other living plants and creatures of the world.
7
@PJ
I think you are exactly right. We must imagine something mixed with past wisdom and future solutions and work toward them. Change frighten people, but they can and should be good changes, that involve compassion for all living things. I believe this can happen, but we are witnessing a wrestling match with right wing hold outs.
3
@PJ
That information is easily checked. I even cited some numbers on an earlier post.
FYI: Al Gore... his electric bill ran $2,000 per month just for his home. Bernie Sanders, if memory serves, is over $1,000 per month. Nancy Pelosi is up there as well (her carbon footprint is 4x the average!)
CO2 emissions from aviation fuel are 3.15 grams per gram of fuel. So calculating how many tons of fuel and CO2 emissions and being in the ball park is easy!
The point I am making is the elected leaders shouting the most are the least green!
4
And still, in light of this all, we are left like a bunch of open-mouthed and speechless bystanders who despite having heard the bell chime many times over yet zoomed off from the waiting room benches a little belatedly.
Now, all that's left to do is watch the train who just left the station fade away in the distance. Sadly, on the timetable, it was the last one heading straight to the city of "Salvation".
2
It is really depressing to see that the rest of the world including your country increases CO2 emissions at such a high rate, while only Europe seems to work and invest towards the common global goal „2 degrees“.
7
@Andreas Yes, it's depressing. And blame will not get us into any thing other than a fight or a war. It's a long story of how we got here and all that we humans, especially from dominant societies, managed to ignore to make this happen. And we could waste a lot of time blaming.
The facts are, we have grossly overpopulated the Earth, and our species has destroyed the habitat of so many other species. And so many people make so many choices that consistently result in more pollution and heat generation. We all need to stop "doing" and collectively decide to move forward, in an egalitarian way. And naturally reduce our populations, as well as stop using fossil fuels now. In the meantime, do what you can, what you have control over and lobby your government, and any other government you can. We are in this together!
7
Why is it that no one addresses the fact that the root of all our environmental problems is the ever-expanding human population of the earth? If this is not eventually controlled, there is no way we will ever escape the dire consequences of too many human beings living on a planet no longer able to sustain them. It is a difficult and sensitive issue, and we naturally don't want to face it, but it is truly inevitable. We simply cannot expand exponentially forever.
17
If mankind can perfect fusion energy, we may have a chance to avert extinction. Scientists are working on it. Fusion energy, look it up.
1
There's a hit the nail on the head book by David Owen that zeroes in on why, despite all the efforts of those who are aware of the dire climate change straits we are in, not only are we, the species, not putting on the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions, we're flooring the accelerator. The title is "The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse." What do people do when oil prices go down, they buy gas guzzling SUVs, What does Ford do when people flock to dealers to buy SUVs. The stop making fuel efficient cars.
2
Let’s look on the bright side. The trees and plants will be happier with all the CO2 in the atmosphere.
3
Except they can't walk away from the new and more extreme weather extremes, the wildfires, and the new pests and disease to which they have no defenses.
5
@New World
I understood what you are saying. However, there will be some who don't realize that with all that CO2, and the problems associated with it, a lot of trees will end up dying!
In North America, millions of trees have already died as a direct result of drought. Millions more that survived the current drought have gone up in flames.
Redwood Forests? They are not doing well and it is unlikely that your great grandchildren will ever see them.
People are just starting to learn that Wheat and other grain crops will suffer with higher temperatures. For every degree rise, there will be a 3% - 7% reduction on yields and as it gets hotter, that will increase to 10% reduction in crop yields.
I mention this because it turns out that our forests can't handle rising temperatures. If there is a 4 to 6 degree rise, the trees will die. Only trees at higher elevation or further north would survive!
Just an FYI...
The movie, "Six Degrees Could Change the World" is good at explaining what would happen for every degree rise in temperature!
6
it was a good run.
3
Mankind has made its bed and now we get to sleep in it. The tipping point was years ago and now we are just making it worse by ignoring the problem. Change will happen faster than any model we use and it will be huge. Mankind is a virus on the planet and the Earth fixes itself in ways we're just starting to see. Wait until the permafrost melts in the North and CO2 goes up exponentially over the next 10 years. Wait until millions drown or burn up in Asia from heat, drought and massive storms. The Southern Hemisphere will have to be the lifeboat for people, but good luck with that.
5
None of the science support this hysteria. This is about raising taxes , which would have no effect on CO2, and a one world centralized government. There are just too many scientists that are just laughing at this nonsense.
5
@James Let's try a thought experiment , shall we, James? Suppose 97 licensed electricians told you there was a serious problem with your house's wiring and that fixing it would be expensive but that doing nothing would result in a fire. And supposed 3 said no problem, you don't have to do a thing. And let use assume that there is no other house you can move to. What would you do?
12
Trump digs coal while we dig graves.
Nice.
(Winning bigly)
8
Personally, I do not have much self-interest in what happens to this planet because of our ignorance and stupidity as I do not have much life left to live. However, I worry about my children and grand-children. What worries me most is that my children and grand-children and their peers are not worried about the future of our planet as I am. It looks like entire humanity is avoiding an impending disaster by ignoring it. Our species's name, Homo sapiens, means "wise man". Is is it misnomer?
9
The new US ambassador to Canada…using the best weasel words possible, *believes* both sides of climate science. Might as well believe in General Relativity and Magic on the same level. STEM, where are you?
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/6/18128749/kelly-craft-climate-change-interview
1
A discussion of climate without focus on population is a discussion of health without focus on diet and exercise.
11
@Marc
Agreed and this needs to be addressed with the Republican party who are doing quite a lot to reduce women's right to birth control, while also denying climate change and removing any kind of environmental regulation.
6
@KLC Kow Towing to religious fundamentalists from DC, to Riyad to Lagos, in exchange for political allegiance certainly contributes mightily to the problem.
2
Please note the important contribution of global warming to METHANE. It is a carbon compound, and one of its properties is the retention of heat from sunlight, unlike CO2. Methane is one bi-product of fracking, and is held, in vast quantities in the permafrost near the poles, particularly near the Arctic. These permafrost deposits are MELTING, right now, and the impending release of huge amounts of methane will contribute far more to rising temperatures than will the CO2 from tailpipe emissions.
I've been to Beijing and, two weeks ago I experienced the same barely breathable "air" coming from the Camp Fire in CA. We cannot survive on this planet unless we act now.
Stop fracking, stop exploring for oil in the Arctic, tax carbon emissions, move vast sums of money to renewable energy R&D and distribution, assist in fusion energy R&D (NOT fission), and reduce the human birthrate, among other tasks. We have no second choice for a home planet.
11
There is an additional puzzle piece to a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHGs and get this planet back on the rails. We need a global “Manhattan Project” to fast-track technical solutions for cheap, safe, industrial-scale electricity production and storage. Advanced battery technology , fusion, wave, OTEC, and on and on. I have faith in mankind’s ability to solve seemingly insurmountable problems. But it will never happen without massive investment and a strategy with clear objectives and oversight. At this point, I fear that relatively small and uncoordinated research projects will be “too little and too late”. The news flash we hope for that the problem has been solved will never come. Every country...big or small, rich or poor...needs to contribute say 0.5% of their GDP towards a global research fund. The research fund should be organized and administered by the UN or another global entity.
Of course the above is a naive and wishful pipe dream unless every country wakes up and recognizes the cliff we’re headed towards and the need for a global approach to a global problem. The bedside alarm is blaring. I hope we all wake up very very soon!
4
"American taxpayers — and American workers — shouldn’t pay to clean up others countries’ pollution.”
..ahem, we're responsible for a third of all emissions to date. so let's atone for our past sins first and THEN we can talk about whether we should help other countries manage their own emissions. which btw, is a massive opportunity for American businesses and investors. too bad we have all but ceded that opportunity to the Chinese and Europeans.
5
And the per capita energy consumption of the USA ist twice as high as the energy consumption of i.e Germany while the standard of living is comparable. Ttherefore the cited sentence does not reflect the reality in any sense.
2
"“It just means that the problem will be harder to fix down the line,” she said. “We’re continuing to buck-pass this problem to our kids and our future selves.”
Who says that is all this means? Who says the problem will be fixable?
I suggest that everyone should read this article from the MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
On the one side there is the science that tells us climate change is happening. On the other side there is the science, the engineering, the technological gaps, the project management, manpower and materials issues, the economics, the politics and the geopolitics that tell us how difficult this problem will be to fix.
I don't know who is more harmful, the climate change deniers or those who suggest there is a ready solution, such as carbon taxes, if only we would adopt it.
2
America consumes around 19 million barrels of oil a day almost TWICE as much as the #2 Consumer , China (with 4 times the population)
And the U.S has been consuming this amount of Oil daily for around 60 years making it by far and away the largest Co2 Emitter of any Country anywhere ...ever.
Being the ONLY country to leave the Paris Agreement as intended by Trump, it seems the largest Co2 Emitter of all time which consumes the most Oil of any other country ( of which it is estimated there is only 55 years of Oil reserves left on Earth at the current rate of usage)is not going to lead the World in mitigating the effects of Global Warming/Climate Change, but be the Country that by its usage of Oil will be most responsible for the consequences that will become worse and worse as time goes by and the resultant Global ramifications that will impact Mankind heavily , to say the least.
In fact, if you take away the next 14 highest Daily Oil consuming nations away...America uses MORE Oil each day than the combined daily Oil Consumption of the remaining 191 Countries in the World.
Think about it. America consumes MORE Oil a day than 191 of the 206 Countries on Earth.
Thus it will be up to America whether we mitigate the threat to our children & the future of all.
Denying Climate Change is not a viable option and no solution for our future security and what is at stake.
Oil Consumption by Country:
https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=oil&graph =consumption&display=rank
4
I replied to Bob regarding SUS’s, and just reread some other comments . (I am the one who switched to one car in the family and uses public transportation or a rare car rental to cut back on our personal contributions to global warming)
But after reading some other comments I refer you to this NYT article from 2016 :
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-tax-work-ask-british-columbia.html
This legislation was liberals (read middle of the road but still business minded conservatives) We have changed governments recently, (parliamentary system, election was almost tied, with 3 Green Pary members needed to retain power).
No one talks much about getting rid of the tax. Apparently the attitudes fall not along left/right lines, but are more age related....some grumbling about the price of gas...
Some of the carbon tax goes to improve public transportation, which I’d quite good on a local basis, plus some tax credits.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/planning-and-action/carbon-tax
We have special “handiDart” bus services for the elderly and disabled, which can be booked ahead, even door to door when needed.
Might make interesting follow up NYT!
1
Many of us grew up with television shows like Dynasty and LifeStyles of the Rich and Famous and currently shows and films like Downton Abbey and Crazy Rich Asians that flaunt grotesque overconsumption. (Trump seems to be the poster child for this.)
(Personally I preferred Little House on the Prairie and I am not religious. I enjoyed the sweetness and the sense of gratitude, the closeness to nature and the connection to community.)
N. America has sold to the world this idea of wealth as the ultimate means to happiness and many people have become obsessed with the goal. This could obliterate the balance of this planet.
Nowadays, more and more I find myself looking at people who flaunt their wealth with massive houses and two SUV's, well I see them as lost souls.
Creative expression, community involvement and simple living and more free time, has given me a sense of luxury far beyond how I felt when I was in the rat race.
5
It's not overpopulation that is the real problem, it's how a small number of humans (perhaps 10%) is causing most of the destruction. A guy in a heated/cooled McMansion with an SUV he drives 20,000 miles a year on, who flies 10 times a year, who buys endless amounts of material objects, who eats food grown halfway around the planet does more damage to the earth than a village of 100 in an indigeneous culture living in a sustainable way.
6
The chart seems off. The Economist (this week's issue) showed the USA reducing emissions and the EU raising.
I am surprised that the EU is showing a reduction with its reliance on coal and diesel.
2
As long the delegates to these meetings are enjoying their taxpayer funded jetting about the world for their international conferences instead of video conferencing, I don’t care what they have to say.
4
Seems clear that the price of oil has been going the wrong way if our global aim is to woo the nations off of fossil fuels. We need improvements in physical infrastructure, yet for some reason we've kept the gas tax ridiculously low. Gas guzzling SUVs and trucks are far and away the favorites with consumers. They too should be taxed according to their impact on the environment. The footprint of our carbon addiction as a society is clear. We are roughly 5 percent of the world's population and yet we consume roughly a quarter of the planet's energy. It's not world population, people, it's the relative power to consume. Time to pay the true cost of that consumption. For some reason we walked away from a bipartisan consensus on cap and trade. Together with a high enough tax at the pump we might just begin to see the impact of the oil glut begin to dissipate. Right now its impact is clear. Hence the 2018 acceleration of emissions.
This peer review seems suspicious. I would be curious what "major revisions" one of the peers suggested and the peer (may not have been a friend) apparently had a few; another peer also wrote that he or she had no expertise in this subject, and asked some good questions. After three favorable reviews, those peer reviews were deemed to be sufficient, and the one who said major revisions were needed was dropped (and the comment period was then closed) and the paper was published.
Additionally, the report says "the earth has already warmed 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. There was a long period of time when the earth was much warmer and much of the land including North America (e.g. Denver 35 million years ago) was covered with the ocean which why we find oil in places no longer close to any ocean (it takes marine decay to form oil). Currently, we're still in an ice age as earth has ice in the polar regions.
Then there were cooling periods followed by more warming periods (we got Long Island from the period of warming in the Wisconsin Recession 21,000 years ago).
Also, with this study, it does not look like there is much change in the carbon composition of the atmosphere. I learned many years ago that carbon dioxide only comprises 0.4% of the atmosphere, and that number has not really changed.
2
@Russell Leonard One correction, meant to write CO2 is only 0.04%. Just a miskey on the carbon dioxide.
@Russell Leonard I suggest you broaden your news and especially your science sources. Have you come across Nature or Science? They are a great place to start. There are also many really good graphs and charts and interactive sources to daily monitor CO2. The Arctic Sea ice and temperature anomalies around the globe, as well as jet stream, winds. Watching these tools daily for years can inform you more, observation is also invaluable. Our understand of systems has advanced so much recently, and as intelligent humans we can learn more and adjust they way we have thought to include the new info and form greater understanding. Rigidity is not a helpful trait when looking at science.
To anyone who has been paying attention, this is not a surprise. China and India have millions of people living without electricity, and the Paris Accord recognized they would continue to increase greenhouse emissions for years. China would not begin showing decreases until 2030. India stated its requirement of trillions of dollars in aid to achieve reduction. The U.S. contribution was de minimus except for $$.
Certain that Trump doesn’t believe in trains. Passenger or freight - fast or slow. No collusion. Lots of people have been talking about this. Many people.
3
Once behemoth China came into the modern world with cars and refrigerators and air conditioning we all knew this would be the result.
Recycle, live lightly on the earth and hold corporations to account as much as possible. Vote for a Green party.
2
Without something like approval voting, voting for a "green" party just helps the GOP and, as such, would be self-defeating.
1
These problems are on a scale never before realized in recorded history. There is no justification for failing to respond with massive and rapid change.
1
@Mike The justification for not responding massively and rapidly is technology and cost. And the millions of people in India and China who live without electricity in their homes.
1
Statistics/percentages can be made to say anything the author wants. For example, 50% of the comments on this thread are wrong and 50% of the percentages being quoted are from unreliable sources. Nothing has been proved!
Numbers also have a way of failing to provide context and can be misleading!
Okay, so people like to point out that the US Population emits more carbon than people from China. So what. That doesn't tell the whole story.
In our country, on average, a wealthy person's carbon footprint is 10.7 versus a low income persons CO2 footprint of 0.3 to 3 per year. Yet, every single proposal that involves taxes would be devastating to those who can't afford it because prices for everything would rise!
In the US, 1 in 4 people face a food shortage and they make hard choices about fuel, bills, food, rent every day!
What are people with money posting comments about on this thread? Answer: "We need to raise prices!"
When the developed world starts raising taxes on fossil fuels, don't be surprised at what happens next.
For example, when corn was diverted to ethanol production in our country, prices for grain rose and there were people in Africa, Middle East and other parts couldn't afford to buy food and starved!
Before suggesting tariffs or taxes, I would advise people to read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It is an easy read and would give a person some background on why raising taxes will harm a lot of people!
Also Jevrons Paradox...
3
@The Critic
Economics vs. Environment
Seems like we can’t have one without the other until we have neither!
1
@Greg
You are correct!
Every single economic model, including China's and Capitalism is contingent on continued economic growth. When economic growth goes to zero or into the negative, people suffer!
Yet, if we apply the Rule of 72 to economic growth, we would discover that continued growth is unsustainable. We are already using the resources equivalent to Six plants!
Rule of 72: Divide percentage of growth by 72 to see how long it would take our economy to double in size.
If the worlds economy grows at 1.5% per year, and if we are already using the resources of 6 planets... that shows that we are facing a crises because when the worlds economy doubles in 48 years... where are we going to get the resources of 12 planets?
Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised when an oppressive government realizes the problem and takes inspiration from "La Jetée" as a solution!
@The Critic, good comment. Make tax commensurate with income,even fuel purchases. Need personal data for it but what the heck, our data is out there. It’s how Switzerland charges traffic violations. Put a huge tax on personal jets!
Thank you NYT for putting this article on top of today's news.
We need to act NOW
- vote with our consumption (or refusal thereof). Our conscious decisions on limiting meat, gas use, heating use can set a trend + companies will stop producing what they cannot sell. Of course that is not enough.
-vote ONLY for candidates with a proven environmental record + those who want to get money out of politics. And hit the streets!
We have seen many civilizations come and go. But this time we will jeopardize all civilization, 5000 years(+) of it. Worth a small sacrifice or inconvenience, right?
1
Bill Gates has invested $1 billion in his initiative Breakthrough Energy which is committed to investing in new technologies to work on climate change issues.
2
This is a wonderful initiative and much needed. But I believe that many of Bill Gates' bets are moonshots. I fear they could take 5-15 years to be fully commercialized. We have the renewable energy technologies and biofuels and EVs today to achieve the two degree target. His billion dollars may be better spent as a ultra low cost financing to get more solar and wind and energy efficiency projects completed or help EV manufacturers speed up their assembly lines.
@Father of One
What do you mean long shots?
Listen up... every year, the experts on Television have promised that the 'Hydrogen Economy" is 10 to 20 years away. Remember, they have been making this promise every year for the past 60 years!
Fussion? They are expecting a major breakthrough in 5 - 20 years. I know because they said this in 1970, 1975, 1980 and so on!
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in our solar system and will be a major source of fuel in the future. Never mind that we can't mine hydrogen from the largest source (our sun). Never mind that it contributes to greenhouse gases and climate change. Never mind that 90% of it is made while using fossil fuel... it will solve all of our problems!
Solar is going to solve all of our problems. Heck, my system after 25 years, will never see a pay for itself and I will have to replace it in 20 years if hail doesn't take it out. Plus, they used fossil fuels to make the panels!
Wind? Tons and tons of concrete, rare earth magnets, fossil fuels, including China's stellar record on mining rare earth metals... heck, it will surely save us from doom!
Electric vehicles? Try replacing the worlds 1 billion plus vehicles and see how long that takes!
While this happens?
Population explodes, fires, droughts, commercial fisheries extinction, deforestation, famine, conflicts, wars, mass migrations, epidemics, heat waves, cold snaps, Hyper-Hurricanes and the occasional pandemic!
1
@Father of One
FYI, my comment is tongue in cheek!
Profits for billionaires is more important than the sustainability of humanity. It’s all so simple.
If USA and China got 80% of their electric power from Nuclear Reactors (vs 30% or 7%) like France does, the problem of global warming would be substantially mitigated. I know it’s not a popular or “hip” position to take, but if 100% of our vehicles in USA were EV it wouldn’t make a difference in CO2 emissions if were burning coal natural gas and oil to generate the power to recharge all these batteries!
6
@Glenn Newmark This is replacing one horrific problem with another even more horrific problem. Short sighted thinking got us into this mess, and I'm quite sure it cannot get us out of it. We cannot control the safety of Nuclear Plants now (and for 2000+ years) or into a more uncertain future with more extreme weather. There is not room for a mistake or accident with Nuclear. It was always one of our worst ideas. It's not about fashion, it's about not making things worse than they already are.
Every major advancement of the Industrial Age (commercial aviation, internal combustion engine, space travel) has inherent risks. Over time and with continuous improvement in technology these risks are effectively mitigated. NYT and others who dismiss safe nuclear as an option out of hand without first doing an honest scientific and unbiased cost/benefit analysis are intellectually dishonest and are contributing to the problem of global warming with their views. I get this is not a popular position but neither were emancipation or suffrage when they were proposed. I suppose we can just go back to the days of overseas travel by sailboat and horse drawn carriages - certainly safer than Automobiles and Airplane travel!
1
@Glenn Newmark I did that assessment when I was 18 and first could vote in Calif. It took me 3 months to do. I voted against it then and would vote again it now. It's on par with gene editing and all kinds of technologies that humans are not capable of regulating. We have not evolved a society that is moral and our ethics have gone out the window too, for the most part. We cannot be trusted. We over populated the Earth, grabbing habitat from other species and drove them to extinction, and we are currently pillaging the Earth for every last resource. That is not the sign of a species that can be trusted with N power into a more uncertain future, we are a species that have not even come terms with how to stop wrecking it all for everyone and all life.
I am confused how emancipation gets in there, unless you are just listing new things you can think of?
I recently looked at buying a new sub size SUV to replace mine. All of them had issues at present from production plants not running (flooded?) to engines catching fire to frequently failing transmissions to poor driving reviews. So I stayed with my current but iffy one for its interior space for dump trips. The best choice in the market was to go up in size and price. Gas consumption is built in for consumers to a degree. Perhaps a hybrid may work but the ticket price then is a hurdle. No local transit or trains (obviously not in Cambridge MA) means a car is required.
1
@poslug You are negotiating between contributing a lot of pollution, CO2, and; to a world that is gasping for air, species dying off, glaciers melting, sea level rise, and the extinction of humanity... and you are worried a higher price for an electric car or hybrid might be a tad too much? Try the hurdle of watching a collapse of our habitat, while governments ban all fossil fuel vehicles and planes etc in a last ditch effort to save what we can. We are in a crisis. We need everyone to take some time to think about it and make new priorities, fast. I don't mean to pick on you. Many people are thinking the way you are, and that is so much of the problem. What you do really matters.
1
@Leslie S
Hybrids are only minimally better than regular. After factoring in manufacture of batteries, etc. maybe worse.
1
My neighborhood has weekly trash pickup. We are provided with two large bins, one for trash and the other for recycling (alas, only for paper and cardboard). I noticed that several neighbors were only putting their trash cans by the curb. I decided to conduct a quick survey of my block.
Of the 38 households that had put their containers out, only 15 (~40%) had bothered to use their recycling bin. Undoubtedly, the other 60% had paper and cardboard in their household waste stream, but they couldn't be bothered to segregate it and put it into the separate container. Many of these families have small children, but seemingly have no intention of taking even small steps to reduce their carbon footprint.
As a dedicated recycler for over 30 years, it pains me to see how little people care. I collect and deliver all of my cans, bottles, and everything else that the local recycling center will take. It is apparent that most of my neighbors aren't participating in that, when they can't be bothered to do curbside recycling. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.
I hate to say it, but I believe we're doomed to experience the worst effects of climate change. I see no evidence that most people are willing to modify their behavior, even when it's made convenient for them to do so. As a lifelong resident of "red" states, I know that many, if not most, of my neighbors don't believe that climate change is real. The do, however, believe that their "man in the sky" will always protect them.
2
@PLMcD What you are saying is really frustrating and very real. Most people don't care and there is something wrong there. Governments ideally need to step in, and urgently make policies that force manufacturers to use much less waste and we as consumers need to not buy things with wasted packaging too. What about getting your local community to make awards for the lest amount of garage generated per person per household? Or fines? Or form a group that goes through their garage to sort it?
I met a group of women that were poor and fed up. They started a composting business in the city and collected peoples food/garden waste by giving them containers to fill and then taking it away weekly, composting it and then they sold it for a profit. The well off people got to help the poor people and the poor people were doing something invaluable and gained a higher status in their communities.
We need to get creative, and not worry about social pressure (digging in garbage), and get out there and do stuff to help, without blaming, if possible. But if shaming is necessary, that also is there. We've got everything to lose by not trying, no matter how rough our ideas are, we can refine them as they are implemented. Waiting for someone else to come along, is not viable, and we also have to keep the pressure on our governments.
You started by making a survey. This is a great first step, recognizing there is problem and learning more, next step is some action to address it.
1
@PLMcD
I put my recycle bin out when it is full, which takes several weeks. I put the trash out each week because it has garbage that will smell.
That may make you feel better but it isn’t why I point it out. The suffering of nosy busybodies doesn’t bother me one bit.
2
I grew up in the Pittsburg, PA area during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Far more pollution went into the atmosphere (from eight-cylinder cars, coal fired electrical generation, home heating with coal/diesel, steel, and other manufacturing) then/than today.
2
Until we address the over population of this world, any mitigative effort is "shoveling sand against the tide". The human population on this earth is 7X the ability of the earth to sustain, and rapidly approaching 8X. The earth/atmosphere/environment is already showing signs of failing: oceans are acidifying at such a rapid rate coral reefs are dying, commercial oyster larvae have to be reared in artificial environments as they cannot form shells in too acid water, heat records are broken yearly, as they have in 19 of the last 20 years, Hurricanes and other storms are also breaking records, the heat is causing forests to retreat northward with record mortality causing record acreages of catastrophic forest fires every year, glaciers, Greenland, antarctic, and arctic ice and permafrost are melting at exponential rates, releasing stored carbon, causing acceleration for all other listed factors. Scientists warn we are at, or near a tipping point where there is no-return. At 65, I will not be around to experience the worst that is coming, but I can see the evidence of disaster unfolding, just from my experience from my forestry career the last 38 years.
Global cooperation, the Paris Accords being a good start, is what is needed. The current disaster POTUS is useless. We need to individually, or as in the example of California, lead, as individuals and States, to coordinate with the world to reverse this trend.
1
@LaPine
Science shows that when all economies are developed, the world's population will stabilize at 11 billion people.
It also shows that in theory, there's no reason to believe that the earth couldn't feed 11 billion people.
The only thing that is needed for us to get there is:
1. to stop global warming, so to massively switch to clean energy, and
2. to distribute wealth (and as a consequence food) fairly.
The irony here is that it's voices in the West, which has caused global warming in the first place, who instead of finally changing our lifestyle and switch to clean energy, are now calling for population reduction, whereas it's the countries who almost don't pollute that need high population growth to be able to survive in a subsistence economy ... .
So already from a purely moral point of view, we, wealthy and polluting Westerners, cannot possibly ask poor non-polluting Africans to start having less children, in other words to collectively commit suicide.
From a practical point of view, that wouldn't stop global warming either though, as with less people on earth it would just take a bit more decades before the exact same atmospheric carbon levels are reached, IF people in the US continue to have the highest carbon footprint per person in the world ...
I do agree with your conclusion about the current POTUS and Ca though. That's the way to go indeed.
2
@Ana Luisa , suicide, really? An exaggeration. What if poor Africans want to have fewer children? We need to tax the rich, and hand out birth control like candy to all the world. No coercion, just access.
1
"Hey YOU, stop breeding!".
Well, that didn't work.
1
Perhaps our best hope relies on the outcome of a somewhat obscure law suit JULIANA v. U.S.
"Oregon youth filed their constitutional climate lawsuit, called Juliana v. U.S., against the U.S. government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015. Earth Guardians is also an organizational plaintiff in the case.
Their complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources."
The case is making its way towards the Supreme Court. The fate of the planet as we know may well be in the hands of nine men and women. Let us hope their deliberations do not focus in the minutia off the law but on the enormity of the problem and justice for those who are already threatened by climate change and for those who are yet unborn. I do not seek a decision that assigns blame. We have all benefited from the burning of cheap fossil fuels, and for most of the time, been unaware of the dangers. The Justices have the ability to alter the US role as chief climate polluter to a far greater extent than the Paris Accords. I would rather be blamed for an error in law than be complicit in the demise of our beautiful planet. Courage, Justices...
3
To solve the problem of Climate Change we will need a mindset that is different from the mindset that created the problem.
One suggestion is to try to reduce the use of blame and guilt. Blame and guilt will just heat up the rhetoric and entrench positions. We need to move far beyond that, to see and organize our collective humanity.
Are there individual bad actors and organization, sure, but we're talking about all of humanity, and all of humanity is simply trying to meet their various needs in the ways available to them. No-one will accept blame or guilt for that.
One analogous model is drug addiction—people trying to feel good in the short run with dire long term consequences. The most successful "treatment" regimens, that reduce harm the most, are in places where the culture has removed stigma and seen the deep need and terrible plight of the drug users. Portugal comes to mind with its legalization programs.
Maybe the people in the developing world can see countries like the U.S. as addicted to a high consumption lifestyle (with disastrous results like rising suicide rates, massive inequality, and social/political breakdown) The U.S. may be be too far-gone to ever quit completely. They will always need a safe place to use, but in this case its using carbon. What might a safe harm reduction program for such a country look like?
Meanwhile, how do we keep developing nations from falling into the same addictive trap, while still meeting their needs?
2
@Chris
We'll do so thanks to the Green Climate Fund.
The West, which caused this problem in the first place (and its hitting the world's hottest regions most, today, and that's where poor and developing countries happen to be situated ... so with 20 million climate refugees already in those regions, it's a bit easier to convince them of the threats of global warming than to convince people in the wealthy and colder West ...) has promised to donate to that Fund, which then helps poor and developing countries to skip our own dirty industrialization phase, so that they can directly adopt clean energy instead.
Obama committed to paying $2 billion to that Fund by 2020 (which is less than certain other Western countries, even though the US has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the entire world ... with 1 American producing as much carbon as 2 Chinese people or 15 African people).
Trump refuses to do so and decided to increase global warming instead - all while giving the wealthiest Wall Street international elites a $1.5 trillion tax cut.
I fully agree that a blaming/shaming framework won't help us move forward here, but we do need to be able to point the causes in order to know the solutions and see who has to do what.
Malthusian theory postulated that the world's human population would increases exponentially but the supply of food would not be able keep up. Widespread hunger would lead to large sections of humanity dying out till the human population stabilized to match the food supply. This apocalyptic scenario has proven false because Malthus could not imagine human ability to harness science to feed an ever increasing population.
Today, we have a doomsday scenario predicting the destruction of human civilization due to greenhouse gas emissions. Science may once again come to the rescue with the development of nuclear fusion - a clean and inexhaustible supply of energy. This may happen sooner than many people think - https://www.fastcompany.com/40541615/this-mit-project-says-nuclear-fusion-is-15-years-away-no-really-this-time
1
But the fossil fuel industry will continue to block progress.
3
@Zejee
Not all of them though.
Rex Tillerson, a Republican, former Exxon Mobile CEO (who invested millions in trying to refute global warming studies, in vain) and Trump's former Sec. of State, fully recognized the problem and strongly insisted that Trump should stay in the Paris Accord - as does the current Exxon Mobile CEO.
And selling less oil today so that they can sell it for a longer period and even leave part of it in the ground actually increases prices per barrel, which then benefits these CEOs personally ...
@Shekhar...Don't sell Malthus short. Let's see have well "science" keeps up with two or three times the current human population.
1
People make choices to avoid or lower their use of products when the price signal rises. They seek alternatives and change their behavior.
Around 2009 the USA was in a deep recession and fuel oil for heating homes rose to $4.00 per gallon. That was the price signal, the pain point, when homeowners started calling for energy audits, air sealing their homes and adding insulation.
They got a high return on investment by reducing their consumption. Contractors who moved into energy efficiency got jobs.
The Congress should take heed and put a Pagouvian fee on fossil fuels to get the same effect. Higher fossil fuel prices equals less damage to the environment. The externality -- air pollution --is not being factored into the cost of fossil fuel use. We are all suffering for it and our kids will get the worst of it at no fault of their own.
Citizens' Climate Lobby is promoting H.R. 7173, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018 (EICDA).
H.R. 7173 is a Pagouvian method of reducing consumption, plus doing some other good things. It is effective (reduces CO2 emissions by 33% over 10 yrs), is good for the economy (creates 2.1 million jobs over 10 yrs), is bipartisan, incentivizes other counties to adapt similar legislation through a border adjustment, and is revenue neutral.
Smart entrepreneurs will take advantage of the price signals by creating wealth through innovation while reducing pollution and increasing efficiency. Time is of the essence.
@Thomas Wells...Revenue Neutral is the economist's version of the physicist's Perpetual Motion Machine. Or, as nerds like to say, GIGO. Or, as Mr. Ponzi said. Or, as Mr. Barnum said.
1
I don't see why people are worried at this point, it's already too late. Even if the world became "green" tomorrow it's simply too late. Overpopulation is rampant and only getting worse. We will see a Malthusian Crisis and WWIII before 2050. It's pretty much all over but the crying, and that's hard to do when you've been incinerated in a nuclear holocaust.
2
@Sparky
People are worried because we're facing lots of trouble.
And science shows that it's not too late to act at all.
Population isn't the culprit here, it's American style carbon emissions. Which of course we can, should, and will change.
Remember, cynicism never helped us move forward ... ;-)
2
It's pointless to be so pessimistic. No one knows what kinds of technologies we might be able to invent if we set our minds to it and make the necessary investments. Assuming all is lost will be a self-fullfilling prophecy. Of course we have to start doing something post haste.
2
@TonyZ
I think it’s time for a bit of healthy pessimism in regards to our leaders and governments doing anything. Optimism without action will get us nowhere.
From the article: "The United States, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, is responsible for a third of all human-caused carbon emissions to date, more than any other country."
We should be hanging our heads in shame and paying for clean energy in the rest of the world.
3
Climate change is a global problem that must be solved by individual nations working for the Global Common Good.
In the United States of America we can't even act for our own Common Good.
And look at the recent riots in France re the carbon tax.
Humans, at this point in our evolution, do not have the wisdom, will power, hedonistic time preference, or moral fortitude or grace to act for the Global Common Good.
I see no REAL way we are going to upend a combined global $80.05 trillion economy based on hydrocarbons to reverse anthropomorphic climate change in any timely manner (not to mention all the other avenues of global ecological overshoot we are racing down).
The US stock is now valued at about $30 trillion dollars. How do we honestly believe that this market will voluntarily upend itself to combat climate change?--just listen to CNBC for a while--its all about money and making money, and until we make dealing with climate change profitable it will not happen in our current governmental, social, and business landscape. No how, no way.
We will wait until it is too late to do anything, then go for geoengineering as it benefits large corporations and we will not even consider the negative unintended consequences of our geoengineered "solutions".
Thus as a tragic Diogenes and Alexander the Great parity: our failure to act will force life in the future to stand a little more between us and the sun.
We are truly our own worst enemy; we must deal with this reality first.
1
God creates, most humans destroy. Current humans on earth are 7.6 billion. Best pray for each day we're still alive.
In 2018, as in prior years, U.S. emissions are declining. They will continue to do so as we switch to natural gas, more solar and wind, and some biomass - rather than coal and oil. If the crazies in Washington would get their act together and support nuclear, our emissions decline would accelerate.
I do not understand why many other countries, the ones constantly lecturing us, do not lower their emissions. Why isn't there pressure on China, rather than the U.S.? How about much of the Southern hemisphere? Why are we the 'bad guys' when we are making (and have made) environmental progress?
2
@jrgfla
You didn’t read the article! There’s even a nice graph that shows US increased in 2008!
2
Because as the NYT failed to mention here but already remembered elsewhere:
" (...) our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries: In the United States we emit 16.5 metric tons per person per year compared to a worldwide average of about five metric tons."
So yes, China emits twice as much carbon as we do. BUT:
1. That's only very recently, whereas we've been doing this for two centuries already, so it's the West, not China, that caused global warming in the first place, and
2. even more importantly, it's the US that has the highest carbon footprint per person in the entire world, not China.
In fact, as this article shows, China emits twice as much carbon as the US today, but ... it contains four times as many habitants.
That means that today, 1 single American emits as much carbon as 2 Chinese persons (or 2 European person), and 15 times as much as 1 African person, for instance.
The developing countries are developing their economies the way we did ... but contrary to what we did, China is already the world's leader in clean energy consumption (and has 1 million people working in solar energy alone, compared to 200,000 in the US).
Of course, ALL countries want developed economies.
It's the wealthiest and most polluting countries (= the US and the West) that have to help them to directly install clean energy as much as possible, rather than imitating our own dirty industrialization phase, which caused the problem in the first place.
3
@jrgfla
You didn’t read the article! There’s even a nice graph that shows US increased in 2018!
1
Everyone has to eat and everyone has to go somewhere. Everyone has to stay warm or cool. Instead of thousands of expert weathermen predicting our doom go out and figure a practical way to solve the problem. Solar and wind won't do it.
So why bother.
Another thing we, the people, can do is buy carbon offsets that fund planting trees, clean energy projects and R&D. It's not that expensive--$20 can offset that flight from Seattle to NYC. For some $200 can offset almost a year of carbon emissions. It would be a great stocking stuffer for kids and grandkids--a true gift to them. Two credible organizations are
https://www.terrapass.com/
https://carbonfund.org/
2
If there ever was a 'tragedy of the commons', it is the destruction of our own atmosphere with our own effluent.
5
Humans are barreling on towards a global climate change disaster. The planet will prevail, but we homo sapiens may not. Mass extinctions have occurred many times in the planet’s history, ours may well be the next. If not that, then our existence will become a far more brutish and ugly affair.
Notably some few nations have made major strides towards reducing the use of fossil fuels while markedly reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
Real solutions are apparent but are not being applied on anything like the scale or the timeline needed to avoid disaster.
The notion that some scientific breakthrough will somehow save us from our extraordinary short sightedness are gravely delusional.
3
This article explains all of it (with full link now):
(The Physics of Capitalism)
https://monthlyreview.org/2018/05/01/the-physics-of-capitalism/
1
I shiver to think of the carbon emissions from the world's, and CA's wildfires, but also wonder, for Americans, what the carbon footprint is of school districts that refuse to provide adequate, if any, bussing for students. A friend in "progressive" Oakland pointed out that tens of thousands of students there have no school busses and no viable means of getting to school by public transport (unless you consider something like a an hour or two of multiple busses and walking in order to get just a few miles to school "viable". And at least one elementary school at the top of a steep hill that most NYers would call a mountain had no public transport remotely close to it; not that any competent parent would send a 5 or 6 year-old alone on a city bus, let alone on a trip with multiple transfers).
Some cities tried "bussing" to increase diversity. The chronically and horribly mismanaged OUSD and other districts use "increasing equity" as a cover for selling out out children's future (major carbon emissions from each family driving each child to and from each school) in order to save money to back-fill what shoddy, and sometimes illegal, management moves have stripped from district coffers.
Meanwhile, nearby Berkeley, also devoted to progressive goals of equity and diversity, somehow manages to provide safe school busses for its younger students. Go figure.
4
It should be pointed out that CA's in equitable Prop 13, especially as it applies to businesses and the wealthy, likely also contributes to the lack of climate-preserving school busses -- and many other and even more serious -- shortages in California's public schools. A vote to repeal or modify Prop 13 might well be a vote to help save the planet.
1
Is anyone talking about nuclear power generation?
1
Reality check we are all own worse enemy comes to air we breath being poisoned by fuel burning cars. We have techolgy to end need to use oil but leaders refuse to use it,hyperloop.
1
There are many complex reasons for this disappointing result, but I think one of the most ignored and marginalized is the fact that improving aggregate efficiency across entire economic systems is quite difficult to achieve in a rapid amount of time. Renewable energy keeps growing, but older sources of energy are still sticking around.
It doesn't help that we have an economic system organized around the principles of growth and profits. For the vast majority of human history, more economic growth has required more energy-intensive societies. On a global scale, capitalism is turning out to be no different than prior systems, even if some wealthy nations have made some measurable progress on reducing emissions and improving efficiency.
I read the article below a while ago and it explains everything I'm trying to say far more elegantly. It's called the Physics of Capitalism:
monthlyreview.org/2018/05/01/the-physics-of-capitalism/
2
It was always unrealistic to expect people to universally deny themselves for a future common good. If we were made that way the budget would be balanced. If we were made that way, the elites demanding that the rest of us cut back our lifestyles would themselves be living lives of resource austerity. The worst predictions are hardly ever fulfilled (except when they are exceeded) but if they are, we are in for a struggle to determine who shall occupy the future. Humans shall survive, but particular humans and entire nations and tribes will not. Which ones?
The wise are having many children and feeding them much meat that their people may win the struggle to exist. Well “wise” as defined by survival in any case. The rest risk going the way of the Hittites, the Trojans, the Mandans, and the Natchez.
@KBronson
"The wise are having many children and feeding them much meat..." ? I don't think so. Many people who live in poor countries live by learning how to eat soy, rice and small amounts of meat. They are the hardy and creative people who survive generation after generation.
The rest of what you said is very hard to understand. Is that on purpose?
1
@KBronson
Hipocrisy and deception are common highly effective survival strategies. That is why we are so good at it.
If one can persuade others to forgo the resources that make them strong while garnering resources for their own survival they shall win. The King who rations the people’s food while making sure that his own household is filled with many strong well-fed sons has assured his own families survival in the time of dying.
What better preparation for climate change for the elite than to pile up wealth, land, private islands, and estates while demanding self-imposed poverty by the masses, making them weaker and less of a threat, and more easily controlled.
1
@KBronson
Darwin never defined "wise" in that way.
By "survival of the fittest", he NEVER referred to the fittest individual, but the fittest species, when there's a competition between different species for one and the same ecological niche.
And by "fittest" he didn't mean the physically strongest, but the genetically and behaviorally most able to adapt to new circumstances.
AND he also strongly accentuated what today is called the "compassion instinct" in mammals: the fact that the groups that collaborate do much better than those who don't.
Finally, it's an American lifestyle that is destroying the world, not the number of people living today.
So if only Americans survive, it will take a couple more decades before we'll obtain a 4-degree temperature increase, but it will happen anyhow.
Conclusion: the only solution is for developed countries to SHIFT their lifestyles to a much wiser energy consumption, and for developing countries to NOT imitate the West but directly adopt clean energy too.
The good news is that we do NOT have to "deny ourselves" to get there.
Eating less red meat will make us less obese and healthier, rather than worse off. Idem for walking more etc.
In the meanwhile, the global warming that the West caused is hitting the hottest regions in the world most. And those happen to be the poorest regions, which pollute MUCH less per capita than we do.
So here, the only wise, compassionate and fair response is to help them deal with what we caused ..
1
True, China, now the world’s largest carbon emitter, is adding coal and renewables to its grid, but it also has the world’s largest nuclear construction program, with several Westinghouse AP1000 units entering service this year and 15 other reactors of various designs in the pipeline. To further clean our energy sector, we’ll need heat from reactors to run heavy industry, clean generation to charge electric vehicles and advanced storage technologies that will revolutionize home heating.
We face significant challenges when we seek to balance our needs for reliable energy with environmental protection. But they are not insurmountable; they only seem to be if you omit nuclear energy from the conversation.
There are good solutions but the current economic powers do not want change. People in general also do not want change even if it is positive.
In a sense what we have is a failure of imagination and desire to go forward.
I want to stress in my comment here that the problem is less technology than it is psychological and pretend-economic.
Good article by Kendra Pierre-Louis.
3
People do not seem to be getting it. I see an increasing number of high performance and large vehicles on the road. Ocean cruises available to the masses. House sizes larger and larger. An expected Standard of Living that has not been sustainable for at least two decades.
Humans are weak. I’m not sure when the ‘me me me’ attitude began, but it’s well out of the bottle now.
7
We do not have to accept this abandonment of rationality, we can save ourselves. Renewables are now cheaper than any fossil fueled power, and it makes sense to reconfigure our power and energy systems for them. The latest bids were 2.1 cents/kWh for wind plus electrical storage, and 3.2 cents/kWh for PV plus battery storage. New nukes are over 15 cents/kWh.
Our own household is powered by solar power, and the system paid back in three years with an electric car. Now, our house and horsepower are free.
5
We can thank the Earth for the majority of the emissions. The volcanoes caused the increase in emissions. They produce over 75% of the total emissions and this year even more because of increased activity. Hawaii's eruption is still going on.
as well as others.
2
@Lynn
And then, when humans add the millions of pounds of CO2 it tips the balance that could have given us thousands more years of normalcy on earth.
1
@Lynn Not even close. Folks, see https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html.
Lynn will ignore it. But those of you interested in actual knowledge will learn, for example, that it would take hundreds of Pinatubo-scale eruptions to equal one year’s worth of human-emitted CO2.
A recent NYTs article on insects shows that global warming and habitat loss are causing the loss of many insect species. Much of the human agricultural output is dependent on insects. The Malthusian effects on insects from human green house effects is striking.
8
France just had the biggest riots in years sparked by a very modest gas tax. Deep Blue Washington state just rejected an emissions reduction referendum and the US elected a president who calls AGW a hoax. Voters worldwide are rejecting emissions controls. They support the Paris agreement in the abstract but when it comes to actual legislation in their lives they reject it.
The alarmist claims are almost certainly overblown. No one is reacting to these overhyped NYT articles. Let's move on to solve real problems affecting us now and now worry about "billions by the end of the century."
3
@Aurthur Phleger We would see far less resistance to change if we had a public/private partnership with businesses/people to solve these issues. Encouraging capitalist solutions rather than punitive government taxation and restrictions would do much to get people on board.
1
@Aurthur Phleger, you are still in the 20th Century. Having earned a Master of Science in this field, I can debate you but instead will just offer you the chance to come see how our household and two electric cars are powered by our PV solar system.
We do not pay for electrical power for house of transportation. Nor do we go to gas stations, out for oil and filter changes, no transmission work, no need for tune-ups or muffler problems.
Do you still have to have emissions checks, too? Not us, and our 2013 Tesla Model S and the 2015 VW e-Golf have not needed any care at all apart from cleaning out.
Think of us next time your car drips oil on your driveway, and you will get an EV.
1
@Aurthur Phleger
Obviously, if the wealthiest elites, who caused this problem in the first place, now want to sit back and force ordinary citizens to pay the bills, people won't accept this.
In the US, 38 times more taxpayer money goes to the fossil fuel industry than to clean energy industries.
Turn that equation around, so that it's clean energy that becomes cheaper than fossil fuel, and ordinary citizens will immediately switch to clean energy and leave their SUV's home ... ;-)
2
This is a fine report detailing CO2 sources and sinks and the net effects on atmospheric CO2. This, and multiple UN IPCC meetings, seem only attempting to raise public awareness to fright about consequent rising temperatures. There is a dearth of detailed global-scale solutions, only generalities like burn less fossil fuel, add a carbon tax, or shame officials about NDC CO2 reduction promises. Mark Jacobson proposed 100% water/wind/solar in detail but his report was widely criticized as too optimistic and too expensive. Here's a feasible global-scale approach using new liquid fuel fission technology. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/powering-up-our-world-liquid-fission-robert-hargraves/
1
I don't see in the NYTimes any mention of policy solutions.
The Climate Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (HR 7173) was submitted to Congress last week by 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats.
This Act would put a rising price on carbon and return that dividend to all households.
Why does the media (I'm looking at you NYTimes) so silent on this proposal? This bill is a good beginning.
1
Some journalistic observations:
1. I think we need some sort of adjective before the words "researchers" and "scientists" in the lead. Maybe "some" would work. Without a qualifier, readers are left with the impression that ALL researchers and ALL scientists concur.
2. I think China's contribution should have been given greater prominence, especially in light of the country's new competitiveness, as highlighted in recent NYT stories.
3. I have a problem with "... Scientists wrote Wednesday in the journal Nature that the recent rise in global emissions, combined with other factors such as natural temperature fluctuations, could bring those dire consequences a decade sooner, by 2030."
Again, "some" scientists. And how do they arrive at their conclusion? The weasel word "could" makes this graph meaningless.
4. Finally, reporting that "the world is on pace to release a record 37.1 gigatons of planet warming emissions in 2018" is mind-bending. No one can possibly KNOW that, and btw, how far back does the "record" go? And to say that it's 100,000 times the weight of the Empire State Building is a hoot. Is that occupied or empty? P.S. My frame of reference has always been The Statue of Liberty, fully clothed.
We need solid reporting on issues such as this. This article doesn't measure up.
2
Folks, below is a link to a science article exploring the “risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced.”
“Hothouse Earth is likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many, particularly if we transition into it in only a century or two, and it poses severe risks for health, economies, political stability (especially for the most climate vulnerable), and ultimately, the habitability of the planet for humans.”
Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene PNAS August 14, 2018 115 (33) 8252-8259.
1
Look to Paris as it burns to see if people really want to pay for climate change. The climate change agenda is nothing more than Income Redistribution from wealthy nations to poor nations, but it's all too late to change or stop any of it.
1
@Lee Holland As I said earlier, this is what makes this such a divisive issue. We would get better results if we don’t mix policy objectives here. Working to reduce emissions should be a public private partnership where we encourage capitalist solutions to solve the problem.
2
Why did 63 million vote for Trump's opinion of climate science as a liberal hoax? They wanted to believe in the whole package of promises, not just this one.
Even if if some of those millions of voters come to understand the truth about one issue, they'll still vote Republican because the idea of doing something about climate change involves a social contract that is more abhorrent than a future with occasional rough weather.
Why is the country evenly divided with such polar opposite views about social responsibility? It's the culture of striking it rich by being a maverick, perhaps the feeling nobody ever did anything for me. It could be our sense of individual liberty means everyone is free to think whatever they want, no matter how useful or true. Who am I to tell someone they're wrong?
We now live in a world where individual errors in judgment have consequence to the world. One person's bad idea can spread faster than a bullet. Maybe that's a new challenge to the culture that we've been able to overlook in bygone days. How do we protect ourselves? It isn't by acting as if everyone's opinion is equal, especially when it comes to climate change.
1
It’s discouraging to hear that despite all our efforts, despite Earth Days and hybrids, recycling and public transportation, we have not escaped our seemingly inevitable fate.
That China is responsible for a quarter of all emissions is even more troubling. When we can’t manage the behavior of our own citizens, how can we expect to affect the behavior of another nation?
The end of civilization won’t happen in a flash of light; it’ll happen slowly and it may have already begun.
2
@NYLAkid
China is responsible for a quarter of all emissions ... but, as the NYT recently remembered (and unfortunately omitted here, all while adding Trump's fake news tweet ... AND a picture about China and smog, rather than carbon pollution, which only makes the confusion worse):
" (...) our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries: In the United States we emit 16.5 metric tons per person per year compared to a worldwide average of about five metric tons."
"https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html"
We indeed have the highest carbon emissions per capita in the world.
You need 2 Chinese citizens to obtain as much carbon emission as 1 single American, and 15 African citizens.
That's why it was so important that it was the US who took the initiative and leadership of the Paris Climate Agreement, and why it's so important that we continue to lead on this issue.
And remember, this didn't start today. The very reason why we're having global warming today is because for two centuries the West and ONLY the West has produced carbon on a massive and totally unprecedented way.
On the other hand, the Paris agreement IS a U-turn, and the US can only withdraw in 2020 ... . So all that we need to do now is to refuse to give in to cynicism and to make sure that a clear majority of the American people vote in 2020, so that we can continue to build on the global foundation laid by Obama, and TOGETHER with China.
2
Today the story is of a knowing humanity unable to convince its political or corporate scions that we are getting ever closer to the sci-if reality of global destruction.
Tomorrow the story will be how the political and corporate scions of the world save themselves at the expense of just about everyone else.
The inequities of human civilization will no doubt remain when global warming forces the situation. If we do not make the political leaders and corporate scions act now, they’ll continue to do what they always do, it’s called self-preservation.
I have no idea how to spur action, but it’s pretty obvious that action is needed unless you live in an ivory tower.
1
In 1954, the historian of political thought and social philosopher, Isaiah Berlin, gave some lectures and wrote a small book called Historical Inevitability. It argued that nothing is inevitable in society; that all political problems could be solved by politics and by skillful politicians. He was sharply rebutted by the political biographer, Isaac Deutcher, and the historian and political theorist, E. H. Carr, who argued that some events are determined, and there was not much that even great political leaders could do to alter the course of events.
Climate change provides a crucial test case regarding the dispute between these powerful thinkers.
2
A few decades ago, GPS didn't exist. Now, entire segments of the economy are built on it and thousands of companies have created new categories of products. Decades ago, the internet didn't exist, and now it is the skeleton of much of the modern economy, driving innovation, new companies, and employment. Both were creations of the US government, and now life is unimaginable without them.
It's likely that without a huge commitment from the US and other Western governments to fund and mandate the creation of entirely new technologies that can be made available cheaply to the rest of the world, we will not solve the problem of carbon.
Corporations, though they will ultimately carry the solution forward with actual products, are simply too short-sighted and lacking in the kind of imagination and deep pockets of governments.
Until we actually vote for the leaders who think this way, nothing will happen, or it will take too long. The market is unlikely to solve this problem on its own.
3
Earth will survive. People may not. It is that simple. We are a blip on the screen when looking at this planet's 3.5 billion (give or take) year history of evolution. Blame is irrelevant. Action is what is needed, or was. The tipping point has come and gone. I fear for all everyone's children and grandchildren's lives.
Years ago there were dire predictions of the 'population bomb'. The author at the time did poorly predicting the exact future, so people widely panned the book. But the fact is, the population bomb in fact went off, right on schedule and we are now becoming aware of the actual consequences. This is certain to get much worse before it gets better.
5
Visited China four years ago. Walking the wall of Xi’an, I asked our guide what function was played by a large building on the wall. “Community center.........If we were here one month ago, we would not be able to see that building because of air pollution.” That building was but 150 meters away! Further, she explained that the government proclaimed a month earlier that “winter was over”. Some coal-fired plants were shut down, air quality improved. Nonetheless, I had a raspy throat the entire trip.
Displayed in Tiananmen Square was a large electronic billboard noting the importance of environmental quality...according to our guide. She explained that leaders of China understand the impacts of coal, yet must use coal until the transfer to clean energy is complete. I believe her. Wish I could believe the same about the Trump administration.
1
@BBBear
There is no reason to believe China about anything. A September 2018 article from the BBC says that China has 259 gigawatts of coal fired electric plants under development. That equals the total of U.S. coal-produced electricity. The new plants will burn cleaner than old ones but are definitely a step in the wrong direction. Having a large electronic billboard touting the importance of environmental quality while burning numerous kilowatts of wasted electricity? Now that’s funny.
@Zamboanga
Agreed. But with 1.4 billion people, there can be no quick fix to meet their energy needs. To meet their needs, they must use coal.
Consider this statement from The Economist.
“China is hoping to deal with this over-dependence on fossil fuels partly by rebalancing the economy away from energy-intensive industries. But it also leads the world in clean energy. In recent years, through a combination of subsidies, policy targets and manufacturing incentives, it has spent more on cleaning up its energy system than America and the EU combined. Last year alone it shelled out $132bn, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), a consultancy.”
Aside from the questions regarding the validity of the global warming forecast( i.e., based as it is on only 2-300 years of historic temperature data plus the likely intervention of climate events which will be unforeseen and not caused by humans), the coming calamity is always couched in terms of the current population distribution and status quo. However, the history of mankind is marked by mass migrations driven by climate changes. So if the forecasted calamity does indeed come to pass, vast areas that are now relatively uninhabitable would become desirable(i.e., Siberia, Canada, Alaska etc). Also, nuclear power, which doesn't contribute to greenhouse gases, never gets mentioned in the discussion. These are what I would call "denial".
1
Look to the overpopulation of the third world as the main cause for the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. China, India and other Asian nations are producing more people than they are able to feed, house or employ. These same people burn massive amounts of coal, use cooking oil as their main food preparation fuel, and drive vehicles with little or no emission controls. Stop blaming the U.S. for global warming. Put the blame on real culprits, and put the onus on them to curb overpopulation and pollution.
47
@paul
With all respect, you couldn't be more wrong - and that's why NYT climate change articles never address population, but by doing so they unfortunately allow people who believe this kind of fake news to continue to believe it ...
As the NYT already wrote elsewhere:
" (...) our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries: In the United States we emit 16.5 metric tons per person per year compared to a worldwide average of about five metric tons."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html
And as this article shows, even today, China emits only twice as much carbon as the US, even though it has four times as many people.
Population growth is fastest in Africa, but you need a whopping 15 Africans to pollute as much as 1 single American.
As studies show, it's always subsistence economies that have the highest population growth - not because they are "producing more people than they are able to feed, house or employ" but because subsistence economies need families with lots of children to work on the family's field in order for families to be able to feed themselves and survive - and then they only survive until they're 55 years old, dying 30 years earlier than we in the West.
It's in fully developed economies that population growth stagnates. But those are also the economies that produce most carbon per capita, so THEY are the ones that urgently have to change their energy consumption style, you see?
60
China, India and other Asian nations are building upon the foundation we have laid.
We are hugely responsible for this unfolding catastrophe.
29
@paulu
You didn't read that the article that stated the US is on track to increase emissions by 2.5% after nearly 5 years of declining rates. As a nation that contributes 15% of the world total emissions, that is a serious impact. Yes, it is discouraging that developing nations are increasing their coal use instead of developing alternative energy, but the US, China and India have to lead the efforts as the biggest contributors. Our leaders should be promoting the development of cheaper, better non-greenhouse gas energy systems and industries.
15
A fun fact for people who still drive cars:
Every gallon of gas burned in your car injects approximately 24lbs of carbon into the atmosphere (19lbs from burning it 5lbs from production & shipping).*
Don’t blame governments. Don’t blame corporations. Blame yourself.
*Union of Concerned Scientists: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/car-emissions-and-global-warming
4
This what Republicans call success.
4
Walk, get a bike and eat less meat... oh yes, and less STUFF!!!
5
@bc It' not so much "less stuff" as it is less NEW stuff. Recycle! Buy used furniture, use hand-me-downs and stop tossing everything out and buying the latest fashion/tech/etc. Some things WERE built to last so use them!
1
@bc
And quit having so many children.
1
Of course we should thank the NYT for writing about climate issues, but frankly, with carbon emissions "accelerating like a speeding freight train", reporting on this issue is the least we can expect from all serious media today.
That won't be enough though.
We all know that the main problem today is the fact that the US president is spreading fake news on a daily basis, all while actively making things much worse.
That CHANGES the media landscape, which inevitably calls for a NEW way of reporting, rather than merely quoting the president and then in parallel reporting the news.
Two of the main fake arguments in this debate, and arguments that the GOP took over, are very well known and summed up once again in the Trump quote in this article:
- other countries pollute more than the US
- we shouldn't pay to clean up their pollution.
There is NOTHING in this article that allows readers to know how false these claims are, whereas stating that China produces twice as much carbon as the US, without any further context, only reinforces the idea that the president must be right here.
Recently though, the author of this article wrote herself:
"(...) our overall greenhouse gas emissions are so much higher than other countries: In the United States we emit 16.5 metric tons per person per year compared to a worldwide average of about five metric tons."
And indeed, China has 4x more habitants than the US, so emits twice LESS.
Omitting this crucial info here is a huge mistake!
2
@Ana Luisa
Statistics/percentages can be made to say anything the author wants. For example, 50% of the comments on this thread are wrong and 50% of the percentages being quoted are from unreliable sources.
Numbers also have a way of failing to provide the reader with context and can be misleading!
Okay, so people like to point out that the US Population emits more carbon than people from China. That doesn't tell the whole story.
One should also be aware that on average a wealthy person's carbon footprint is 10.7 versus a low income persons CO2 footprint of 0.3 per year. Yet, every single proposal that involves taxing sources or people would be devastating to those who can't afford it.
In the United States, 1 in 4 people face a food shortage. 25% of our population faces daily hard choices about fuel, bills, food, rent and what are people with money posting comments about on this thread? Answer: "We need to raise prices!"
When the developed world starts raising taxes on fossil fuels, don't be surprised at what happens next.
For example, when corn was diverted to ethanol production in our country, prices for grain rose and
a small percentage of people in Africa, Middle East and other parts couldn't afford to buy food and starved to death - look it up for yourself!
Before slamming the US or suggesting tariffs or taxes, I would advise people to read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It is an easy read and would give a person some background!
The dirty elephant in the room...
"Dr. Jackson said the new report was “not good news,” but added that it still contained “some glimmers of hope,” particularly about air pollution associated with the burning of coal for fuel. “Coal use has dropped 40 percent in the United States, replaced by natural gas and renewables,” he said. “That’s saving lives as well as helping the climate problem.”
Dead people do not have kids. Saving lives mean more babies that grow up to use energy. That will make the climate problem worse.
The only way that the world can maintain some version of a life style we call "the American Dream" is for there to be less people.
There is a carrying capacity for the planet to absorb the pollution that we generate. We need to both change technologies AND lower the population to that carrying capacity.
Unless we do both, then we are doomed.
My wife and I choose not to have kids, that act alone has done more for the planet than all the other changes we could do a 100 times over.
How about you?
5
A ridiculous argument. If there are no children who are we saving the planet for? Insects.
Every parent that does not believe in climate change and votes for a denier is harming their children by destroying their chance at a livable future.
it is that simple
5
No world plutocrat really cares and the earth's sooner-rather-than-later demise is certain.
2
The number one cause of climate change is too many people on the planet. End of story.
You aren't going to tax, regulate and control CO2 emissions. Some countries will, some won't and look at what just happened in France by raising the gas tax.
Humans are corrupt, greedy and profoundly unable to act reasonably, responsibly and maturely with the rarest of exceptions.
I have a sense that mother nature will be helping with the primary, fundamental problem soon. Let there be no doubt in your mind. Things will be getting very ugly on this planet and soon.
3
Time for the Governments (or the People!), to Force the Automakers to Drastically Reduce this Air Pollution, as well as Heat and CO2 Emissions, by making them to correctly follow the Laws of Motion (the 1st and 2nd Laws of Newton's Laws of Motion) for all their Automobiles including Electric Vehicles; by Correcting one of the Huge Energy Mistake made by our Automobiles more than a Century and half ago!. ..their use of those Energy Killing Friction Brakes!
Our Automobiles made a Huge Energy Mistake right from their creation more than a century and half ago. The Mistake of not recovering their Kinetic Energy while braking and using that same Energy for powering their next Acceleration, and instead wasting all that Kinetic Energy as Heat in those Friction Brakes and using Huge amount of New Energy, Engine Power and Fuel for their Next Acceleration. This Simple and Silly but Huge Energy Mistake made more than a Century and half ago has unfortunately remained till date in all our Automobiles, even after a Century of Motoring and many Oil Crisis and Oil Wars, as also this huge Air Pollution, Climate Change and Global Warming; but is sadly seen being repeated even in our New Energy or Green vehicles such as the Electric, Plug-in, Hybrid and Hydrogen vehicles; with even the Latest of these Green Cars seen using those Energy Killing Friction Brakes!, ..that too on all 4 wheels!.
Luxemburg has just made public transport free.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/luxembourg-to-become-first-country-to-make-all-public-transport-free
The country seems immune to pressures from car-makers or oil/coal industries so perhaps its easier.
2
Just think was a trump shooting war with China will do to global emissions? I'm sure destroying 100% of China's solar installations and solar manufacturing capability will be the number one priority for the Defense Department lacky's who click their heels and raise a "hail trump" salute after he gains War Powers!!
Poor city planning, developers gone wild, paleo-dieters, and people entitled enough to think they need to go on two vacations a year, own more than one house, eat out whenever they feel like, and just keep on consuming every new product or fashion accessory thats sold to them. Lets stop blaming automobiles. Its everything. We are a shallow parasite of the earth. Nature is pushing back. She has no political agenda, she only aims to achieve balance. She will win.
3
Climate Change is coming and humans are not going to stop it. Start reporting on the coming problems, not fantasy goals to cut CO2 production.
Come on NYT. Face facts.
Throwing our hands in the air and saying there’s nothing we can do about it is not very inspiring (or true). Humans are capable of addressing climate change and mitigating its effects. But time is running out. If you have children and the potential effects of climate change do not scare you out of your wits, then you are not paying attention.
1
@Dang Torpedoes
All the evidence points toward an overpopulated superheated planet.
Yes, I have children, and yes I recycle. I could pray too, if you think that would help.
Drop a live frog into a pot of boiling water and he'll hop out immediately. Put the same frog in cool water and slowly bring it to a boil and he will allow himself to be cooked. This oft repeated analogy of our plight explains little except that we can see why we tend toward cooking ourselves
1
Sorry folk but people are not going to accept impoverishing their children and grand children based on your Climate Apocalypse religious beliefs. The national climate assessment was a joke that used the most inaccurate climate model around. It was pure propaganda designed to stir up the true believers.
1
Impoverishment versus saving the planet is a false choice. However, newer and cleaner technologies will require massive government capital to replace the dirty ones. America needs to lead the way, if for no other reason then we’ve already led the way for decades in total and per capita CO2 emissions.
2
@Dang Torpedoes
I do not share your religious belief in the climate Apocalypse prophesies. I don't think national policies should be based on those religious beliefs.
@jaco
Do you understand that facts are not beliefs? Climate change research is based on rigorous, long-term science that 99% of scientists agree is factual.
Calling science a religion is a manipulative, disturbing tactic.
Human beings are not good, or not good enough, at imagining the future, especially if that future is beginning to look downright dystopian. I think we have to now imagine the worst that could befall our children, in a collective sense, and work back form there. Personally, I'm tired of all the 'hope' stuff and pretending that technology will save us, it is ideological rhetoric at this point. Best to be adults now, it isn't good enough to recoil anymore and retreat into fantasy. I was going to say history will judge us but...well, anyway. I wrote this last year, i think it still stands, unfortunately: https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/mark-kernan/Myth-and-dystopia-in-the-Anthropocene
Stop scaring your readers, there's absolutely no proof. China has the worst air, and there's NOTHING we can do about it.
1
No proof? People have been leaving hotter areas (India, South America, and Central America) because they can no longer grow their crops there. Frequent “100 year” storms. Melting glaciers. This is just the beginning.
1
We must challenge the assumption that dealing with climate change will be harmful to the American economy and will cost American jobs. What it will do is shift jobs and profits from one industry to another -- with a net gain overall, especially in skilled blue-collar jobs, exactly the kind that most Trump voters say they want. If America is first to solve climate issues with our superior science and technology we will guarantee long-term economic leadership, not to mention the gratitude of people who would be flooded when the seas rise, and a decrease in the number of people dying to immigrate to the US because their own countries are becoming unlivable.
This false assertion that it's environment OR jobs must be vigorously countered.
1
US producing most carbon per capita in the world, not China or India. Period!
3
@Sohan: That's not what the article says. Self flagellation in the presence of contradictory facts is never a good idea.
But we did lead the world in per capita pollution for decades. Don’t think for a minute that China, India, et al. are going to forget that. This is why the US must lead the way. Nothing short of the future of the human race is at stake.
@Sohan
If being in 11th place, per capita, and leading the world are the same thing you are spot on. Else, maybe look at the 10 who stand in front of us.
If you want to solve a problem, first you have to define the problem.
We defined, described and identify the problem extremely well.
then move to solutions.
What is in the hand.
We 7.5 billion people are not in agreement about the solution. Problem is clear , solution is clear too. but we are not agreeing on it.
My advice to everybody
1- It is late to solve the problem so Brace for the impact.
2- start educating to your children to incoming hardships. losing housing, jobs, income , mandatory evacuations, burning alive, hunger, food shortage , water shortage.
3- Golden days are behind us that was the late 20th century.
if you are still oblivious , who cares.
2
@su
Unfortunately I tend to agree with you.
2
Has no one else heard of the ICE 911 project? We need to think and act smartly about our planet's distress now!
We can blame Trump all we want. I certainly do, but we can also start blaming ourselves. The only way we will get a handle on this madness is to make the use of fossil fuels expensive. France is a case study on what happens when you try to implement a fuel tax. Good luck is all I can say.
2
It is mostly false to credit the consumption of shale gas for the roughly 14% decrease in Carbon emissions registered during the years 2008 to 2016 in the United States.
Carbon emissions in the U.S. decreased more than 9 percent from January 2008 to January 2010. This was overwhelmingly a result of our "Great Recession"during which energy demand radically dropped. That energy demand remained stagnant for several years after, and since coal supplied the highest percentage in relation to electric generation, and since there were many coal plants that had reached the end of their lifespan, many coal plants were closed. Less energy consumption, less burning = lower carbon emissions.
Gas consumption, whether conventionally or unconventionally extracted, did not increase during that period of 2008-2010 during which carbon emissions dropped over 9%. Gas did not "replace" coal. The demand for energy simply dropped.
As for what to do about the future: China has a population that is 431% greater than the U.S. yet the U.S. produces 56% as much carbon emission as China, or turned around the other way, China produces only 44% more carbon emissions than the U.S.?
India has a population that is 412% greater than the U.S. and it produces 53% less carbon emission than the U.S.?
We all share the same planet, and carbon emissions, along with climate change, is a global catastrophic issue.
It seems clear to me which Country bears the greatest responsibility for taking action.
3
@James Barth Regardless, The US can’t reduce emissions enough to offset increases in Asia. India, China, etc are not expected to reach peak emissions until 2030. The IS could rapidly decrease emissions while overalll world emissions go up.
The reversal in trend occurred last year and was not only due to increase in oil consumption, but also to a slowdown in the rate of decrease in coal consumption, in addition to a marked slowdown in energy efficiency gains in the developed world. See here for more detail:https://www.khalilzahr.com/single-post/2018/07/22/The-Challenges-Posed-to-Climate-by-Low-Energy-Prices
Costa Rica give me hope.
Following the 1948 civil war, the National Army of Costa Rica was formally abolished – a policy enshrined in the Constitution. ... No military spending has allowed a greater investment in environment, education and health services leading to one of the highest standards of living in the region and the happiest people!
Invest in the environment, education and health services. Vote for politicians who understand and support these issues.
3
Sure explains Fermi's Paradox, doesn't it.
5
@Pete
Yes. And if the new Mars lander finds evidence of microscopic life, and then multi-cellular, on that planet then we’ll know the Great Filter still lies ahead, and this might be it.
The nature of life might be: eat, reproduce, repeat. Everywhere. Which means exponentially growing species — us or yeast in a test tube or some aliens in Andromeda — can’t help but consume so much they foul their nest...before developing enough tech to escape the fouled planet to another one.
1
Its a sad reflection on the way we view this World we live on as something too be used and abused without any thought of the consequences. This impending dangerous situation has been written about in Scientific journals and the quality newspapers for many year's. In depth reports with environmental Scientists made it clear of what will happen if nothing was done to curb atmospheric pollution and the dire consequences for the planet and mankind. Now, we are on the verge of a Global Catastrophe which rivals the extinction of the Dinosaurs. There is no way to dodge this, it was reported very recently that a piece of The Antarctic Ice Cap, as big as Rhode Island, broke away from the ice cap, and was observed by NASA. Conferences in France and recently Poland where supposed give direction and define acceptable levels of atmospheric pollution and bring them down to zero, rapidly. In reality,they are not worth the paper there written on. The increase in Coal fired power stations, Globally, drives a juggernaut right through this so called accord. We, as a Global Society, are responsible for this situation, we demand consumable technology today and throw it away tomorrow and Global economy thrives. But the who is the loser, US, because we are destroying the only Planet in the Cosmos which can support All Life!!!
1
Why show a smoggy China picture in a story about GHG emissions? Air quality and GHGs are separate issues. Your picture conveys a sense that GHGs are just an issue "over there." Would be better to show a family chowing down on a steak dinner or a dude driving himself to work in a SUV.
11
@Geoff
Or a dude eating a McD’s burger while driving, and texting, and watching a movie, and smoking, sipping on a beer, and ranting about Obama
Since we seem past the tipping point of no return and certainly met our match in nature, maybe it's time for a come to Jesus moment. My mom took me to a revival meeting when I was a kid and it was kind of a hoot. Or he could just sit and lament covered in our own fetid sores and cast blame at God like Job. On the bright side, when the big clumsy dinosaurs were wiped out they came back as lithe birds free from the bonds of earth. Perhaps there is an unseen hope after all. To ponder the fate of the universe all the time gets rather tedious, perhaps just trust it to let it run its course the way it wants to.
1
@John Doe
It is our planet to engineer now. We have the knowledge to do so with considerable finesse, but it is not an information problem. It is a problem of political will. Here in Washington State, we could not pass a carbon tax, due to the efforts of those who profit from fossil fuels. Profit now justifies mass murder. Maybe it always has. What a species.
9
@John Doe
Then again, maybe we could just accept responsibility for our own actions and do something about it.
8
I hear a lot of fatalism in these comments, as if we’re already doomed without any hope. Wake up! It will be on you and everyone you know to make lifestyle changes, to speak your mind, to vote on the issue, and to always consider other ways you can directly contribute to the cause.
This is an entrenched issue, and will only be changed through an active and massive populist movement.
10
I use the bus, stopped eating red meat, shut down the air conditioned, gave up building a larger house, cuted down air travel to the minimum indispensable on family and professional reasons, take the most rapid showers I’m able to.
I count on you to do the same. Each one of us is not alone.
13
@Rodrigo
The first thing Trump did as president was eliminate funding for international family planning. The planet can sustain a couple billion of us in big house, long shower luxury (a lifestyle almost everyone in the world wants) but not 9 billion (our current trajectory).
1
@Emory
Yes. You have to scratch your head about why the Republican party is against everything that would solve this problem of climate catastrophe. Family planning, climate change education, options to the coal and oil industry, and environmental regulation? OMG. It goes on and on. Are they ignorant, greedy AND evil? What is the problem here? Why are people still supporting them? That is something we have to solve.
2
I'm beginning to believe that nothing short of a zombie apocalypse will stop runaway CO2 emissions. The planet is overpopulated. Population keeps on growing unchecked. Every mouth to feed is generating more CO2. This is the inconvenient truth that nobody wants to talk about.
If we had stopped population growth at around 4 billion people, we would have far more pristine forests (and a much larger natural CO2 sink); fewer people could live at higher standards while impacting far less on the world's resources and CO2 emissions.
Even if global governance turned every country into a tightly regimented dystopia in which people are prevented from freedom of movement and forced to eat insect paste, we would still not solve the problem, unless the problem of global overpopulation is seriously addressed.
4
The GOP and the catholics and evangelicals are responsible for our soon to happen climate catastrophe. By supporting Trump and his coal supporting sick mentality we may be living in a smoggy country like China and India and our gardens will stop growing. Very sad that we have to live in a country where the other half of Americans have severe brain damage not to see this climate damage is occurring from coal and fossil fuel use. I am glad I am 65 years old now I would not want to be younger.
10
@D.j.j.k.
The level of support for Trump among Catholics is no greater than the broader U.S. Population.
But many vocal Catholics, and the Catholic leadership oppose any and all birth control.
So much for H W's "Ceiling and Visibility Unlimited" - CAVU. The world will be closer to that depressing photo of Beijing smog.
Instead of flushing the toilet of our toxic greed, selfishness and arrogance, we are leaving it to overflow for our children to deal with. Disgusting!
From super-fund sites we'll have a single massive tera-fund planet - or is that terror-fund to save the planet. Next trump will be pushing clean smog, clean ozone and clean corruption. He should be forced to breath clean Beijing air when he is finally locked up.
“American taxpayers — and American workers — shouldn’t pay to clean up others countries’ pollution.” Excuse-me, it is the tax payers and workers of other countries that are paying for our reckless polluting for more than a century and as the current top, or close runner up, polluter on the planet!
4
Thank you to the NYT team who put together this article. We need to let everyone - from the farmers rioting in France because of higher cost carbon-based fuel to everyone else - that global warming is fixable "down the line" as someone in the article says.
It is not fixable in the future. Like an unaddressed cancer, it will be too late if we do not immediately, fully address this now, or see earth's climate turn to runaway global warming.
Here are some suggestions anyone can do to reduce their carbon footprint:
http://www.globalstewards.org/reduce-carbon-footprint.htm
4
I read today that the Naval Academy is raising the sea wall in Annapolis by 3 feet to offset the expected rise in sea levels due to global warming. So while the Commander-in Chief is in denial, his troops are not. Go Navy!
5
This has nothing to do with the American withdrawal from anything. The USA has some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the world. This is about the up and coming Asians, China and India in particular. Throw in the Russians too. There are days in Beijing where you can't see across the street. Who's building all of the new coal-fired plants? China. It's quicker and easier to get its economy up to speed, after years in the doldrums, to be environmentally irresponsible and steal intellectual property.
Let's point the finger here in the right direction, not at Trump and the withdrawal from Paris accords, but at the irresponsible Peoples' Republic of China.
2
@MIKEinNYC
Let China worry about its own air; the problem you note is exclusively regional, and more geographical than environmental.
The last decade the US has made enemies out of Russia and China; soon to be India, Africa, Asia, Saudi Arabia, South America, Eastern Europe and Israel. Picking fights over what began as nothing more than a 'lawyers lie' to enrich Progressive political coffers and friends, thru fleecing of the Western democratic public purse, is ridiculous and outright criminal.
@MIKEinNYC
Americans CEOs and boards moved their manufacturing plants to China, so if you are going to point fingers, point at them and the pols who helped them. The move was about two intrinsic capitalist impulses: Driving the cost of labor as low as possible and dumping the cost of externalities, such as pollution, onto someone else.
Our air and water was as bad as China’s a generation ago. Labor unions had clout. So capitalism acted, against workers and the environment, as it always will if another penny can be earned, unless the political system steps in.
Trump hates labor and the environment — look at Pruitt, for god’s sake — so it IS about Trump and his party.
1
The problem is humans. Solve that and earth probably survives.
3
@Randé The unspoken truth. It takes energy to thrive in a world which constantly converts energy. Personally, I find it easier to survive in a warmer climate than a cooler one. We are approaching a global population of 8 billion people- all requiring resources.
1
How selfish of Trump, of course we should pay! America must lead the way and help China and India out of the morass they’re leading us all into. $216bn on military spending? Half should go toward the war on global warming. Forget economic greed for once and share our technology, under UN jurisdiction, to replace oil and coal with electric power from advanced reactors these countries have been trying to build more of.
2
The NYT should poll its readers and find out their fleet’s average mileage per gallon. You can’t blame Trump, you can’t blame the EPA, you can’t blame China (which will address this issue much faster than we will). Start in your own garage and driveway. If you’re getting less than 40 mpg, you’re not helping much.
3
@Gerald. Since 04/17 I have been traveling the world, trying to stick with bicycle and public transport. Everywhere I go, the streets are clogged with internal combustion vehicles (often SOV’s), the drivers obviously blind to the crime against nature they are committing.
3
@Gerald. I get 25 mpg but drive my car about 25 miles per week. How many miles are you driving your 40 mpg car? Is your footprint larger than mine? If you are driving more than 25 miles per week, you’re not helping much.
@Pops
I try to walk the walk. I drive a lot more than 25 miles a week but I don’t burn any fossil fuel; I drive an all electric vehicle. It will never see the forecourt of a gas station. Unless they wake up and start installing recharging stations. Some of the recharging power I use is not from renewable energy, but eventually it will be. The biggest chunk of our household’s carbon footprint is my air travel. I’ve started buying carbon offsets.
With GM closing 7 of its plants, and there being an oil glut in Alberta, Canada because the pipeline plans to transport it has stalled due to environmental concerns, it is time for everyone to step up and take notice. Now. The outrage and fist-shaking at the beginnings of the end of oil is amazing in the face of the very real consequences of its continued burning. Governments need to move on this and defy the oil industries and make the transition to electric. Before we all go up in smoke.
2
@RebeKah electricity is derived from energy-dense fuel. Green energy is derived from energy-dense processes and is horribly inefficient-- especially storage of energy for the hard times. Hydropower rules them all yet doesn't fit the $$$$ narrative.
The biggest individual gaseous greenhouse emitter is Donald John Trump, Sr..
Trump is hiding his personal and family income tax returns from the American people because he does not care about climate change beyond Trump Organization towers, hotels,resorts and golf courses.
The biggest per capita gaseous greenhouse gas emitter is the United States of America with a mere 5% of humanity and 25% of annual nominal GDP. Europe has 7% of humans and 21% of nominal GDP.
On the other hand while China and India, with about 40% of humanity evenly distributed between them, are both on an actual and per capita basis are much nearer to their share of humanity and much below their share of actual and per capita GDP.
For example while China has the nominal #2 GDP on a per capita it ranks #80 near Bulgaria and the Dominican Republic. And India ,the most populous parliamentary democracy, is divided by ethnic sectarian divisions. India is also a nuclear weapons rogue nation with the 3rd largest Muslim population.
Japan has the nominal #3 GDP but is an aging and shrinking nation with a tenth of China's population.
The science of climate change has no animal, plant, socioeconomic, political, educational,demographic, gender, national origin, faith, ethnic, history, color aka race bias.
3
@Blackmamba, with strong data like that, Mother Nature would have to be a fool not to stop dead in her tracks. With all the talk lately about "big data collection" and I never really ever seeing the whole point of it, maybe now I finally do. Thanks.
@Blackmamba seems you are suggesting that by tripling our population we can achieve better numbers. Statistics! Pick and choose.
In 2009, Ecuador promoted its Yasuni Initiative at COP17 in Copenhagen.. Carbon-rich but economically poor countries would be paid to keep the oil in the ground. The initiative failed as only a few million dollars were ever committed and the oil was worth several billion. Ecuador could no longer defend its initiative to its own poor citizens.
Given the speeding freight train, it is time to revisit the Economics of the Yasuní Iniative.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-economics-of-the-yasuni-initiative/1996C9887FF02222AE0DF5AF74E15C3B
1
Fossil fuels are causing these trending upward greenhouse gas emissions. Developing sound policies are what matters most and working towards having less carbon in the atmosphere by quickly moving to renewable energy, more energy efficient cars, and energy efficient buildings makes the most sense. It is important for individuals, business, and local and state governments to be leading the way. A renewable sustainable economy is profitable, provides cleaner air and water, with more local food production, and it can make a real difference.
1
Mother Nature is far too powerful an entity for 8 billion puny little humans to take on. Short of a political revolution, and perhaps even then, we likely don’t stand a chance.
The main reason why the US refuses to take responsibility here today is clearly fake news.
The only way to combat fake news is for the media to change their approach to reporting the news, and explicitly taking fake news into account in the way they frame "the news", if not, their own stories will only reinforce fake news narratives.
Let's take this line for instance:
"China produces 27 percent of global emissions, according to the report. The United States accounts for 15 percent of emissions, the European Union 10 percent and India 7 percent."
If in the same article, you quote the president tweeting that "American taxpayers" shouldn't clean up other people's pollution, AND then you add a picture of a totally different kind of pollution (visible in the air) in China, you reinforce the basic assumption of his tweet and underlying his main argument to withdraw from the Paris agreement.
IF, however, you don't just "describe" new facts but put them into context in such a way that you take fake news into account, you HAVE to add the following three facts:
1. the US has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world, with 1 American producing as much carbon as 2 Chinese people today.
2. the US and the West have CAUSED global warming in the first place, through two centuries of massive dirty energy consumption - whereas the worst effects today are precisely felt in the poorest regions.
So it's OUR pollution that we have to go clean up.
PLEASE add this info NYT... !
7
@Ana Luisa
You might want to do more research on which country has the highest carbon footprint per capita because it isn't the United States!
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
I can cite other references as well...
This is an incredibly complex problem to solve. Think hard and you will understand why many throw up their hands in despair. These general thoughts come to my mind...
- More focus should be placed on rewarding good behavior vs. punishing bad. People respond better to positive reinforcement and incentives. It's purely a psychological thing.
- A massive, multi-billion dollar worldwide promotion should be funded that rewards individuals for coming up with practical solutions to the problem. Scientists and laymen alike would have the chance to win millions of dollars and great fame and honor for the best solutions. This would be a great way for our billionaires such as Bill Gates to make a difference with all of their money.
- More emphasis should be put on the beauty of what we are losing as opposed to the darkness that lies before us. There is still time to save it for our children.
It's easy to go from gloom and doom into hopeless despair. Maybe a little attitude adjustment would help.
5
@rpe123
Bill Gates has invested $1 billion in his initiative Breakthrough Energy which is committed to investing in new technologies to catch up on climate change.
2
Republicans want your grandkids and great grandkids dead. Sounds too harsh? Nope. At the rate we are burning fossil fuels, we are looking at a rise in global temperatures around 4 to 5 C by 2100 that is catastrophic for most forms of life including us. And it will still get much hotter after that.
4
To look at the global situation from a pragmatic point of view, the ecology and the economy and the general sociological setup is presently arranged so that mother nature can offer the human people of great wealth and those they control a huge amount of money to kill themselves and all their descendants and these powerful people are eagerly rushing to accept. Since the rest of us do not want to be also killed as a result, we must somehow outbid nature to save our and our children's lives. If we can somehow gather the funds sufficient to pay the powerful enough funds to kill themselves immediately so they are out of the way, then we can sensibly revise human dynamics to save our planet and ourselves.
1
It is interesting that very few of these comments mention raising fuel taxes....and none of these comments mention incentivizing population control so it is hard to take the readers stated concerns seriously. A five or ten dollar per gallon fuel tax, a worldwide one child one couple policy, and funding worldwide nuclear power might help. Instead, it will be survival of the fittest. Nuclear war, especially in the mid east and the Indian subcontinent, might end up being a blessing long term for the planet. The half life of radioactive Cesium, for example, is around 30 years. Nature has done well in Chernobyl.....certainly better than in Calcutta or Karachi or Lagos or Tegucigalpa or San Pedro Sula. The only long term survival option for the US is going to be to close the borders. A lot of comments chastise China but their nuclear power plans are far ahead of those in the rest of the world and they have the discipline to control population. Maybe Trump's wall will come to pass.
1
@as: GOOD comment, perspicacious, but Obama hoped to achieve lower pollution standards by increasing fuel taxes, at least that appeared to be his beau ideal, but it did not work out for obvious reasons, and energy derived from fossil fuels is something we will have to live with for generations to come!Agree with you about eventuality of closing the borders. Many of the incomers who enter illegally are good blokes, hard workers and deserve to stay, but the citizenry should come first!Commenters, as mentioned, all seem to be tuned in to the same anti Trump websites, because their remarks about our vox populi r so similar.Not much original thinking there!All Western countries, US included, r at the mercy of the various chambers of commerce which seek as many workers, illegal or legal, in order to keep overall wage scale low. Have a friend living in apartment right opposite Julliard and every morning there is a long line of illegals who make the queue for a day's pay.Trump's promise of making America great by favoring the citizenry is a hard one to keep because employers are always seeking a cheaper alternative!
So because a news report about a scientific analysis of the causes of climate change and what to do about it doesn't mention your own personal opinion, your conclusion is that all those scientists and the journalists reporting on it must have important moral flaws ... ?!
Don't you see how irrational such a conclusion is?
The FIRST thing that scientists do when they get to work, is to question their own personal opinions, which is the exact opposite of what you're doing here.
If you would have done so, you would have found out that population growth is NOT the main cause of global warming.
Population growth is always high in subsistence and developing economies, and stagnates in fully developed economies.
At the same time, child death rates are also high in not fully developed economies, whereas life expectancy for adults is 30 years less than in fully developed economies. And most of all, people living in subsistence and developing economies pollute MUCH less than people living in fully developed economies.
As this article shows (if you do the math ...), ONE American pollutes as much as two Chinese habitants taken together. And if you look up the numbers for Africa, it's even worse: 1 American pollutes as much as 15 Africans taken together.
And it's carbon emissions, not merely existing, that causes global warming, remember?
As to your suggestion of a nuclear war: you seem to forget that there's something such as wind, which would kill Americans at the same time ..?
1
No matter how much we cut back as individuals, population growth will continue to fuel oil burning. Also, technology exists to "scrub" CO2 from emissions. There is no will among politicians to implement this doable and affordable solution.
6
Incomplete assessment at best. When the Paris accord was signed, Obama was duped. Or perhaps he was just arrogant in his desire to be adored by the globe. The reductions promised by each country occurred in a vacuum where each country submitted their 'promise' for emissions reductions. Obama committed the most, by far; China not at all. In addition, the US must pay the UN to disperse money to third world countries to 'help' them. China is defined by the UN as a third world country. On top of this failure by Obama, this whole objective ignores deforestation. While a country may emit more than another, it is the country that is rapidly destroying forests that is really causing climate change - it is forests that eat CO2; they've been doing it forever. Until now. If you look at deforestation as well as emissions, then there are many countries exceeding the US in net CO2 production (not to mention polluting the water supply).
2
@Ma
In real life, Obama KNOWS that ALL real, radical, lasting, non-violent democratic change is step by step change, and that the first step, which represents a U-turn compared to the past, is always the most difficult to take.
The Paris Accord IS that U-turn.
Built in in the accord is LOTS of next rounds of negotiations already, as this article remembers, because OF COURSE we won't get something as huge as this done overnight.
And the reason why the US has to reduce its carbon emissions more than other countries is obvious: it's because we have the highest carbon footprint per capita in the entire world ... !
So no, the Paris Climate accord isn't a failure at all.
It's a HUGE step forward, that for the first time puts global warming at the very center of the entire world's attention, all while laying the legislative and organizations groundwork for many negotiation rounds to come.
And if you look at how the New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, social security, Medicare, Medicaid etc. were achieved, you'll see the exact same thing: first a U-turn (combined with many cynical people standing at the sidelines and yelling "not enough!" of course ... ;-)), then through strong focus, patience and hard work the next step, and then the next, until we fully achieved our initial goals.
The same goes for Obamacare: it lays the foundation for universal HC, all while already saving an additional half a million American lives a decade. BUT now we have to build on it.
Yes we can! ;-)
1
@Ma - When Americans see a disaster abroad, we mount up, send help and money. When Americans see a disaster at home, we line up to give blood and money. That is what we do, It is a big piece of our national identity. A cynic might ask why our love of ourselves as headlined heroes short term, doesn't seem to get our attention when we are called to do it for the long.
The idea that we should not lead the world in carbon reduction because others are holding back takes us a long way from our 'heroes' myth. If America stands up, is counted and leads the way, the world will follow. When it comes to saving the earth, no one is more capable. It's our job, not theirs.
1
@Ma
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
America has an obligation, as the greatest carbon emitter per capita, to be a leader in carbon reductions.
Like the movie Avatar said, ‘we killed our mother’. That’s what we are doing. Our planet cannot keep up with the selfish changes our generation is creating. I’m glad I don’t have children as they will have the burden of living on a planet that’s run out of natural resources. What will they do? Go to Mars ? These predictions of greenhouse gases aren’t something new. I studied it in college in the 80s. But as other countries want the same ‘luxuries’ other countries have such as gas using cars this problem will get worse. Mother Nature’s revenge will be catastrophic storms. Those once in a hundred years storms will become once a year storms. Unless countries do something NOW their short sightedness will condemn the next generations to a planet that will find itself increasingly difficult to sustain life.
4
Just for the record, replacing coal burning plants with natural gas may sound like a good idea... but natural gas is METHANE which is 20x worse than CO2 in terms of damage to the atmosphere. Smart idea or more short sightedness?
3
@ReReDuce
When we turn on the stove and burn methane it reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water in a process called combustion. Chem 101
1
@ReReDuce You are right that natural gas is methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas. However, if it is burned by a power plant that means it is being combusted and released as carbon dioxide. CH4 (methane) + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
Coal is more carbon intensive than natural gas when used as fuel. This means you must burn more coal and release more carbon per unit of electricity/energy produced compared with natural gas.
Sure, CH4 is a greenhouse gas, but technology exists to keep it contained from extraction to combustion. However, that still generates CO2, and it is the CO2 emission which must be zeroed. Unfortunately, with the inertia of the warming trend (it takes time to melt circumpolar ice, liberate CH4 from warming circumpolar soils, stabilize population migration into tropical forests (Brazil views this as a plus for their economy!)) we have passed the tipping point for undisruptive global solutions. 100% renewable, non-combustion-based energy must be the global goal; even so, there WILL be massive climate disruption, with displacement or death of billions of people. If you think a wall around the US will insulate us against the consequences of this, think again, my friend!
This is a global health emergency, and must be treated as such immediately. We no longer have the luxury to wait for individual nations to take the lead, especially poorer ones or those led by an ostrich such as ours. This is an all or none proposition. It is imminent.
The United Nations and World Bank need to bring together thoughtful countries to focus and centralize their efforts to underwrite science, technology, and industry that drives eco-friendly research and product development.
We as a people might have to endure some privation in the short run, but if we plan to exist into the next century this is a no-brainer.
3
This article lays it out starkly, the hastening of our demise since Trump took office. Emissions have increased by 1.6% since last year, the year he proceeded to gut the EPA clean air mandates, increase oil production, and drop out of the Paris accords. These are not just symbolic acts, they have real consequences on land use, climate, and people. There are scientific studies that show the impacts of pollution on health and recently, one that links poor air quality and inflammation to diabetes. Too bad the Trump voters don't read.
4
It's profoundly hypocritical (but not surprising) for Trump to point a finger at the "pass" given to developing countries by the Paris Accord. The U.S. became and economic and geopolitical superpower by consuming vast amounts of fossil fuels and, in doing so, handsomely help create the situation we are in. We have a debt to pay now but Trump being the bully he is more than comfortable to pass the catastrophe in the making onto our children.
5
Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. It's the only way out of this that will actually work and is in the power of goverments, not a pipe dream of social change. Environmentalists who are against nuclear are just as bad as climate change deniers, as both are killing the planet in the name of zealotry that flies in the face of science.
3
@JR
It's not just "environmentalists", it's most Western governments already, remember?
And the reason is perfectly clear: nuclear energy is extremely dangerous.
We cannot replace fossil oil carbon in the air by stuffing our soil with atomic bombs for the next centuries to come.
And then we're not even talking about the terrorism risk yet.
That's why the only solution is on the one hand clean energy, and on the other hand energy consumption reduction in the West (= in developed economies, which the rest of the world will be too by the end of this century).
The biggest source of carbon pollution in the US for instance is the red meat industry. We'll only get to zero carbon (as Burlington, Vt already managed to do) if we massively stop eating red meat, among other things.
Conclusion: you can't claim to want science-based policies and then omit the science about risk management when it comes to nuclear energy ...
2
@Ana Luisa
Agree with much of what you say, but it’s untrue that red meat production is biggest contributor to carbon pollution. Agriculture as a whole is only 9% in US. Heating,cooling and transportation contribute the most by far.
@Ana Luisa
Have you looked at any science based risk assessments of energy production?
Nuclear is by far the safest. Its even safer than solar and wind.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-gas-and-the-new-deathprint-for-energy/amp/
1
All those people in the depressing pictures of traffic clogged freeways are just trying to get to work. The cost of real estate goes up as you get the closer to good paying jobs. This is another illustration of how Capitalism is a terrible system. The working people of Paris, those who can't afford to live in Paris but must get to their jobs there somehow, rightfully resent being the ones to be taxed. The same situation is echoed all over the world. It's all connected. Deal with the affordable housing issues and get these poor people off the road.
4
@mary bardmess, What? What does that have to do with capitalism? Isn't it the American Dream to live in the suburbs? I am sure it is.
Any politician anywhere on earth who doesn't talk about this issue, and nuclear weapons, and who doesn't have a plan is essentially not worth voting for, no matter what else they're for.
I mean, if the species literally cannot look at reality, see the threats, prioritize according to obvious threat level, and then do something to eliminate them, we're done. All done: at minimum anything like a decent civilization, probably any kind of civilization, possibly total extinction of us; maybe the extinction of all terrestrial multicellular life that's evolved, lo, these past 3.5bn years. On the one planet we're sure that's occurred, and, no, there's no guarantee multicellular life, let alone intelligence, has ever evolved anywhere else. Check out the Mayr/Sagan debate on that here:
Meanwhile, back to reality, if we cannot "turn away from childish things" and activate not altruism but the kind of enlightened self-interest that's akin to, "Huh, me and 12 other people are sinking in this lifeboat: perhaps we should bail and maybe figure out how to plug the hole before we all drown," then not only will we suffer some version of the above, we actually would deserve it.
That should focus us on what counts, help us identify flak and noise, and get going already. Probably won't.
And Trump wants to burn more coal. We won't survive that fool unscathed.
2
This is very upsetting. Capital gains over the next generation’s survival? What’s the point? Our kids are going to have the tough job of fixing all this? Hopefully, they have more integrity than us.
1
Perhaps it is time to just let it all fall apart and start over again. Accept our impending demise with a measure of grace and dignity.
Clearly those with the resources and power to address this issue do not care what is happening. They only care about the next quarters balance sheets.
The earth will rid itself of us and after several millennia civilization will, hopefully, rise again. Perhaps the best thing we can do is leave detailed records of our failures, a secure time capsule, for future generations to learn from.
266
@arusso They won’t read it, and if they do, they won’t think it applies to them. Unless the next people evolve from something other than apes.
18
The new inhabitants will all be descendants of Mad Max. Refinement will be a long time coming and then just a coverup for greed.
11
@arusso
See THIS is the problem: "let it all fall apart and start over again". That is STUNNING cognitive dissonance. The presumption is climate change will come - like a really bad storm - and then pass, and then we can just carry on and "start over". PEOPLE DO NOT GET IT. The affects of climate change are already in place and will become devastating and will endure for a really, really long time. There are no take-backsies, there are no do-overs. Climate change does not recognize remorse.
62
If societies treated greenhouse gas emissions as they treated unemployment number, the situation would be much better off. Sadly, most people can't see beyond their own short term prosperity.
And to those who say that it is all the politicians fault, personal actions such as:
1. Living in a smaller home
2. Forgoing flying to go on vacation
3. Eating vegetarian
4. Consuming less
...
...
...
and so many other things would put a big dent in emissions. But why constrain your own life? Playing the blame game is much easier -- and more fun too!
242
@Clem
There are many fully deserving of blame, like Trump, his entire administration, and the Republican Congress (and some Democrats as well, not to mention the Greens who twice insured environmental criminals held the White House and determined the Supreme Court.) While all your suggestions may be worthwhile, and I agree we all have responsibility to take individual steps and rethink how we live our lives, an individual's actions can not possibly have the same impact as national policies.
People need to be held responsible for their actions. So blame is not only appropriate, it is absolutely necessary.
42
@Clem
Your list doesn't have the most impactful action anyone can take. . . have less children. Population reduction, nuclear power, renewables, and electrification of transportation are all critical steps to be taken. Unfortunately we can't get people to stop using straws or plastic bags. More substantial sacrifices to their lives are unlikely. Looking at the steadfast supporters of Trump and the yellow-vest protests in France I can't see global action being taken with the urgency required. The lack of leadership, the active efforts of politicians and industry leaders to confuse the public and delay actions, the media's role in helping to confuse the public, even the environmentalist's anti-nuclear stance all conspire against us. We are our own worst enemy. We are addicted to fossil fuels and will likely die at the hands of our addiction. Shame on the oil companies of course, their actions are similar to the tobacco companies only the stakes are so much higher. Most of all, shame on us.
39
We need both. Millions of individual actions got us here; individual actions are crucial to getting us out of this mess. I have a Nissan Leaf & it's a great car, so maneuverable, super low operating costs. Make sure you never buy another gas- burning car. Make sure all of your light bulbs are LED. If you own a home and/or business, put solar on that roof! And eat a few more vegetarian meals. We CAN do this!
12
It is absolutely amazing to me how many people do not realize how important this is. It's like deciding not to by fire insurance, setting your sofa on fire, going outside to bring some firewood into the den, right next to the already raging fire, while saying to your spouse, "is it getting hot in here?"
I have good friends who just went out and bought brand new, giant SUVs. They believe in climate change. They just think that, like most everything else in the 20th and 21st centuries, we'll figure it out, and everything will work out in the end.
This isn't that kind of a problem. It's not a "oh, now we understand, let's find a solution" kind of a problem. It's a "oh, that will kill me, I better not even think of doing that" kind of a problem.
We're smart enough as a species and a society and a civilization to figure this out, and then we are too stupid to actually do anything about it.
Meanwhile, all people care about is "jobs, jobs, jobs" or "my 401K" or even more noble pursuits like BLM and #MeToo.
None of that is going to matter one whit in 20 more years, when people will finally say "Wait? We should have done something 30 years ago? Wait? What?"
Hint: Stop buying SUVs. Start using your power as a consumer to influence the course of civilization. Help to solve the problem instead of waiting for everyone else (or the government, or that age old defender of people's rights, corporations) to do it for you.
363
@Bob Well, I wouldn't mock people's concern about their jobs and 401k. Money is important and is the only way people can put food on the table and a roof over their heads.
10
@Bob Yes, stop buying SUVs, but also stop eating meat and consuming dairy products to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions from cows (the other huge source of GHGs). You just need a carbon tax and a meat tax. Remind me again which national politicians (Democrat or Republican) are campaigning for a national carbon tax and a national meat tax?
27
@Bob "We're smart enough as a species"
Evidence, please? Every contained environment that we have filled we have destroyed. Now we fill the earth and its atmosphere. Our technological capacity to affect our environment has expanded far faster than our smarts can evolve.
14
Given today's news, the metaphor of a speeding train seems darkly appropriate. On the one hand, greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating. On the other, Republicans in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and elsewhere are working as fast as they can to undermine basic democratic norms.
How are these things connected? Our world is already dealing with rising costs and social upheavals because of climate change. Such ills help to further destabilize democracies, as people turn to strong leaders with easy answers. And such leaders like Putin and Trump receive substantial support from the very industries contributing to climate change.
We are speeding along to a completely avoidable world-wide crisis in which the twin, runaway trains of climate change and authoritarianism will collide head on. The victims of this collision will be the lives of our children and the health of our planet.
334
@joel strayer Although I agree, I have to stick with "we can because we must" and "here we all are, and what are we going to do about it.
Despair and apathy are laziness in disguise.
However, here's another data point for your negatives: https://mashable.com/article/greenland-ice-melting-climate-change/
"Greenland is in hot water"
21
@joel strayer
You say "No one I know is in any way prepared to make the changes required in their lifestyle which will actually reduce their carbon footprint."
My husband and I have no children. We vote for candidates that say they will vote positively on the environment and global warming. We have no car. We live near public transportation and support it. We bicycle and use public transportation, even on vacations. We've spent decades recycling, planting trees, gardening, and stopped eating red meat except on rare occasions. We have a thermostat that lowers the temperature of the house when we are not at home or sleeping. We have altered our lifestyle and are doing what we can, even though we are in our sixties and don't have children or grandchildren who will have to face the worst of climate change will bring. It may not be enough, but it may be mitigating the worst. Can't you and the people you know see the extinctions already taking place, and the effects of climate change already affecting others ways of life? Is it not enough to make changes in your lifestyle? If not, those changes to your lives and those of your children, and much much worse, will surely be made for you.
153
@joel strayer One fairly easy way to reduce our carbon footprint is to cut back on the amount of meat we eat. Eating meat at one meal each day.
34
The article and its comments understate the problem. Despite clear warnings in recent years, life on earth is probably doomed by human consumption of fossil fuels.
In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned of a "95% to 100% probability" that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming, and declared the planetary warming rate to be intolerable, noting that “If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization.”
In 2015, Exxon Mobile under CEO Rex Tillerson gave more than $2 million to climate denial organizations, including The American Enterprise Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
In 2016, Donald Trump named Tillerson U.S. Secretary of State.
@John Q. And in 2017 Trump fired him. One of his sins was support for stayin in the Paris agreement.
@John Q
Life on earth will continue for millions of years - there just won't be people around!
In 2010, Professor Frank Fenner predicted that because of Over Population, Environmental Destruction and Climate Change, the Human Species would be extinct!
Years ago, I read a theory that by 2050 or so, our population would peak at roughly 9 Billion. The theory also indicated that by 2100, the worlds population would be around 1 to 1.5 Billion.
I feel that this theory is plausible!
Earth Abides!
Life will go on!
Charismatic and visionary leadership is required here. The leader of the largest and most technologically advanced nation with the biggest stick of trade, investment and weaponry must step up to lead the strategic efforts to meet the target established in the Paris Accords. This paramount issue needs to be front and center for the 2020 general election. What a legacy to aspire to for any serious candidate - "I led a global coalition that in a matter of a few years turned back the threat while sustaining economic growth globally".
1
Thanks for this excellent fact based article on this vital CO2 issue for our people and the world.
@Klemens Weger
It's a great article ... IF you simply decide to ignore fake news.
The problem is that now that the GOP massively spreads fake news, quoting the president means inserting fake news in your article.
And if you don't address it explicitly in your article, as many comments below show Trump supporters merely read this article as proving Trump to be right.
So you HAVE to add that it's the US that has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world, and that one American produces as much carbon as two Chinese people taken together, and moreover, that for two centuries it's WE, the US (and the West in general) that increased atmospheric carbon levels to such an extent that today it caused extremely dangerous global warming.
Only if you add these facts can you see how fake Trump's complaint about other countries is.
You cannot possibly continue to approach reporting the news in the same old, decent, high-quality way when the president and his party spread fake news 24/7, you HAVE to start addressing it inside your news reports too, IF you want readers to get closer to the truth rather than provoking the opposite.
This reads like something from Stephen King. The dire adjectives, the whole imperative, the impending disaster. We have all heard this before. The ten or twenty-year threat has now been issued three times, and each time it has come and passed. It's interesting to note that such reports now contain phrases like "the recent rise in global emissions, combined with other factors such as natural temperature fluctuations..." The exact combination of these two being the very heart of the question. Make no mistake, if healthcare and energy are controlled by a government (global government?!) then there is very little control left for the average person.
1
@Len
You omit a crucial fact: each time it has come and passed AND BECAME TRUE.
The fact that most of the impact isn't visible in the US doesn't make it less true, remember?
@Len Your very point is why this is such a divisive issue. The fight is over individualism and freedom. I think this could mostly be reconciled by the government taking a less punitive approach to managing this issue. If we incentivize change as a partnership between government and businesses/people I suspect we could get great results with less conflict.
Is there one site that will detail in specifics what one can do in their lives to reduce carbon emissions, plus, detail specific actions at the state and federal level that impact carbon use. I know that is asking a lot but where does one turn to access info in one stop?
How long can this be ignored by the our government.
Mr. Trump recently, when the weather turned colder made
some comment ----"so much for global warming".
He has not a clue or more likely doesn't care.
Obviously we can not continue with ever increasing populations and ever increasing use of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately it will take more weather extremes like recently experienced in California where many died to wake people up.
Other nations seem to get it.
Now it's our turn.
2
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein.
It will take very radical thinking to make any kind of meaningful difference. Are we ready for this?
4
I teach undergraduate environmental science at a small college in Upstate NY. To counter the perspective of gloom than can envelope my students as they learn about climate change, among other texts I use Michael Bloomberg's and Carl Pope's book, Climate of Hope. They outline important elements of a new dialogue for actions that might be taken to offer better prospects for the future: focus on immediate, rather than long-term trends; focus on making money rather than sacrifice; focus on people rather than nature; look to citizens, business and governments other than the Federal. They advocate looking to immediate and personal interests, rather than those that are more long-term and impersonal. These are pragmatic prescriptions offered by credible experts who come to the conversation from very different positions and experiences. My students, most of which are not science majors, respond well to their ideas, and express both willingness and ability to commit to them as they move into the next phases of their lives.
3
@Donald McCrimmon I very much enjoy this perspective. Far too often resistance is unnecessarily created by government approaching its role from a punitive perspective instead of partnering with businesses and people to affect change in a positive manner. I think as a society we should always aim to use the carrot instead of starting out with the stick.
1
@Donald McCrimmon additionally make sure to tell them the theory that humans cause catastrophic climate change is bunk, so get off their gloom train.
Just returned from Beijing and the pollution there is bad--can't see buildings across the street. All from coal.
Lest you feel that the US/China are exclusive villains, the protests in France (!) are about putting a cost on carbon based fuel.
So I'm pessimistic. Time to just mitigate as best we can.
2
Two comments: developing nations are contributing more to global emissions than others due to a lack of sophistication, financial means, and engineering capabilities - they will need help from developed nations to curb emissions. Electric cars by themselves are not the answer. It takes energy to develop the electricity needed to recharge, and that comes from electric power plants, of which we will need many more to handle the electric cars as they increase in number. Even with efficiencies, the emissions problem is only shifted from individual vehicles to the additiiol power plants.
1
Can we please stop discussing climate change with respect to nation states. This needs to be done on a per-capita basis then by whatever local government controls policy be it city state or even neighborhood association.
Much of the increase in India and China has come with a concurrent increase in the standard of living in these nation-states. We need to grant these countries additional allowance in light of social equity. Our goal should be an additional reduction in light of this... which makes our increase all the more absurd.
In addition, we need to seriously consider engineering our way out of this problem. Carbon capture is a viable option if only we can fund it.
Power is changing to more authoritarian as well as to corporate and defense industry control. I am ashamed to say I have more faith in these institutions than I do my own natinal and I will say it...state government. Though to be clear my city government has done some good things recently.
No more personal cars, no more meat, turn down the heat in the winter to turn down the heat in the summer. This is as real as it gets with respect to public policy.
4
One point:- just because oil is cheaper, people are buying larger gas guzzling cars - and contributing to the higher emissions. I realize in the era of trump this will not be possible, because he seems to be hellbent on boosting extreme climate change as much as he can, but why can't the richer countries mandate car manufacturers to make ONLY smaller, fuel efficient cars (or electric)?
5
Climate Change Skeptics point out that "Theoretical Models" used have been wrong!
The models long term predictions used back in the 70's, 80's and 90's have proven to be accurate. Yes, the short term predictions can't be relied on... but the long term predictions are spot on!
Climate Chang Skeptics also point out that past CO2 levels have been 4 to 18 times higher!
What they don't know is that it rained a lot. So much so that it would make todays rain forests seem like a desert. It was also really hot. So hot that areas of our planet could not support higher forms of life because they could not cool their bodies and overheated. There were also dead zones in the oceans due to high temperatures.
Now, lets take a look at the present to see what is happening... humidity is getting worse, dead zones in the ocean are growing, parts of the Amazon and world are approaching temperatures that will make areas uninhabitable to higher forms of life.
Imagine temperatures and humidity are such that even if you were wet, naked and sitting in front of a fan, your body couldn't cool itself if you were outside sitting in the shade.
Sadly, everything that I mentioned can be easily verified and unfortunately, that is the future for parts of our world!
Just something to think about!
4
There's no reason to call these people "climate change skeptics".
Real skepticism means being interested in getting closer to the truth, through questioning, investigating and trying to provide solid evidence. And that STARTS by systematically questioning your OWN beliefs first.
It's an integral part of the scientific attitude and scientific methods.
What "skeptical" in "climate change skeptics" refers to, however, is the non-scientific, ordinary language meaning of "skeptical": doubting everything that at first sight, based on your own subjective beliefs and expectations, seems unlikely to be true.
So on the one hand you have climate science LIARS, who deliberately distort proven science in order to make people believe that global warming isn't real/dangerous/man-made (see the authors of Breitbarts' climate science articles, for instance).
And on the other hand you have good, decent people, who don't know anything about science and tend to believe the liars simply because all the politicians and pundits that they trust tell them that they're not lying but telling the truth.
www.skepticalscience.com is a website that uses "skepticism" in the real, scientific sense, in order to debunk the claims made by liars. They debunk them in a scientific way, so each time someone has a doubt about who's saying the truth on this or that argument, all you have to do is to go to that website and check it out. Most of the excuses mad by climate liars can be found there.
@Ana Luisa
I was just being polite and civil - nothing more or less!
People are so sensitive now that it is difficult to come up with a term that doesn't cause offense!
skep·tic
/ˈskeptik/
noun
1.
a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
synonyms: cynic, doubter; pessimist
:)
1
China is the main culprit now.
We should significantly raise tariffs on Chinese goods and just call them a “carbon tax.”
Their economy slows and so do their carbon emissions.
3
@JQGALT
I see your point but I am wary of pointing fingers and creating villains. We are all to blame here. China took on capitalism because N. America modelled it and I suppose it looks glamourous. But capitalism plus high population is a bad equation and that is China and India and also many places in S. America.
We need to begin modelling quality of life and and work on our own consumption issues.
3
@JQGALT
Except that one American emits as much carbon as two Chinese people taken together.
And then there's the fact that we're doing this for two centuries already, whereas China just started.
THAT's why the entire world is laughing at Trump when he claims that it's "their pollution", you see?
1
We have done nothing to change the dynamic where economic growth drives greenhouse gas emissions. Our consumption and economic growth drives Chinese greenhouse gas emissions because they make our stuff. It may look like our economy grows without producing more greenhouse gases but in a global economy, growth and greenhouse gases grow together-no exceptions.
We need to fundamentally restructure the economy-and what are the chances of that? Slim to none, I fear, until inaction becomes a bigger problem that action.
7
The easiest way to change the dynamic is for the world to practice birth control. We've seen China back off their one baby policy. Gandhi recognized a birth control problem in India a hundred years ago and nothing's changed there and in the United States birth control is anti-religious which is a direct confrontation with the Christian Republican Party.
1
@Steve
You are absolutely right about population. But population growth is also the primary driver of economic growth. Therein lies the conundrum. If economic growth slows or reverses poor people become poorer and debt levels will drive bankruptcies creating a vicious cycle. So we curb the devastating effects of climate change but the world sinks into a worldwide Great Depression-which will further reduce the population. So how do we reduce greenhouse gases with economic devastation.
As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy and he is us". Buying bigger cars, building bigger houses. I heard a story today about very expensive houses in a coastal town in California. The proposed solutions? Try to sell your house near or on the beach quietly before the prices really start falling. Wait for the inevitable flooding and hope FEMA comes through. Try to obtain more of a disappearing commodity, sand, to shore up walls.
In Washington state, a carbon fee initiative went down by a pretty large margin last month. The map of how counties voted was illuminating. It went down in all but the most urban counties.
I hope newly elected Democrats will push hard for something like a fee per gallon of gas charged to the companies that make money via fossil fuels. Bank that money and use it to pay for clearly climate-change related costs, like wildfire prevention, houses on the beach that can't find buyers and eventually get ruined by the water, extreme weather, etc. Maybe they'll pass those costs on to consumers, or maybe not. If they do, the prices will fall most heavily on those who buy big cars and drive lots of miles. Not a tax, a truer capture of actual financial costs reflected in the price.
4
Did anyone ever truly believe that countries would actually be able to, or willingly curtail economic growth to meet goals of the Paris Agreement with ever increasing populations and emerging middle class consumers that want all the amenities that Wester countries have enjoyed for decades? The elephant in the room that no one want to talk about has been and always will be the burgeoning human population and the demands it makes on our planet's dwindling natural resources.
14
@DonS Amen to your comment of "burgeoning human population". What seems to get lost in the "noise" about how to reduce the rate of ruining our environment is the fact that, for example, even if the amount of pollution per capita is reduced, the total amount of pollution will still go up as human population increases.
1
On the one hand 45 makes some sense, why should we pay for someone else's mistakes? On the other hand, shouldn't we be paying to make our own air as clean as possible? He seems to have forgotten the other side of the equation.
1
@pschwimer, even if it's not our mistake, we will suffer the consequences, too. The entire planet is at risk. I doubt we can built a barrier around the entire US that will keep just our air and water clean, while the rest of the planet disintegrates...
@pschwimer Trump has turned America from trying, albeit not very successfully, to be a world leader into a third world country. Not just Trump, but all of those fossil fuel industry supporters who now command the Republican Party. When the farms in America dry up and the coasts are inundated with melted polar ice and hurricanes and forest fires destroy what is still left, will those MAGA-hat-wearing ignoramuses finally realize that they have been cheering for?
1
When I was a young man I spent some time hitch-hiking across America, doing what a young man does when he's footloose and carefree. It was a different era then; and let's just say my hair was a lot longer then than now.
In any case it was the dead of winter and I found myself standing besides the road freezing and praying for a lift. I got one. It was a VW bug with 3 other guys in the car. I got in to the comfort and warmth but soon came to realize that all of these guys were smoking, cigars.
I lasted about 10 miles before I had to get out. This, my friends, is the situation we are in today. Can someone please tell me where I can get out?
John~
American Net'Zen
14
One question. Could human population growth also have an impact on global warming? We are destroying the natural environment at an unprecedented rate, even here in the UK to meet the increasingly population. The destruction of natural habitats which actually alleviate some of the pollution by absorbing carbon dioxide must have a detrimental effect globally.
14
This is Nina Castro:
And so GM stops producing six sedans, and doubles down on SUVs and trucks to be competitive, meanwhile eradicating 6K jobs in Ohio. I get it. They're gearing up to be Silicon Valley competitors (driverless, electric). But this is one of those moments where capitalism needs some guidance/support from government. We, the people, are flocking to [Japanese] sedans (and I only buy used to keep my budget in tact) because most of us cannot afford, nor do we want, the larger gas guzzling, emission producing trucks. So that's where govt. should step in to support the auto manufacturer, limiting SUV production, loaning $$ to support their attempts to transform themselves, and to offer rebates to Americans to buy sedans. rather than bailing out capitalist behomoths which cannot make decisions without being blinkered by the short term profit motive. I think then, too, we, the people, would learn to like government a bit more. And God forbid, we should have functioning mass transit.
11
@Nina & Ray Castro
Focus on outcomes, not means. If an SUV can be efficient, that's great. Set the targets, let the markets figure out how to meet them.
What we don't want to admit is that we have gotten ourselves in a predicament with two horrible choices. If we stop having children, reduce consumption, live simpler and less polluting lives, it would collapse the economy. If we continue on with the perpetual growth mantra, it kills the planet.
You cannot convince me that 'technology will save us', or that we can convert to all renewable energy and live happily ever after. Our food chain is based on fossil fuel fertilizer and pesticides, and we are decades away from green transportation. China has 1200 coal plants sold planned to be built all over the world. Studies show that growth in renewable energy merely increase the amount of energy available for economic growth.
We need all our brilliant economists to admit that their market theories do not work in a finite world of constrained resources, and start pushing steady state or degrowth economics. Maybe we can figure a way out.
8
Everyone needs to do what they can to be part of the solution. First step is to have leaders who care and will not reverse laws that help lower emissions. No more putting this off until it is no longer possible to fix it.
4
@maryb How do you know we aren't passed that time already? Counting on sanity and rationality from the human race, especially Americans, seems like a stretch to me.
The fundamental problem: it's a catastrophe in slow motion. We've been talking about it for decades, and yet many people would argue that life has only gotten better, especially with respect to global poverty levels. But in a cruel twist, by the time the catastrophe is no longer in slow motion and everybody sees it, it will be far too late to do anything about it. My guess is that it will be around then that the earth gets a dramatic re-set of human population level, and worries about "quality of life" or "standard of living" will be rudely pushed aside as the standard becomes one of bare survival.
10
Even if all carbon emissions were stopped today, it would take decades for the effects to reverse. I haven't heard very much about mitigation of the results of climate change. Is there any planning by the government? Like, Dude, we've totally missed the bus here!
3
No amount of climate accord will stop or slow this. The Paris accord was a money maker for the developed countries as it gives them a rationale for raising taxes and it is also a money maker for the developing countries as they get money from the developed countries.
There are no enforceable punishment for not meeting your goals. It all sounds good but totally useless.
3
At this point, the problem seems moot
Replacing about 420 quads of fossil fuels over the next 50 to 100 years appears insoluble.
The fossil people mainly deny AGW. They also tend to violate physics and deny fossil fuels are finite. With only about five decades of viability, they are wrong. Oil and natural gas are going away very fast
The renewable people fail to fully address the intermittency problems with solar and wind ignoring energy density and energy return. Energy storage is difficult and batteries are not going to help much. The myth that wind and solar are limitless is a problem perpetuated by people that have not worked in heavy infrastructure. The materials for renewables are finite and require concrete, steel, silver, copper, neodymium, dysprosium, etc. in large quantities. Much more than traditional plants due to limited energy density. Ask the renewable people how many quads of fossil fuels saved…no answer.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
Nuclear is vilified despite having the best safety track record of any power source. Yes, the risks are there. Show any heavy industry without risk. There are not enough qualified engineers, crafts and technicians for nuclear to make much of a dent. The industrial capacity is also limited.
Efficacy of nuclear….from CO2 standpoint.
Germany per capita emissions. ~ 9mt
France per capita emissions ~5 mt
7
Just want to add that the difference between France and Germany and is much more stark than the figure you quoted. Looking at the carbon intensity of their energy grid, at this hour Germany’s grid is 368 gCO2/kWh vs 80 for France. Source: electricitymap.org.
So, right now charging an iPhone in Germany is producing 3.6 times the amount of carbon as an iPhone in France.
- sent from my iPhone, currently charging in California (330 gCO2/kWh)
3
@Glennmr But global warming already has an impact on nuclear power plants: you need water to cool them down, and droughts force engineers to stop the reactors when the rivers go low.
I think it starts with everyone refusing to buy things they do not need - I bet a few houses in my neighborhood can be seen from the moon during the Christmas season - and asking to know how things will be recycled. Until very recently, people managed with real plates and no plastic straws. If we bought things we need and that last, how much less transportation would be needed?
The end of the world for Ikea, the beginning of a new world for cabinet makers. I could live with that.
3
@Stephen
For info: the number I posted are from the IEA reports...
Germany has some of he highest electricity costs in Europe with their carbon footprint staying essentially the same over the last 15 years or so. Seems like a failure from an emissions point of view.
1
One political party is all about materialism, economic well-being, the overall comfort level. The other political party is about quality of life, not only for the human part of it but the entire biosphere and world-wide conditions. The first party mentioned has the majority on it's side.
2
@ohio Not necessarily; democrats comprise roughly 55 million registered voters, republicans roughly 36 million. The problem is inadequate voter turnout, gerrymandering, money in politics, voter id laws, etc etc. We are represented by politicians who were truly elected by a minority in smaller states such as yours: ie: Trump lost the vote by 3 million, and judges he is appointing are being approved by a senate that is skewed republican due to low-population states getting 2 senators each.
1
@ohio
It doesn't have the majority. It has gerrymandered and tricked its way into power.
Though I haven’t read through all of the comments, my scanning of most recent makes me wonder how many people recognize the importance of nuclear energy in the power/climate change discussion.
Hydrocarbon interests profit immensely by the failure to exploit nuclear energy’s full potential. It’s emission free, reliable and has a low fuel cost compared to coal, oil or gas.
Even its tiny waste stream has been sold as a negative because it cannot be casually dumped into the environment via tailpipes and smoke stacks. Utilities don’t like fact that they have a solid material that needs careful handling. Even though waste systems are a small portion of the total cost, the utilities would prefer for the cost to be even lower.
Let’s keep nuclear energy in the conversation. Learn about the advances atomic innovators have developed to address the frequently discussed negatives of the technology. Don’t choose to be opposed to nuclear just because it seems to be favorable to your political opponents.
10
@Rod Adams
One of the biggest benefits of nuclear over other sources is the long-term viability. Plants lasting 60 years—with fuel costs guaranteed to be reasonable stable due to the energy density.
The renewable people cite lower installation costs, but completely fail to show that the windmills and solar panels have to be replaced on a 20-30 time period and require huge amounts of materials. The energy storage problems are monumental and really not being addressed—this cost is never included in the generation costs.
5
There are places in the U.S. that are going in the right direction. California, for example, recently passed legislation requiring the electric grid to be GHG-free by 2045. The state also has published a blueprint to get the state's entire economy to a very low GHG level (80% reductions vis a vis 1990) by 2050. And they are doing it, despite being hobbled by a luxury rooftop solar industry (large-scale solar farms are far cheaper than rooftop installations) and other regulatory complications. If California can do it without breaking the bank, other places will see it can be done and might follow.
9
@James
"If California can do it..."
California hasn't "done" anything except passed some easily modified or overturned laws with 30- and 40-year horizons. As far as not "breaking the bank" goes, wait till California's hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded public pension liabilities start coming due. "GHG" will be the last thing on the minds of angry, unpaid retirees. Lastly, California's 2045 and 2050 target dates are well past the point (2040) when the Times itself noted the "crisis" was at the point of no return.
Yet California, alone, thinks it can save the world with its soda straw bans and anti-warming legislation. Do they think that China, India and the rest of the developing world will take notice and yell "STOP!" because one American state said so? California legislators and voters do lead the world in one attribute: hubris.
Everybody knows that humans are in full lemming mode and nothing will arrest it.
13
Republicans are ignoring the problem . Why anyone still supports them is amazing.
17
All of us alive in 30 years will starve to death. Period.
5
@Lisa McFadden
I assume you are being dramatic for effect, but the truth, or my version of it, is bad too. In 30 or 40, or 50 years many more people will suffer as a result of climate change - but not all. Look to the past for some examples. The lord a realm with surfs working the land. The surfs lived to 40 or 45 if they were lucky. Life went on but with varying degrees of misery. Unless we have a massive nuclear war, or let loose a 100% kill rate disease, there will be humans on this planet a 1000 years from now.
2
This is humanity’s greatest problem. To solve global warming is to stave ourselves of the conveniences we know and love, and reduce our appetite for consumption. As we point our perverberable fingers away from our own responsibilities each and ever day, global warming gets worse. We bicker and argue, debate and lie, but Mother Nature will have the last word. Once again, humanity proves it’s own stupidity as it destroys its own home, the very Earth on which we all live.
8
We are in a world wide mental illness.
We are being led by this current economic belief system (that no longer works) like moths to the flame.
There are luxuries so much more fulfilling than SUV's and the rat race jobs to do what, buy more things?
I am going to be grateful for my tiny postage stamp of land, grow a garden, pet my dog, be considered poor and know that I am not, walk the forest that still exists, and watch this all go down. We all have to die some day.
14
@KLC "A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone." -Henry David Thoreau
8
Well said, and the lunacy of the "holiday shopping season" is the crux of the problem.
11
The world's biggest polluters, China and India, are taking their cue from Trump's "I don't believe it" approach to climate science. They do believe it but figure they can go slow in reducing their emissions -- since their economies still rely on dirty power generation -- as long as the American president gives the rest of the world a green light to do so. Trump and his Republican enablers are the worst environmental disaster facing our planet today.
17
@Christy
In real life, China pollutes twice as much as the US, BUT ... has FOUR times as many people.
So it's WE who are producing most carbon per capita in the world, not China or India.
And it's WE who have been doing this for two centuries now, whereas China and India are only starting.
Secondly, China today is already the world's leader in solar and wind power consumption. They have 1 million people working in solar, whereas we only 200,000.
But yes of course, if the biggest polluter decides to go for short-term profits instead, that makes it more difficult politically for developing countries' leaders to impose clean energy on their starving citizens. So I do agree with your conclusion ...
14
There are very good points made here, but our pols are too intent on shifting blame onto others. Our country should lead the way and help poorer nations comply
JBF
NYC
1
India is often lumped with China on these comparisons, but I do not believe it is accurate. With a sixth of the world's population it accounts for 7 percent of global emissions. The higher growth rate is mainly due to a much lower baseline with lower net increase than other major economies. Per capital emissions are far lower than most major economies.
India does have to address emissions longer term though and address a grave particulate pollution problem in major cities
1
Scientists described the quickening...to a “speeding freight train.”
I didn't know that metaphors were part of the scientific process, but whatever scares the masses...
5
@Ed L., When you have irresponsible leaders telling their ignorant followers that climate change is not occurring, disaster is sure to follow. As a scientist myself, I would argue that “speeding freight train” is an inadequate metaphor. A more accurate and responsible metaphor is "“speeding freight train heading towards a derailing”. After all, what else is a meta for?
1
@Ed L., have you taken the time to actually read the scientific report?
@Ed L. It would seem there is a lot about science and scientists that you don't understand.
When the U.S. outsourced its manufacturing, it also outsourced its pollution, so any among us who want to blame China, et. al, should also blame ourselves. Their air is so dirty because they built all those coal plants to satisfy our demand for cheap stuff and multi-national corporations' demand for huge profits.
14
Democrats need to far more proactively neutralize Trump and the GOP’s ridiculous “oil equals jobs” argument. They need to spend far more time highlighting the fact that an accelerated conversion to clean energy will create an order of magnitude more jobs than it eliminates. People who say “it’s about the economy stupid” are always correct. Americans on the left and the right will both always vote for jobs above all other issues. Democratic campaigns in 2020 need to be far smarter about the realities of daily life and better leverage the immediate positive impacts of their policy ideas on working people. If we want to best manage the workforce transition to an inevitable hype-automated future, what better way than with high-paying jobs rebuilding Americas infrastructure and retooling our entire energy and transportation system. What’s the ultimate counterpoint to all those rearward looking MAGA hats? America’s future is limitless, let’s build it together.
5
The IPPC has always been dogged by its data 'collection.' Senior scientists, not in the pay of the climate change industry, have always expressed concern at the way the IPCC compiles its reports and have hit out at the panel’s use of so-called “grey literature” — evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific scrutiny.
1
If we are going to seriously address climate change, we must start at the root cause level by examining the drivers of energy demand. Population growth clearly emerges as the dominant factor.
Our global population is currently growing at 227,000 people per day !!!!!!!!, 83 million a year. The impact of this growth rate on our natural resources, arable land and energy demand is just staggering.
Population growth renders secondary climate change factors such as coal almost irrelevant. Yes coal is a bad player, and warrants the continuous bad press, but unless population growth gains more public attention, all other climate control measures will not effectively solve the problem.
The challenge of population growth must be addressed (particularly by developing nations) by media attention, education, planned parenthood, and other means. The longer we refuse to acknowledge this reality, the more draconian the necessary policy changes will be.
6
@Rocky Keith
I agree and I would like to add that the first world countries have modelled (flaunted) wealth to third world countries for a very long time. Now that economic wealth is attainable to many in third world, they want what we've enjoyed. Even if people began to have only one child, the acquisition of "things" is still in all of our mind sets, as what is owed to us when we work hard. That is the problem. Money makers really don't want us to stop buying things.
I've lived the rat race and now I choose a slow pace. I am much healthier and I have less. Third world countries have been modelled a lie by first world countries.
First world countries haven't been happy since the 1970s.
3
I am not convinced that people who now believe that Climate Change is a problem fully understand the situation. I don't even believe that NYT writers fully understand this crises.
Yes, emissions were flat and are now rising. But, during this so called lull, atmospheric CO2 levels accelerated.
Yes, China is a leader in Solar and Wind. But, like their Ghost Cities, they are just sitting there unused. Their engineers at these facilities sit around calculating how much C02 could be avoided if their plants were actually being used - I'm not joking!
Yes, something needs to be done. But, it won't matter - I am not joking. First, even if we stopped all fossil fuel use today, it will take 40 years for our climate to stabilize. In other words, our planet has already passed the 2 degree threshold - it will just take a few decades for nature to catch up to our stupidity. Second, and this is the scary part, even if all fossil fuel use was phased out by 2050... 1000 years from now, atmospheric CO2 levels would still be above 350 ppm. Nothing will change. The planet will continue to be warm and glaciers and Ice Sheets will melt - remember, nature hasn't caught up to our stupidity...
Because of this, I realized our scientists were wrong and that the point of no return was passed when atmospheric CO2 levels rose above 300 ppm!
I am limited to 1500 characters for this comment. Please keep in mind that I am fully aware of the many points that people have made and more!
4
I was just in Beijing. There were two days when my phone app progressed from "Air Quality Unhealthy for Sensitive People" to "Very Unhealthy Air Quality." Seeing babies in face masks got me choked up.
5
A speeding freight train does not have very much acceleration, in fact it is close to zero.
2
Unless it goes even faster.
1
Time to move from how to stop greenhouse gas emissions to how to deal with the coming age of a warmer earth.
1
@Epistemology We have to do both now. The Earth is going to keep warming due to the current CO2 levels,
regardless. But the presence of an artificial and arbitrary boundary we have set which we have crossed does not mean that the concern is past. It can absolutely get worse.
2
Dear NYT,
At what point do equities become worthless as there will be no future value in any corporation? Who’s thinking about this, and what are their thoughts??
I can vaguely underdstand when coastal real estate will lose all value and/or become uninsurable and the same property in fire prone areas. But what about the equity markets.
2
fossil fuel use from cars is the suspected reason. let's put a higher tax on gas and oil. let's have cities make policies that limit uber/Lyft and their "dead head driving" that pollutes and congests. let's each and every one of us do something about this and stop punting it to kids and grandkids.
7
@laura
There actually are already 40 zero carbon cities around the world, with 2 in the US (one being Burlington, Vt).
So it's not as if we don't know how to do this.
All that is needed is to get rid of the GOP in DC (which means: to start having real, respectful debates with their voters on the one hand, and to make the 50% of the American people who don't vote more politically literate, so that they too go voting).
In other words, what we need to do to get there is to strengthen our democracy.
And THAT, past great legislative progress has proven, is something we know how to do too, and that especially Americans are good at.
Yes WE can! ;-)
5
@Laura - agreed that carbon taxes make sense. But look at France, which just tried to put more gas taxes in place! The “rural people” who are just making ends meet in that country mobilized as “ yellow jackets” and just shut Paris down with riots so bad the taxes were rescinded. Sweeping prescriptions may not make sense. Policy needs more nuance, and I’m not sure how that is achieved.
President Trump’s recent admonition that he won’t be around when the budget debt blows up merely confirms he doesn’t care about our planet blowing up from the effects of climate change.
7
@TP
You might be correct but the fact remains that he has a lot of people upset, talking and commenting about that and other subjects.
The fact remains that previous elected leaders just gave the subject lip service, applied temporary bandages and didn't do anything because it would be political suicide!
I have this theory that the current Administration has done more good for the cause than anyone in history because people are scared and angry. That the current President is really a closet Democrat!
I could be wrong!
Nobody likes to talk about the fact that the world's population, including and especially the United States, have to eliminate or cut down on eating meat. The expansion of animal agriculture is an important factor in the acceleration of climate change. Please Google this for more information if you don't believe me. Anyone who cares about the longevity of the planet needs to know about this rarely cited fact.
18
@Susan Costello
The red meat industry is indeed a bigger carbon emitter than cars or airplanes or plants ...
So yes, we have to urgently transition to much less or no red meat. And that is something that each and every citizen CAN do on his/her own so now, let's do it!
11
A Trump supporter below summed up the situation in the US perfectly: "global warming was on the ballot, America voted, Trump won, and Trump says that it's a hoax, so I'm driving my lovely SUV".
The GOP's strategy, for decades already, has been to try to win elections in order to get bills passed that shift the wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest citizens, knowing that nobody would vote for such a program, SO they need narratives that reject the problems and solutions proposed by Democrats as false problems and dangerous, amoral solutions.
So now that climate change is a real problem, all that Republicans have to do is to declare it a hoax, and then that in itself will fire up the base and make them distrust/despise "liberals" even more, so they get energized and vote for the GOP.
The HUGE advantage here of a democracy, however, is that ordinary citizens have the constitutional right to engage in real, respectful debates with each other. And THAT is how the majority in this country can destroy the GOP's Fake News, conversation after conversation.
It will be the only way to save the kind of climate needed in order for human beings to survive.
4
How many coal fired plants would we have to build to charged 25% of the U.S. Auto fleet if we switched electric cars tomorrow, let alone Europe, China and India. The answer is none; we would just put up solar panels and wind mills. Need to charge your car at night, connect to solar charged giant lithium battery, they don't exist but will be very environmentally friendly. See we have all the answers and we Trump so we can wash our hands of the issue by making snarky Trump comments. That sums up the comment section so far.
1
My husband & I share a 1500 sq ft house & a single car. Here’s an idea...ration gas based on need to drive(commute, urban/rural etc)) & ration electricity & gas/oil by calculating the amount needed to cool a house when temperatures reach 80 & heat when temperatures fall under 55. Meters could turn off power if abused. Oh, & no private planes.
All of a sudden the wealthy would feel the same pinch as the working class & poor...wonder how that would go over.
7
@Gailmd Rationing would only impact the poor and lower middle class. The wealthy would install renewable energy and opt out of the grid, increasing delivery cost to those that cannot afford renewable. This would also be true of gas rationing and vehicles. The wealthy would purchase luxury electric vehicles leaving everyone else to suffer.
1
Countries are starved for tax money to pay off their deficits. Carbon is a pollutant. Tax the corporations, tax the consumers. Don’t tax zero carbon products. Behavior will change instantly, and provide a necessary tax revenue source that can be spent on climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.
4
The "Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act" recently proposed by a bipartisan group of two Republican and three Democratic representatives addresses virtually every obstacle articulated in these comments. First, it puts the appropriate pricing premium on fossil fuels to reflect their actual cost including damage to the biosphere. Second, it stimulates economic activity by returning all revenues to all citizens in a monthly dividend check. And third, it penalizes China and India for their complicity by inflicting a border tax on their products until they too enact a carbon fee.
2
One of the biggest problems that climate change advocates face these days is the remaining segment of the public that refuses to take the issue seriously. While it may be impossible to convert them, a prerequisite for doing so is maintaining a credible voice on the part of the scientific community.
Phrases such as "speeding freight train" are not just "stark terms"; they strike a note of hysteria. Advocates must be aware that such expressions will be seized upon by headline writers and they will set the tone of the perceived message. The public has become inured to various interests groups screaming louder and louder to attract attention in the chaos of the media. Science must be perceived as a rational voice.
No matter how dire the threat, climate change advocacy must not present itself as just another in the vast multitude of clamoring voices. That will make it easier to dismiss. And at all costs, it is essential not to adopt a hectoring tone; people do not have to listen.
4
So let's be clear about one thing.
China and India are the major contributors to the acceleration of greenhouse gases. If these two countries do not reduce their emissions, it will not matter one iota whether or not the rest of the world reduces theirs.
Yes, among his portfolio of political and moral disasters, Trump is an environmental disaster and has squandered American moral authority on this matter. His logic appears to be that if China and India won't stop, then why should the US hobble its economy? His logic is steeped in the same moral logic as his views on the national deficit; eg, he won't be in office when the consequences are manifest.
OK. But remember that without China and India reducing, not just decelerating their growth, but reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, Trump really doesn't matter.
1
@TDurk
are you kidding me? Now you are blaming China and India? look at the data from June, when it comes to emission per person annually, an average American is still producing more than two times the amount an average Chinese is producing. And when the number is compared with India, it's eight times more! America contribute to a third of the total emission to date, which was surely a cost from it's development,(and the whole world is paying for it). You don't think it's time to do something for the world? Yes, other countries should participate too. But no matter what America should get involved
@TDurk
are you kidding me? look at the data from June, when it comes to emission per person annually, an average American is still producing more than two times the amount an average Chinese is producing. And when the number is compared with India, it's eight times more! And the projected growth in India next year is "linked to the country’s effort to provide electricity to 300 million people who currently lack it."
You should really go outside and see how people are living around the world. IN NO OTHER COUNTRIES, not in Europe, energy is extravagantly used as it is in America.
America contribute to a third of the total emission to date, which was surely a cost from it's development,(and the whole world is paying for it). Don't you think it's time to do something for the world? Yes, other countries should participate too. But no matter what America should get involved
As everyone is blaming China, India, and Africa, please think about the root cause. Air pollution has accelerated after the financial crisis in 2008. This is not coincidental. The financial crisis hugely downsized Western economies; therefore all these developing countries have to stimulate domestic consumption and domestic economic growth so they could survive the economic hardships. Certainly this has to come at the expense of the environment. So now, who’s there to blame really? Who and what caused the financial crisis that our world is still suffering in all aspects a decade after?
3
I am beginning to wonder if there is not a lemmings to the sea herd mentality going on here. Don`t. question where we are going or what we are doing; just keep stampeding toward that cliff. If we as a species were half as intelligent as we pretend to be; we would have stopped polluting this planet decades ago. It is now almost 60 years since Rachel Carson wrote her famous and prophetic "Silent Spring." While we know the disease of pollution and global warming; like an insane patient we refuse to take the medicine to save ourselves. The fault Dear Brutus is not in the stars; but in ourselves.
14
@Greg Hodges
I agree.The entire 'sea herd' mentality which drives the climate lemmings is based on entirely theoretical models which have never been proven. Throughout earlier periods of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been between four and eighteen times higher than now, with temperature changes preceding, not following atmospheric CO2 changes.
Has there been “recent” warming? Yes, the global climate has definitely warmed since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), and it will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in fits and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching that of the Medieval Warm Period. That time followed a colder period before the founding of Rome between about 750 BC to 200 BC. By 150 BC the climate had warmed enough for the first grapes and olives to be cultivated in northern Italy. As recently as 1,000 years ago, Icelandic Vikings were raising cattle, sheep and goats in grasslands on Greenland’s southwestern coast.
So where does the evidence needed to support the IPCC’s 95 percent certainty claim come from? The true answer is that there simply isn’t any. None at all. There never was…only totally unproven theoretical climate models.
1
@mark
Here's a tip: READ the IPCC's report, then read the evidence provided by the studies they summarized, and then tell us if somewhere there's a mistake in those studies, and what the mistake is and what proves that it is a mistake.
THEN we will be having a real, scientific discussion.
Simply claiming that a report can't be true because you can't believe it, and then jumping to "totally unproven" is laughable, you know?
7
@mark
Actually, the references to the IPCC report and the NCA report are full of the evidence you claim does not exist. Thousands of peer reviewed articles representing decades of broad and intense research.
So your statement is fundamentally a lie, not just incorrect, because there is no legitimate reason for you to be unaware of the factual basis for climate change science.
Please stop telling lies.
3
Meanwhile our Commander and Chief has withdrawn from the Paris accords, opened up more public lands to drilling and supported the growth of the use of coal. And were he doing all that because we were in a temporary economic vice I might be able to see his justification. But that's not it at all. In fact he drove the tax cut deeper than any Republican leader in history would ever have done signing us up for an additional couple of trillion in debt. He has the long term vision of a bat.
6
China is the largest polluter. China and India account for the largest increases. Sub Saharan Africa is the new emerging market for coal generated power. But it is up to the US to hurt our economy to make the Paris Accord work. Your article praises the 200 countries committed to the accord but glaringly fails to mention that China, India and Africa have been excused from participation. You also fail to mention the impact of skyrocketing population growth in Asia and the third world and the destruction of the rain forest. We cannot fix a problem without a thorough understanding of the cause.
5
@Mary
In real life, it's the US that has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world, remember?
Yes, China emits twice as much carbon as the US. But ... they have four times as many people.
And then we're not talking yet about the fact that it's we in the West, with our dirty industrialization phase, who caused this problem in the first place - nor about the fact that for the moment, most damage is being done in the hottest regions on earth, which happens to be the place where the poorest countries are situated.
As to population growth: that's normal in subsistence (= poor) and developing countries. Populations only stabilize when their economy is fully developed. Studies show that that's about to happen by the end of this century, when world population will stagnate at about 11 billion people.
In the meanwhile, you need FIFTEEN African to obtain as much carbon emission as ONE single American.
THAT is why we have to take responsibility here and as wealthiest country invest at least as much as Europe in order to help poor countries skip our own dirty industrialization phase and directly adopt clean energy instead, you see?
So yes, unfortunately this article leaves out crucial proven information - but so does your comment.
10
@Mary
We Americans (some of us) have this thing about self-flagellation. We've been apologizing (some of us) for our wealth and success for a century now. The current warming period is just another opportunity for anti-industrialists to spread their message of sin and retribution.
@Mary
Mary, I think you say it well. From each players perspective, the responsibility to solve the problem is someone elses. We can point a finger at the other and we can use our big brains to rationalize our prosition. If “they” had fewer children, if “they” didn’t do X, if “they” didn’t do “Y”. Why should “we/I” do anything if “they” don’t to “Z”.
As you said, “we cannot fix a problem without a thorough understanding of the cause.” I think you’ve hit the nail on the head!
2
Paris was a straighten money grab by other countries, it accomplished nothing. I’m all in favor of greening as much as possible but Paris wasn’t the answer. Also, there are geopolitical aspects in play which cannot be ignored such as steering Germany away from subjugation by reliance on Putin‘s oil.
2
This is what happens when you don't pay for what you get.
Burning fossil fuels dumps waste into the common environment. Waste that the person doing the burning does not have to pay to dispose of. That's the same as throwing your garbage out onto the street. Immoral and inefficient.
Pay for what you get. Carbon Tax.
15
@J c
That only makes sense AFTER you pass laws that distribute the benefits of hard-working ordinary citizens in a more equal way.
If you don't, you only make things worse, as on the one hand you give billions of dollars of taxpayer money in the form of subsidies to fossil fuel industries, all while then asking those same taxpayers to now pay even more in order to simply get to their workplace, and that doesn't make any sense - as protests in France have just reminded us once again.
Use those taxpayer dollars to make clean energy widely available and at an affordable cost, and THEN install a carbon tax, if you don't want to first pass laws that increase the minimum wage and install a tax on financial transactions, for instance.
But don't just ask ordinary citizens to stop working and putting food on the table just because "we the people" have voted for decades for politicians that used our money to massively subsidize dirty energy and cause global warming.
The only way out of this is through a solution that doesn't punish ordinary citizens.
3
@J c
Thank you for this. I don't drive a car, a conscious decision I've made after observing the cumulative effects of automobiles. People who don't really care should pay for the damage they do.
1
Our Coming Climate Issue: Losing Earth
By The New York Times Magazine
July 26, 2018
Written by Mr. Nathaniel Rich in which he says that we had the opportunity to save the Earth some 30 years ago, but failed.
8
Freight train? All the dire predictions thus far have been false. Global warming was on the ballot. Trump won. America voted. It is a hoax just like POTUS has said. I am driving my huge SUV and loving it, Get over it.
3
@Steve
That's totally false you know.
Read no matter what serious climate report, and you'll see how most predictions have been correct.
Listen to politicians instead of reading science and they'll tell you no matter what to get elected.
Science isn't "democratic". There can be ONE single person who discovered something and can prove it, and then the rest of the scientific community will have to follow, NOT because scientists are totalitarian but on the contrary because it's having PROOF that counts.
4
@Steve I wish I could hear what you think 15 years from now.
1
@Steve
IPCC has made predictions for 2100 CE for sea level rise of 0.2-2M.
It's not 2100 CE yet, it's only 2018, Steve.
1
These undeniable facts—which do not require a Special Counsel to certify—are why Donald Trump and Mike Pence should be impeached or otherwise removed from office and replaced by someone whose first priority would be to lead or coerce the nations of the world to save Planet Earth before it swallows up all humanity.
4
The Good News is Human Lungs
Filter a lot of it .
3
"people around the world not only buy more cars but also drive them farther than in the past — more than offsetting any gains from the spread of electric vehicles".
Clearly Ms. Pierre-Louis does not understand that the electricity used to power electric cars comes from power plants, the overwhelming majority of which is generated from combustion of fossil fuels. Of that percentage approximately 40% comes from burning coal. Until she can explain how electric cars would “offset” greenhouse gas emissions I would suggest that for the sake of credibility, she cease pretending to be an authority on global warming.
5
@tim k:
"Clearly"?
1.) 37 percent of electricity produced in the US is sourced from clean/renewable fuels.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
2.) Obtaining electricity from the grid to power your car is more efficient regardless of electricity fuel source.
1
@tim k
Good point. Let's stop burning coal for electricity.
Your comment is correct in the sense that people need to understand that electricity obtained from coal has a carbon footprint so their electric vehicle is often not emission-free. However, the higher efficiency these vehicles can obtain reduce their overall footprint compared to an internal-combustion engine, which is what should be considered. Meanwhile, reducing our dependency on coal, which is dirty in more ways than one, is paramount.
Every species that has fought the planet have lost. Guess what? Its our turn.
6
As a Dutchman living in Hyderabad, India i can tell you, we aint seen nothing yet. This is the China from 20 years ago. In this city alone the amount of construction is unbelievable. The deforestion, dont start about it. Every month, in this city, 20.000 new cars hit the road. Coal fired power plants are being build because of the ac's. Steel plants get constructed. Uncontrolled new industries pop out of the ground everywhere. People just want to have a higher living standard. But the smmers here are close to unbearable. This is just 1 city.........
13
If you read my comment you will see that i dont talk about keeping Indians in a poor way of living. I am talking about a developing world which sadly brings a lot of emmisions which accelerate the greenhouse effect. I can see it with my own eyes here. Just giving a message on this forum.
I am not the kind of person who wants to keep the majority of Indians living in a way which nobody deserves.
So please read before you write.
How when the world population is on such a tear, can these scientists not wonder aloud if there are just too many humans for the earth to breath a sigh of relief.
8
We need to get off petrochemicals completely if we want to save this human race. Period.
9
Where theres' smoke, there's fire, where there's fire, there's carbon, where's there carbon, there's Trump.
Put it out.
8
Im ok with this. The faster the human race goes away the faster mother nature can start repairing the planet. The question is: which is going to do us in first, that wandering asteroid, or ourselves
3
Donald Trump's refusal to acknowledge the facts about climate change is similar to pilots flying planes into the World Trade Centers, only in slow motion. Both are guided by beliefs that override the human mind's survival program.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds would see the survival of a particular group of people or a belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
We know this is happening, and we know we should be using less oil. But automakers in the United States are closing down factories and laying off thousands because in this country just won't buy smaller cars. They want big trucks, big SUVS.
It's almost as if we have a national death wish. We want to hasten the end. We're the Greeks, reclined on the couches having a feast before drinking the bitter cup. We know at the end of the feast we die, but we just don't care, because only the feast matters.
10
Do supporters of AGW therefore predict a hot 2019? If it is not a record breaking year, then would that falsify the CO2 hypothesis? Or would the alarmists just worm their way out of it with sophistry?
3
@Carol Gebert For crying out loud - I don't know if you're wilfully ignorant or not - but the trend is clear and the data on the hottest years is there. You just need to look. Of course 2019 might not be the hottest ever. It doesn't invalidate the trend of warming climate.
2
@Carol Gebert You've confused weather with climate.
3
"accelerate like a speeding freight train"
Freight trains don't accelerate very quickly at all, not the best analogy to get across their point...
5
Yes it is because it’s not the speed but the massive momentum that counts
10
once they get rolling try to stop a freight train it takes a long long time
1
Do you remember when Al Gore had a meeting with President-elect Trump, and assured us that Trump was listening? Not that Trump could have stopped the speeding train, but he could have been a stronger man. We need prayers now.
@Kathy M
I'm curious as to how prayers will help clean the environment.
5
It is clear from "Losing Earth" (NYT Magazine), and many, many other articles and scientific studies, that humanity is on an accelerating path to self-destruction in the near future. And it isn't just pollution. As noted in this past weekend's NYT Magazine, worldwide insect populations, upon which almost the entire food chain depends, have been disappearing at a horrifyingly accelerating rate as well.
Anyone who thinks this fast-approaching Armageddon is going to result in any change for the better in human behavior had better think again. Ultimately, it's the politicians who have their hands on the steering wheel, and since all they want to do is to get re-elected, they will do whatever it takes to avoid forcing their constituents -- businesses and individuals -- to make sacrifices. Businesses cares only about the bottom line, so leaving this catastrophe to businesses to solve will never result in meaningful change. As for individuals, some of us remember what happened when President Carter asked people to turn down their thermostats and wear a sweater. You would have thought the sky was going to fall over that "sacrifice." And of course, this week, French President Macron had to back down after countrywide riots over the entirely sensible carbon tax his government had attempted to impose.
I keep telling my kids: in the end, it will be every person for herself/himself, so make sure you have sufficient funds to relocate your family to, e.g., northern Norway.
10
@ALB
The Time's "Insect Armageddon" illustrated how even most academics are not doing the research. The long term studies referenced were performed by weekend naturalists coordinated by entomology clubs. We're on our own.
Universities unfortunately are supporting themselves with corporate contract research.
"Many nations haven’t been meeting their self-imposed targets." That statement is what any responsible nation would fear, it does it's part at great expense and others blow off their targets. China get a free ride because it's a "developing nation" and thus compliance under the Paris accord is easy " they are developing", in the same token sickening their own citizens and worst liars in compliance. How about the EU? If they are serious about being environmental leaders they would impose catalytic converters on all vehicles and ban diesel fuel engines on al non-commercial vehicles. How about importing our gas LNG fuel to replace power plants powered by coal in Europe and Asia? We have been doing the heavy lifting for decades and continue to do so - get real carbon tax scheme works well for some to profit off citizenry.
@Realist
So, because other people are stealing, it's ok for you to steal? What kind of morality is that? Carbon tax is a mechanism to pay for what you get. We could easily impose it on imported goods if the exporting country refused to comply, so there would be no competitive loss. And any carbon tax collected could be returned as an income tax credit, so there would be no additional money going to the govt.
This isn't that complicated: pay for what you get. No excuses.
4
@Realist You've done virtually nothing. The US is responsible for most of the historical emissions, your energy use per person is much higher than China/India and you're still not close to even caring about this issue.
1
@J c
So are you saying that tariffs are good?
Should have listened to Jimmy Carter.
Suddenly his insistence that people wear sweaters doesn't seem like nonsense anymore does it?
8
NYT readers are inevitably going to chew on this and moan and beat their chests.
I'm one of them.
I'm also flat out selfish: I love my little car, I revel in heat in winter and cool in summer - and my one/annum vacation requires plane travel. I'm not giving any of that up. Nope. And yet I have blood stirring discussions about the deniers - and how inaction is their fault. Fact is, one thing they are right about is that the apocalypse is coming
6
@Liz
Unfortunately, its hard to fault the use of cars when everything about our cities has been designed around their use. Public transit only reaches so far.
How could the rise in emissions be “unexpected”? Economies are growing in nations with huge populations. More people are entering the middle class and able to afford cars and travel. With that comes increased consumption of oil. To say this is unexpected is hardly credible.
3
This only fosters my cautious pessimism that I have discussed on my blog. Besides the growing co2 produced by people, the recent Camp fire produced about 68m tons of co2. Given the growing frequency and severity of wild fires from worsening drought this output can only increase. We will only slightly minimize the effects of climate change, leading to a drastic reduction of human and animal populations in the era of micro-industrialization.
Stephenfieldingimages.org
2
CO2 is just the beginning of the problem.
There is a cultural/institutional assumption (even religious for some) held by many in American and throughout the world that capital markets must remain free to set prices, (Efficient Market Theory) and that this is the most efficient way to exploit and allocate world resources and to create wealth for the masses. Global ecological sustainability challenges this assumption. External costs and positive incentives must be built into all capital market pricing.If not we are finished.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
3
Maybe we can advance the discourse on climate change by reframing greenhouse gas emissions as a symptom rather than as a cause. At this point, every scientifically literate person knows that they cause problems and they should be regulated. We also know that there are viable alternatives out there that aren't being adopted. So the next problem becomes one of figuring out why we, as a society, can't actually achieve the goal of regulating greenhouse gas emissions and introducing cleaner alternatives.
2
I'm always dumbfounded by the existence of people who are profoundly math and physics illiterate, but are absolutely certain that climate change does not exist.
When confronted with a denier, I always ask them if they can recite (I can) the laws of thermodynamics, Planck's black-body Arrhenius equation, etc. If they can't do this, I then ask why I should place any stock whatever in their opinion.
5
@oldBassGuy
The answer is quite obvious: most people can't recite the laws of thermodynamics (let alone other things that have to do with math and physics), whether you're a liberal or a conservative.
The only problem here is that GOP politicians who aren't scientists either are claiming to know scientists that claim that climate change is a hoax, and voters tend to trust their politicians - especially when 24/7 supported by Fox News' fake news propaganda.
If you can't do any fact-checking yourself, you adopt the opinion of people whom you trust, and if you don't know any scientists yourself, you follow the politicians and pundits that you trust.
That then builds into a narrative, a perspective from which new events are seen and filtered, which then confirms and strengthens your belief in that narrative.
Against, this goes both for liberals and conservatives, so we shouldn't feel too self-righteous about the fact that we happen to be on the right side of history here.
Of course, you can argue that if you read articles about climate science on let's say Breitbart, it's extremely easy to debunk them, because of all the logical errors (= not respecting the laws of logic, which should not be confounded with not respect what seems to be true from a "common sense" point of view). But then how many people were trained in reading articles like this ... ?
Conclusion: the only way to increase awareness is to engage in real, respectful debates ... as always in a democracy.
2
Methane from Arctic areas of the world are quickly being released due to average temperature increases related to our increased use of fossil fuels. The permafrost is melting. It holds trillions of tons of methane all ready to be released. It is called man made climate change. Unless we work in concert with other nations it is only going to get worse. Think in terms of lemmings, folks. This is not going to end well. We need to move now.
2
Fair is fair. In the interest of maintaining the concept of truth, I must point out that all of the evidence presented here and other sources I have read says that China and India are the real villains of the piece right now. Both nations are making decisions to use dirtier forms of fossil fuels (ie coal) to propel their economies. They are primarily responsible for the acceleration highlighted in this article. China is especially to blame as their consumption is greatest and even worse they are spreading the problem by building coal plants around the world.
Trump in his simplistic way is correct in pointing out the lunacy of the US taking some short term punishing steps while China blithely metastasizes the cancer that is fossil fuel use. A broken clock is correct twice a day and paranoids have real enemies.
This existential problem will not be solved by US and EU action alone. Simple mathematics make that clear.China, India and the developing world must step up and soon.
1
People forget that as the worlds biggest economy we’re supposed to lead on this issue and we do not simple as that. With the current occupant in the White House we will do everything to cater to the Koch brothers and their ilk. This should be treated as an emergency but neglect would be a better word.
2
@Steve Mason
So, is the problem with the U.S. population (a segment of which are deniers), or with the Koch brothers, or Donald Trump, or with the Chinese and Indians? You kind of ran the gamut, Steve. Sure, we should be leaders, and develop cleaner energy and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
We saw GM announce plant closings this week. They say they may consider some of those plants for future manufacturing of electric cars (ironically one of the discontinued cars leading to plant closings is the Volt.) The other manufacturers are all plotting and planning similar moves because our consumer base wants bigger - it always has.
Why don't we stop talking about the problems and start really doing something. Let's build a power grid that truly will efficiently recharge electric cars. Let's truly give subsidies to purchasers of hybrids and electrics to get them out of their fossil fuel engines. Let's incentivize the manufacturers to make cars that really are more energy efficient.
As the leading automobile nation, let's do something about the car parc we have. We've got over 200 million vehicles on the road, with the slimmest percentage in the hybrid/electric category. The average age is around 13 years.
Stop and think, everyone, unless we aggressively reverse this trend, and accelerate the change-over, our great-grandchildren will be talking about this issue (if they are still around).
1
'...it confirms the very clear lack of systemic action and change that we’re seeing across many lines of state, national and global organization.'
In other late-breaking news, it has now been confirmed that our planet revolves around the sun.
3
As of 7:30 AM Dec 6th there are only 4 comments that mention nuclear power. Other than geoengineering the atmosphere, it is the ONLY way to slow the release rate of heat trapping gasses.
6
The unfortunate fact is that people who believe scientists are wrong about evolution believe scientists are also wrong about climate science. The fossil fuel industrialists have invested millions in propaganda to combat scientific research in this field, and with church leaders telling voters that scientists can’t be trusted, it is easy to convince believers to vote for con artists like Trump who spout anti-science propaganda about climate change. Sadly, you do not have to believe in scientific research in order for it to be true. With Betsy DeVos pushing charter schools that want to use tax dollars to support schools that teach creationism, the supply of anti-science voters will be increased in the future.
2
@Phil Dunkle - incorrect. Serious scientists accept experimental sciences and remain skeptical about purely theoretical sciences until evidence is accrued. I have a PhD in a biological science, and a post doc. Yet I remain a skeptic of the CO2-driven temperature hypothesis due to its lack of scientific support.
1
How does this article not touch on the second leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions witch is animal agriculture and the agriculture industry in general? Reducing meat consumption around the world has to be part of the solution especially as the world moves to a population of 10 billion people. Not saying everyone had to be a vegan but even eliminating animal products from one meal a day will have an impact on these emissions. The recent claim report released by the UN covers this in great detail.
4
Global warming is a scam designed to separate me and you from our money. It is supported by people who profit from solar panels, wind generators, solar collectors, alcohol in gasoline, electric cars, and more recently (I have read) palm oil for bio diesel. These things are economically viable only because of government (taxpayer) subsidy. The environmental damage from these bogus programs far outweighs any harm caused by clean coal energy production. To submit to the will of the coal banning lobby is social suicide. It has already destroyed cultures and starved people. Wake up and fight back.
1
Anyone writing this ever seen freight train actually 'accelerate'? They don't really 'accelerate' very fast at all. Just like they don't slow down very fast once they are up to speed. Do they have a LOT of Kinetic Energy once they are at their travel speed? Yes, but they don't accelerate to that speed very quickly. Your average pinto could out accelerate a freight train.
3
In other news, Exxon lied to shareholders about their knowledge of emissions in the 70's. The global economy collapsed in 2008 that was effectively a criminally engineered smash and grab, however the other side of it was the further constrictive oil futures derivatives through which governments forecast years of revenue that they are dependent on. Citizens United finalized the decades long corporate hostile take over of the United States that enabled the likes of Saudi to get away with 9/11, ISIS, and Yemen while Putin doubled down on his reliance that played out substantially in the 2016 genius move with Trump on the end of his leash. The complicit corporate media trumpeted decency during yesterday's Presidential burial of GHB particularly in its disdain for Trump in comparison to the "decency" of the fraternity of Presidents that in my mind personified all of the above and then some. We live in the era of the constrictive economy based on hyper conspiracy of Wall Street and the mighty fossil fuel web that accounts for something like 3/4's of the global economy. Surprised? Maybe you can devise a hedged algorithm that I can short on the future of the human race. Although I don't know if "winning" that bet has much of an upside.
6
Math, people. Science, people.
Major Catastrophes! NOT. The range is a guesstimate between .5% and 3.5% BUT THEY DON'T KNOW!
Why? Because THERE IS NO RELIABLE METRIC. This is like standing at the side of the road and deciding which cars are getting the best mileage. All kinds of observations, nothing measurable.
3
The observations are, by their very definition, measurable.
1
Until the American people get out of the gas guzzling pickup trucks that never carry anything but groceries and SUVs that never go off road you can stop worrying about the rest. Same for oversized houses with a huge carbon footprint and lots of embodied energy.
We should move toward renewables, but the clock is running on preparing for the sea level rise that is baked into the cake. I am quite convinced it will be here ahead of projections as most of the past projections have proven quite conservative.
Greenland is melting at an astonishing rate and loss of that sheet of ice alone would cause a projected 20 foot rise in the oceans. Nobody can really say what that much fresh water dumped into the Atlantic would do to circulation patterns in the ocean which have a profound effect on our weather.
2 degrees Celsius seems a certainty. Here is a map that shows that estimated impact. You can enter your location and see the projection.
https://ss6m.climatecentral.org/#12/40.7167/-74.0264
Nature bats last.
8
Buried deep in the article ...
United States emissions are expected to rise 2.5 percent this year after several years of declines, and despite a shift away from coal toward cleaner sources of energy. Dr. Jackson attributed part of the increase this year to a colder-than-normal winter in some parts of the country and a hotter summer in other parts, which inflated demand for heating and cooling.
1
I haven't done enough to reduce my carbon emissions, so complaining about the rest of the world seems hypocritical. But buying an electric car is way out of my budget. The house is heated by oil. Solar power is probably an option but the roof will likely have to be replaced first. I did put in LED light bulbs everywhere. I don't eat red meat, but going completely veggie will be hard.
But I can still expect the government to do more. Utilities should get aggressive targets to switch to alternative fuels. I can handle a carbon tax on fossil fuels and will pay more at the pump without complaint. It's a small sacrifice that will directly help the larger goal. I can vote for lawmakers that back climate change action, including dramatic increases in science spending on carbon extraction, battery storage, and alternative energy tech.
On a personal level it feels a little hopeless and even overwhelming. But I do believe that on a national level we can still accomplish great things.
6
As a mother of two young children, the dire consequences of rising global emissions is one of the many things that keeps me up at night. The most difficult part is that as an individual, and as a member of a small family unit, I feel very powerless to effect any real change. I try my best to do my own small part but it is only a drop in the ocean so to speak. What is so unbelievablely frustrating is that the global powers that be are all talk and very limited action. I realized that taking action requires a commitment of time, resources and money but all we are doing by lamenting about the problem and talking endlessly about solutions rather than implementing them is cutting off our nose to spite our face. It breaks my heart that my two beautiful children, along with all children around the world, are going to be the ones to shoulder this burden. It is time to stop talking and start taking action! I realize that this may sound trite but really, if we want to save the world as we know it, that is the bottom line.
4
Humans are animals, not gods or angels. Cartesian dualism underpins our popular beliefs about our own natures, but it is false. As animals, I believe we are incapable of rising above animal behaviors. We will consume all the resources we can without any kind of concern for long term outcomes. The end game may be extinction, or at least a die-off on a global scale.
14
@Phil In this respect, I believe we're dumber than animals. Most animals wouldn't knowingly destroy the ecosystem necessary to support them.
It's time for a global accord by countries to agree to mandate a world-wide switch to electric or hybrid vehicles by an agreed upon date no later than 2030. The technology is already here and in mass production; there's no reason to wait except for the lobbying by the fossil-fuel industry. There also should be an agreement to phase-out all coal burning plants with an International Energy Bank established to help finance the conversion to alternative clean energy that would include geothermal, nuclear, solar and wind energy. These are essential. but still insufficient steps, if humanity is to prevent the encroaching climate Armageddon.
7
@Paul Wortman your key word here is "worldwide". The biggest polluters in Asia have no interest in joining any agreement. And how are fossil fuel lobbyists in the US having any effect on Asia where 75% of coal worldwide is burned? (This 75% figure is from a NYT article last month)
Even with all the scientific evidence of worsening climate conditions and abundance of knowledge about ways of mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate change challenge if the development priorities and preference of energy sources continue to be rooted in the centuries old fossil fuel centric policy mindset there's nothing one can do about the fast approaching climate catastrophe due to the carbon induced global warming. It reflects poorly on the existing global leadership and the quality of decision making that pays only lip service to the climate change issues but does everything that threatens the environment and pushes the planet and its life to the brink of extinction.
4
While individuals alone can't be the solution, we could all start showing more will, and collective action would have an impact:
- learn to be less than 100% comfortable all the time (you can adapt - humans survived millions of years without central air). Use AC less, fans more. Keep your heat at 68 and wear a sweater
- don't run vehicles while standing
- use a rake, not a leaf blower (it's better exercise, more pleasant sound besides not being a terrible source of pollution)
- bike, walk, scoot, use PT whenever possible. Give up your attachment to being alone in your car. Advocate locally for better PT.
- seal leaks in your home
- eat less meat
- consume less unnecessary stuff
- gauge purchasing decisions considering packaging - buy less plastic
There are plenty of other small things everyone can do. A mass change in mentality about our consumption would count. Simply complaining about government inaction is imitating that inaction - our collective inertia is what makes it possible for govt to carry on this way. Take personal responsibility for your contribution to the problem.
13
@Barbara
All good. The biggest single thing an adult can do to minimize his or her long term contribution to carbon pollution is to not have children, which beget grandchildren, all of whom want an iPhone and a car.
Adopt. There are plenty of children in need. Oh, and stop voting for the Oil State, i.e. Republicans.
1
Among the few comments I read I think this is the one that I can echo with the most. Tho it is our human right to have baby, I do know a few families who are adopting babies around the globe and not having their own for various reasons. Some may say it’s anti human to promote not having babies but man, how many would actually practice it? Most people would still have their own anyway.
And what’s even worse is everyone is the victim of politics. The report says China is the number one emission source but Trump is the one promoting coal and stopping fund for renewable energy research.
This is beginning to look like exponential increases in CO2 levels, not linear. We are moving into emergency territory quickly. Sadly, only an extremely dramatic climate related event will likely wake everyone up to the urgency of the situation our planet is in right now.
4
It's too bad that in our so-called brilliant headlong rush to create the modern world, with all of its cars, planes, food production, cell phones and screens ad nauseum, and a million other plastic conveniences, we failed to listen to the wisdom of the ancients. Buddha's Fifth Remembrance is particularly called to mind:
"My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground on which I stand."
15
What is held to have been a major contributing precipitating factor in the Permian-Triassic extinction event (The Great Dying) was the ignition of stored underground carbon by vulcanism, one being the Siberian Traps. This released considerable CO2 and other combustibles into the atmosphere that resulted in global warming. This is essentially occurring today albeit through a different mechanism - instead of vulcanism igniting the underground carbon, we are excavating it and burning it, sending the gases up smokestacks and out exhaust pipes. We are also seeing the loss of ability of our oceans to moderate temperature and acidity. The parallels are frighteningly striking.
I must admit that I'm not very optimistic about our chances to effectively address this matter at this point. Consider that dinosaurs lived on this planet for over 160 million years before an asteroid took them out, and that in the mere 8000 years of human civilization we have already started our own mass extinction event. Sorry about putting forth such a downer here, but this is something not easily reversed and the behavior of many climate change-denier politicians and our current president isn't giving me a lot of hope. This certainly is not the world I wanted to leave for my children and their children. And I find it hard to believe that the climate change deniers, who are lining their pockets with oil and coal industry political contributions, would be wishing this upon theirs as well.
8
@Art Kamm
What is the fundamental flaw? Attention span? Self-interest? The inability to look further than a few days, weeks or months into the future?
I changed my career 35 years ago to engineering to work on this problem. People either didn’t know what I was talking about, or thought I was crazy. For sure, nobody thanked me, or the scientists and engineers who did likewise.
And an entire industry, as well as a majority of government officials, are devoted to trashing the people who warned of this a generation ago.
People, you need to recognize we lost this fight in 2000 when the Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore, and gave it to two oil men: Bush and Cheney. I remember how Bush was described as “the guy you want to have a beer with...Gore is too stiff.” That’s how shallow the discussion has been.
The rest is history.
1
Well put!
I completely agree, but find that suggesting any course of action, even to those who recognize that AGW is a fact f life, gets a lot of resistance.
I liken it to the NIMBY mentality, except that this is NIMLS--Not In My Life Style.
1
@RB Thanks. I'm a doctoral with a chemistry minor. The science is quite clear on this and the data we are accumulating support it. I believe part of the problem is that we, as human beings, have a very short-term view of this world, looking at things relative to our life span, when indeed that is less than a blink of an eye regarding planetary events such as continental drift. Our planet has never seen anything like us before, capable of such magnificent achievements yet flawed with traits such as greed, and the creation of artificial constructs such as race and religion that divide and damage us. Borrowing from the film The Rum Diary: "Man is the only creature that claims a God, and the only one that behaves as though one does not exist".
1
One of the reasons folks are rioting in France is because of a regressive tax on fuel designed to fight emissions. The tax is regressive because it is apparently levied across the board. Thus, the tax hurts the poor and working/middle class far more than the upper 10 percent. Governments around the world are likely taking note of the rioting and accordingly may have no appetite for emissions restrictions. This will be foolish and will drive us to extinction. Citizens of all income levels will accept emissions restrictions and disincentives as long as they see that the pain is fairly shared. That means progressive or smart taxes and job replacement programs . For example, SUVs and pickups are everywhere in the US. Let's put substantial sales taxes on such vehicles unless the buyer can definitively demonstrate the vehicle is needed for employment . Let's give tax breaks to companies that go green or build green - electric cars etc. Let's give tax breaks to consumers who buy green and tax increases to those who won't or don't. Let's go all in on a "Green New Deal" and put people to work planting forests, building solar and wind power sources, electric cars and charging stations, "green houses" etc - with special help/consideration for people displaced from mining and other jobs. Go green or go extinct.
22
@Mike1968 Either global warming is a problem or it isn't.
If it is, then a tax on carbon fuels is the correct way to address the issue as we need to have consumers begin to pay something closer to the true cost of what they consume.
To call the tax regressive is absurd and counterproductive. Why should anyone imagine that low income people should have their consumption subsidized if global warming is a problem. (And the failure to fully tax carbon fuels for their negatives effects amounts to a subsidy).
It's not the SUV's that are the problem. It's the AMOUNT of carbon based fuels consumed. An SUV driven 1000 miles a year emits far less carbon than a compact car driven 10,000 miles.
The tax on fuel is the logical way to deal with the problem. CAFE standards are simply silly.
1
Science does yield a solution to this. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology that can capture up to 90% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation and industrial processes, preventing this gas from entering the atmosphere. Use of coal and oil is not bad if countries already down that road adopt CCS urgently. Obviously nuclear and renewables are the top ones for clean air and we must subsidise electric and hydrogen vehicles with more charging points etc.
The International Energy Agency has estimated that globally 3,400 CCS plants will be needed by 2050 if we are to meet our critical target of 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. That is scary but not impossible. The UK has the skills and opportunity to lead the world in this technology, which is why the UK government is still committed to investing up to a billion pounds in CCS.
We need a leader in US we can connect with who is on the same page. Right now with our very species under threat, we have a leader in charge with hotel and casino interests, who refutes basic climate science. The scale of the challenge is monumental but not impossible. With CCS, I see it as a huge step forward as part of a suite of measures. It works.
Let’s do this. [http://www.ccsassociation.org]
3
@The Oculist
Nuclear is stupid. Creating radioactive by products that will not decay to background levels for 2 million years is even dumber than burning fossil fuels.
1
@RB
Your numbers are off... I would suggest watching the documentary "Into Eternity" by Danish director Michael Madsen. You might also want to research Thorium reactors!
The impact of burning ten of millions of years of stored carbon in a couple of centuries is still barely understood. We know the temperature will rise and weather will be severe. But can life evolve fast enough to handle this kind
of change which in evolutionary terms is instantaneous. What happens when entire ecosystems collapse?
6
@Joe Barron
We are going to find out.
One does hesitate to point out the obvious. However, the fantastically high costs of dealing with the consequences of a rapid significant rise in atmospheric and ocean surface temperature means that it is the opposite of “conservative” to obstruct efforts to rapidly end the dominance of the fossil fuel industries.
8
The EU's emissions have gone down. We need to look at how they've done it through a combination of many things (thrift, solar power, nuclear power, small cars, public transportation, etc), including a cultural attitude: it is actually meaningful to think about fellow human beings and plan for the future. I needed take several flights in October and found myself wondering as I flew into various urban enters, why not solar on every roof, or at least the roofs of the ubiquitous big box stores? Come on, people, let's fix this! We have the technology, but we do not have the will....And there is actually money to be made!
5
@insomnia data - A couple of years ago I put solar panels on my roof with no money down (via a lease from Solar City) and my electric bill has decreased by about 10%. It was costing me more to NOT have solar panels on my roof. Let that sink in for a minute.
This isn't really anything new, Not to those of us who have been following this for years!
When I was born, atmospheric levels of CO2 were below 300 ppm and were rising by 1 ppm every year and should be mentioned that our scientists were raising concerns about this.
About 20 - 30 years after I was born, atmospheric levels of C02 began rising by 2 ppm every year and scientist said that we should avoid passing 350 ppm.
In 2015 atmospheric levels of CO2 rising by 3 ppm per year.
Today, they are over 406 ppm and this time next year, levels should be passing 409 ppm.
This is just in my lifetime.
None of us alive today will every see atmospheric CO2 levels drop below 400 ppm.
People who actually follow this crisis have known for years that that the yearly rise in C02 levels is accelerating. This issue has been going on for decades and can not be blamed on just one person.
Drive a SUV? Have children? Eat seafood? Home larger than 500 sq feet? Have a cell phone? Closet full of clothes? Eat meat? Drive by yourself? House full of electronics? Yeah right... the political party of your choice is to blame for everything going on... your personal choices hasn't contributed to this crises at all!
If people want to know who to blame, I would suggest looking at the image in their mirror because all of us are to blame!
30
@The Critic
Excellent comment. Let us hope that each person who reads your list of questions sees beyond the status quo and resolves to accept responsibility and change his or her life, starting now. An SUV, a closet full of clothes and more in storage,a house full of electronics...these things should be un-normalized.
@childofsol
Thank you for your kind comment!
FYI: I first became aware of Climate Change in 1976 while in Alaska when my Grandmother commented that a Glacier, that used to be close to the highway, was dying!
Ten years ago, I took my spouse to the same spot. The Glacier couldn't be seen from the road anymore!
We were just in Alaska last month during record 60 degrees in Anchorage and construction workers were working without shirts.
During our visit 25 miles north of Fairbanks, all the snow melted... so we didn't get a chance to go dog sledding!
Imagine... not enough snow north of Fairbanks Alaska for skiing or dog sledding in October/November. It snowed again after we left!
Is this not a national security issue? Surely there are billions wasted in unnecessary defense spending that can be diverted to solving this problem. Jobs would be shifted, not eliminated. Plus all those multi-billion dollar bombs and missiles will be useless when they start landing in the water.
5
@Leo
You bring up a valid point!
But, it isn't billions being wasted. It is trillions. For example, the F-35 is a trillion dollar waste and is one of the most poorly designed, trouble plagued systems our military has. It can't turn, climb or even run and World War II era radar can easily detect it!
Nest, Ford Class Super Carrier - A multi-billion dollar floating target for torpedoes and anti-ship ballistic missiles. Like the F-35, it will also soon be a trillion dollar waste of money. (Yeah right... put 6,000 sailors on it and tell everybody that it can't be sunk and claim it is a good investment!)
Next, the Littoral Combat Ship... which has the honor of being the most unreliable ship in the US Navy's inventory. It spends more time being repaired than it does cruising the seas. Plus it doesn't have a stated purposes and is so poorly designed that it would not last during a battle!
Then there are the 900 to 1000 plus US military bases, outposts or whatever they want to call them that is spread around the world. Things are so bad that most readers have no idea as to just how many countries our country has been fighting in during the past 20 years, (over 100 and that number is not a typo!)
1
Climate Change is an existential threat. Without robust American leadership, the problem cannot be solved. If we abdicate our responsibility to lead, we can't expect others to follow. The reality is that "to those who have much, much is expected".
"America First" is a satisfying slogan. But if we just take care of ourselves, we abandon the mantle of moral leadership in the world.
The irony is that if we fully embrace developing renewable energy, the energy of the future, we would enrich ourselves beyond measure. So even if we don't want to lead the nations of the world towards a sustainable future because it is the morally responsible thing to do, let's do it so that we increase our wealth.
Maybe we have to accept the fact that in America the profit motive trumps moral leadership. But as long as it leads to us solving the Climate Change crisis, who cares? Our grandchildren will still thank us.
4
Let's look at this from a conspiracy angle and what we believe to be a failure of world leaders, has been a population reduction plan, combined with ignorance and apathy of less developed nations. It's not too far a reach considering how most of the G20 governs their citizens.
@merchantofchaos
USA is among the top 3 offenders--India, China and good old USA. Those most damaged are the nations that have released the least CO2. And this country is a leader in ignorance and apathy when it comes to climate change.
This is expected. The western civilization has been able to acquire modern comfort like trains. planes and automobiles to provide greater mobility for its people. I came to the US in 1959 from India. I came by boat and then tooka bus from NYC to Minneapolis. At the time majority of people in Minneapolis had not been to NYC or LA. My professors had only one car and they lived not far from the campus so their wives (most married women of the elite class did not work) gave ride to their husbands and use the car for family tasks. Most homes did not have AC and almost no cars had AC. Now? Everyone wants a AC'd house and AC'd car. In 8 years, the same people had TWP cars, traveled distances by plane (and that includes me), And we all enjoy it.
Now everyone in the world wants to enjoy i - millions in India and China and Indonesia, and ..And the world population keeps rising. Reducing carbon emmission is a great goal but Not AT My Expense.
6
Serious about reducing greenehouse gas? Then you must be a vegan. 12% - 20% of greenhouse gas emissions are the result of meat produced for food.
I have to assume are a vocal support nuclear power. It's the only technology mature enough to make a dent in electricity generation. Wind, solar? Not for decades. Things take time. Look how long it's taken to make significant progress on cancers. First we had to decode the human genome. Same with alternative energy.
You also don't own a car but, if you must, it has to be a plug-in, right?
How is the temperature in your house or apartment? Have the windows open because the landlord sends up too much heat? Advanced programmable thermostats?
If, like most citizens with good intentions but limited will to sacrifice, you ignore these steps then please criticize less and do more.
5
@AS
The entire U.S. electricity production could be located on a 100 x 100 mile solar voltaic power plant, with existing technology. Sounds big? It is a speck of land. We have vast empty deserts — perfect for solar, btw. And we have wind in every mountain pass.
Quit selling the nuclear-industry line that renewables are “big” enough. This is just more of the same centralized capitalist thinking that got us into this mess. It really bothers me that nuclear proponents never talk about the nuclear waste. What are you going to do with it? Eat it? Dump it on Nevada?
Renewables need to be deployed everywhere. Micro-grids the size of neighborhoods would be much less vulnerable to storms, terrorism and could be operated at cost, rather than the inevitable capitalist skimming that drives up cost to the consumer.
At 71 years of age, it is doubtful I will experience the most negative effects of climate change.
However, I must apologize to my children, grandchildren and all the younger generations, born and unborn, throughout the world.
I'm sorry for wasting gas, throwing away plastic, leaving the lights/heat/air conditioning on, burning wood, owning two large cars (now down to one), disposing of edible food, eating too much meat, watering my lawn with drinking water, using spray cans with propellants and hundreds of other carbon releasing activities.
I did not think that it was possible for me to ruin something the size of earth. I was wrong. I promise to do better with my remaining years starting with my vote.
41
The article makes no mention of other sources of pollution, such as the burning of forests in Indonesia to plant oil palms. Ironically, that was accelerated by a US mandate on bio fuels meant to cut carbon emissions. Instead the writer wants to put it squarely on oil and whether or not we are in a climate pact. How about Germany and its brown coal that they used largely to aupplany nuclear? Never saw a machine bigger than the one they use to strip mine that stuff. Every energy accord we reach is simply a shift of emissions from one source to another or from a rich country to a poor one. It doesn't really matter if we are part of the club of "doing nothing."
4
How about not pointing fingers? The US is responsible for 30% of all carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere over the last 150 years. And still the US per capita emissions are the highest in the world. Industrial countries are the major culprits of the climate change crisis. We owe the world and future generations to lead it away from disaster.
1
There is a solution to the problem but it's expensive (possibly not as expensive as losing the only planet we have) It would require the major developed nations to commit a large amount of their GDP for twenty to thirty years. The answer is to shift from an oil energy base to a hydrogen one.
The world's deserts can provide us with unlimited free solar power to convert seawater to hydrogen which is then liquified for transportation around the world.
Hydrogen is the ultimate fuel as you can burn as much as you like for heating, electricity production or transport and the only by-product is water.
Investing nations would be offered the energy produced in direct proportion to their investment.
Distribution would be no different to the way Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is currently transported around the world in bulk carriers, except they would be hydrogen powered.
All developed countries already have gas distribution networks for heating which will handle gaseous hydrogen just as well as they do natural gas.
The investment would be staggeringly expensive but as the solar power is basically free it would eventually pay for itself. Oh, and there would be no more pollution either.
Personally I believe it will happen, not in my lifetime, but in time to save humanity.
4
@Ajarworks
Unfortunately this is not the same inspiration of American rampant capitalism currently in power and not even in Chinese and Indian programs. All of them, even if from opposite points of view, are giving their children and even more to their grandchildren a planet full of trouble. But this in not a real problem for them.
The title is based upon a misunderstanding of acceleration. A train can only accelerate slowly as it’s inertia is very high hence rapid acceleration of a speeding train does NOT occur. Speeding trains are frightening but they do NOT RAPIDLY ACCELERATE,
7
Only when the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change will there be action. We'll either respond to money or complete catastrophe.
5
Wind and solar (alone) is not the answer. Twenty years and only eight percent combined electricity generation. Even massive expansion will not be completed soon enough.
Look to France. 75% nuclear. Global warming crisis solved.
10
If there is a solution, it starts with sane, bold, and courageous leadership.... Chances of that are practically zero....
23
Okay, so China emits nearly twice as much green house gas as the United States AND is building coal-fired power plants at home AND in other countries as well? Meanwhile the US emitted more green house gases last year, but that is explained by weather-specific factors. No information on weather-specific factors for other countries are given.
For the NYT, the solution is to blame the problem on Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, which allowed China to continue with its coal-fired plants and elevated increases in emissions.
And you wonder why people are suspicious of every lefty attack on Trump, even when such attacks are justified.
4
@ILIVETHERE Trump has done everything he can to roll back environmental regulations that affect climate change. Diverting attention from that by pointing to other countries' shortfalls does not absolve the U.S. from responsibility.
12
@ILIVETHERE - Careful, you're letting your republican show. The issue is not that the president pulled us out of the Paris Accords, it's that he done nothing about climate change, denied that its true, and in that wake pulled us out of any productive means to address the issue. You can call that trump bashing if you want, but the name calling does nothing but create hard feelings while failing to address the issue. We need more action and less defenses.
China still emits less than half of carbon dioxide per capita than the US, and the US is responsible for a third of all industrial carbon dioxide emission to date. No doubt the US and the other industrial countries are responsible for the climate change that we experience now and over the next 100 years. We own this. Denial and finger pointing will not lessen our guilt in the eyes of history and generations to come.
1
The Pentagon has clearly stated that climate change is the greatest threat the US faces. They know a huge war is coming and Fortress America costs a lot. Dr. Strangelove is in the house.
10
Actually, the Pentagon has made no such determination or claim. Let's try to stick to the facts here.
@ Mondo google climate assessment by pentagon, then talk about facts.
@Thomas
Of course climate change is a risk, it's just not "the greatest threat the US faces". Googling a claim the Pentagon has never stated isn't very productive; as I wrote, we should stick with the documented facts at a news site like this.
The climate is changing. There are significant opportunities to lead, grow, and innovate --both immediate and long term to address these issues. Debating those who would believe falsely that these effects are not attributable to human activity is a waste of time. Especially, when the leader in chief says, “Who cares, I will not be here?”
Short term, If your city streets are flooding on a more frequent basis and affecting businesses and residents (creating other residual costs like recovery and insurance) would you ignore all that or would you start thinking about seawalls and sump pumps?
Longer term, why not work towards energy efficiency, alternative energy and zero net carbon energy sources, decentralized power production allowing these alternatives, modernized grids, “saving the rainforests”, changing energy and food consumption patterns, etc...all things that benefit US economy, national security, infrastructure, and societal needs while leading the world towards the same?
7
Let's face it, humans are in many ways the dumbest species on the planet. We'll keep dong what we do until the earth's immune system kicks in and reduces or eliminates our population. One or two pandemics will cure the problem (and ruin the economy, for good measure).
20
Here is a warning to mankind: The planet Earth will not go down without s fight. It will defend itself.
6
When this all comes to fruition I guess we will all be thankful that there will be guns aplenty. I may not want to live through such catastrophe.
4
In my opinion in order to get an uninformed and skeptical populace supporting moves which are necessary to turn back inevitable climate change the public (media) message needs to change.
Instead of talking about a time to come in a non-imaginable future for the masses we need to have a torrent of informative press mostly about the current pollution and the imminent dangers to individual health.
Uninformed individuals think primarily of themselves and about right now. Frighten them with an onslaught of the perils to the lungs and systemic illnesses that are causing them to feel badly daily and are risking even possibly near future fatal consequences. Most people are not swayed by what is predicted "way down the road" or for future generations.
Advocate the coincidentally same drastic changes needed to reverse a climate disaster and improve personal health by making the crisis mostly about immediate dangers to their own current daily well being.
It's not a lie (merely a tactical ploy), but it will get the masses campaigning for reduction of fossil fuel burning and curtailing of pollutant emissions right now. When it comes to their own health, preservation now for themselves is all that matters.
11
@Polemic-- You make an excellent point--- it is hard for people to care much about what happens 50 or 100 years from now: people care about NOW and how they will be affected NOW
1
Trump and the GOP claim there is no such thing as global warming so this is all fake news, right?
Actually, they are not totally to blame. The American people themselves are a major contributor and don't really care about global warming as evidenced by their overwhelming desire for gas guzzling SUVs and the American auto manufacturers dropping the production of high gas milage cars in favor of those vehicles is evidence of it.
13
There were hypocritical nations in Poland at the weekend's climate talks. The buzz was that all nations, except the U.S., were in support of climate change.
China, India, and other coal burning countries gave mere lip service to reducing global temperatures. The U.S. has a backward Republican leadership bent on fossil fuels and destroying life.
As long as there is money to be made on easy-to-find coal and oil, it will be done. Especially coal, cheap and in abundant quantity.
There are enough sophisticated scholars of applied science in all countries who can develop renewable energy and nix fossil fuels. Doing so provides people wth jobs constructing and maintaining renewable energy sources, and protects the planet.
But in many cases, governments own the coal and oil resources. They want the revenue.
In the US, fossil fuel companies are leasing Federal wilderness lands to use for mining and oil drilling, without regard for pollution -- the Trump administration has stripped all environmental protections.
There is enough evidence and enough urgency to force strong environmental protection measures now. There is money to be made there...capitalists should like it.
Yet countries, principally because of greed, lack the political will to chose clean energy. In the US, Republicans elected on the oil wealth of the Koch brothers and their ilk, all need to be voted out.
7
Tropical deforestation now emits more CO2 than the EU
- Mongabay 2018/10
2
The forces that are producing this destruction of the beautiful planet we came into life with are proving themselves to be resilient, determined, forceful, nasty, and full of all kinds of excuses about why this is supposedly a problem that we cannot or will not solve, and why they should not have to lift a finger to help. The forces that seek rationally to preserve the air, water, and life on this planet must be at least as forceful. Their gloves are off; off must ours also come. We can do this the easy way, but I think it will be the hard way. Once drunk drivers were everywhere causing accidents all over the road; now we jail them.
2
Can you please stop ending every climate change article with a silver lining? There's no silver lining. It's like tacking a hopeful note to the end of a story about suffocating in a closed garage with a car engine running. "If there's a silver lining, it's that the car had good tire pressure."
At this point, everyone is counting on a technological solution to this problem, while actively shortening the deadline for such a solution. We must accept the very real possibility that we won't find one in time, and we will decimate not only our own species but also the remaining diversity of life that we still have. So much for being good stewards of our shared planet.
16
Why am I not suprised at all? As a former field engineer who installed power generating plants around the world, none of this comes as any surprise to me.
And, take this from experience, please; until the leading contributors get hurt badly from their polluting behaviors, we won't see a bit of change. The corruption direct to profit motive is simply far, far too strong.
I've met these polluters, and none of this suprises me. It in fact serves as a reminder why I stopped working in that industry over a decade ago.
200
@veteran
Do you believe it's feasible to distribute power generation down to the grass roots or last mile? For example, can some private company setup solar powered car charging stations in a successful business model?
2
Here in the affluent parts of North Jersey everybody seems to have an SUV. There are more Suburban / Yukon type vehicles than I've seen anywhere else. Sedans are rare, unless they're 23mpg Mercedes.
I really don't understand it. Here are the people best equipped in the world to lead this particular charge forward. This area is flush with money. People could have solar panels on every roof, charging electric cars, cooling homes in summer... I do see some electric vehicles around, and some panels, but not enough.
Flying is really bad, but we have no legitimate alternative to that, despite some decent advancement in biofuels. Reducing meat and dairy consumption is a helpful option, but few seem to want to give them up. Or they do want to a bit, but find it easier to shrug and accept a burger than stick with something less filling.
The fundamental problem is that in order to address this problem you have to tell people no. We can't have something (certain cars, flights, certain food, etc). Some people can handle that, but obviously not very many. It's especially hard in societies like China and India where the entire raison d'etre for half a century has been gaining access to those things for huge populations.
All in all, not feeling super hopeful for my kids.
8
I have seen time and again the "conservatives" in public life and their supporters effectively claim that we should not address this huge elephant in the room until other countries do more.
That is not U.S. leadership as it has been since WWII, and that is not availing ourselves of the huge potential for economic gain that being the first to develop clean technologies would make possible for the people of this country.
If Congressional Republicans and Trump don't "believe" in the climate change problem or the science behind it, you would at least think they'd be salivating at the chance to make yet more money.
13
@Not Amused,
Well stated. Additionally, were we to creatively institute some type of WPA for clean energy infrastructure, from soup (basic research funding) to nuts (ongoing deployment of new and improving technologies), and were it to be successful, I think it quite likely (I'm understating it) that other countries would follow suit.
3
@IgnatzAndMehitabel
Absolutely they would follow suit, that's what happens when you actually have leadership at the top...couldn't agree with you more.
1
@V Nagarajan
Yes. Amazing how, whether people "believe" something or not, reality doesn't care. Scientific fact doesn't change according to our "belief" in it.
Excellent point you make.
I simply do not understand why people are failing to see the writing on the wall. I seem to recall there was more action taken to combat the hole in the ozone layer. Why are people so apathetic about this threat, which is considerably more urgent and potentially catastrophic. It is almost as if people have given up and resigned themselves to their fate. One could almost understand this non-reaction in the case of India and China (vast countries, huge populations, negligible levels of education) but the United States? If these three countries alone decided to take significant action, this whole picture could be changed. But with Donald Trump in the White House, the opposite is happening. Truly, the human race is busy playing Russian roulette, and with each passing month, another bullet is being added to the chamber.
16
@Mark Crozier
I can only speak from what I see here in the US. People are in love with their gas-guzzling SUVs. The vehicle companies spend billions on "experiential marketing" to show how great peoples' lives are with them. And the companies spew their gas economy numbers at them and customers think they're doing their bit. Ha. Add to that the "me" society that wants the convenience of their own car. Look at California: one giant traffic jam, 24/7. And don't get me started on coal burning generators. That's a whole other thing. Add to these items global over population and you have a fine mess.
8
@V Nagarajan Compared to the United States, India and China are still developing countries, particularly taking into account the vast rural populations of both countries, where coal is still a primary source of energy.
@Mark S. Perhaps the solution, then, would appear to be plug-in electric SUVs such as Jaguar and Audi and others are now producing. An EV is a far better driving experience after all... of course, by and large, they are still more expensive, so there's that. But that will change with time.
It seems inevitable that an impending disaster will occur soon with a catastrophic effect on coastal areas, on our beaches,our infrastructure. Will Florida turn into a marsh? I have read that the effects of global warming on the economy will be like a yearly depression and its effects on the environment can only be imagined in a horror movie! Yet we cannot do a thing. Instead of a 3 trillion dollar tax cut, that money should have been spent on dealing immediately with this problem and moving drastically away from fossil fuels. What a lack of political courage and imagination! We need political leadership and must demand it urgently!
12
Emissions is a very serious issue but we must see the problem of climate change in the round. A solution to the problem involves reducing emissions but that’s impractical as long as we burn fossil fuels. We also must consider how to best remove about 1 trillion tons of carbon from the air. Mechanical methods are costly and error prone. But open ocean iron fertilization stimulates plankton growth and with it the removal of carbon. It will take decades to fully wean the global economy from fossil fuels even as petroleum depleats. But carbon capture is something we can do right now and we ought to be discussing it in international forums. “The Age of Sustainability” is a good reference.
3
Are we really sure that the term "Sapiens" (which in Latin means "wise") is the most appropriate to define our Species?
16
We don't just need electric cars and charging stations. We need improvements in public transit where it exists and development of public transit where it does not (and is feasible). Most of all, we need a public which is not hoodwinked by politicians like Trump.
Until we stop buying gas guzzling cars every time the price of gas goes down (just because you can afford it doesn't mean it's the right or good thing to do) and learn to use public transit more, our transportation will continue to be part of the problem.
8
Opposing the Paris Agreement because one thinks the US shouldn't have to pay for countries' pollution is a dead end, closed-minded perspective.
Working in cooperation with other countries to prevent conditions in other countries that harms them as well as the U.S. builds alliances and gives the U.S. a place at the table where decisions are made. It's not in our interest to walk away from global leadership in this area of environmental disorder.
Surely doesn't a "business-man"-centered administration see the money-making opportunities for a US cutting edge business and applied research sector to address limiting carbon contributions to the environmental disorder that is upon us? This is a moment for U.S. leadership, and, unfortunately, our leadership is walking away causing great harm to our current and future selves, and to our children and our grandchildren.
8
@Rosemary Galette: There is so much hypocrisy and misunderstanding re Paris Accord and global warming that 1 does not know where to begin.First, it's VOLUNTARY for developing nations like India, China,and holds them to NO STANDARDS, whereas IT IS MANDATORY for us.and it would cost us dearly in terms of jobs. Second, fervent advocates of "saving the planet"preach clean energy, but do not abide by what they say. Pelosi returns home to her c.d.in SF. on a private jet at taxpayer expense, often, and when she attended conference in Copenhagen, she once again traveled by private jet. No commercial aviation for her. Al Gore keeps his fleet of s.u.v.'s and have yet to hear of him Most egregious example of 2 facedness is the number of awards for advocacy of clean energy and on behalf of the Paris Accord given to Leonardo de Caprio who once again goes to all those places which have given him the awards in a private jet! Trump is right to have said no to what is obviously a p.r. stunt. Look at the civil unrest in France which threatens to bring down the government after Macron imposed a higher tax on gas in order to force French to buy electric cars.Hunch that anti Trumpers derive their info. from the SAME WEBSITES, which explains near unanimity on climate change among the commenters."Have recommended that all the social justice warriors, including TIMES newspaper journos, volunteer a week or 2 of their time and fly out to California to help those truly in need. Talk is cheap!
This is heart breaking and I worry for my kids. I installed solar panels on my roof and drive an electric car to work. I feel personally responsible for my contribution to climate change and want to be able to look into my kids eyes before I die when they inherit a world that was devastated by their parents and grandparents. We here in the US no longer feel and carry our responsibility for the next generations to come but indulge in immediate gratification at the expense of others. It is all about self and we need a change of heart and soul.
22
I certainly agree with the President Trump regarding his tweet that Americans shouldn’t pay for other countries’ pollution but what is preventing him to take the necessary steps in America ? Is not coal pollutant ? Are not vehicles polluting ? How about factories ? How about guns ? How about forest fires ?
2
@Sivaram Pochiraju Well, we know about guns (close to zero % of the pollution problem) and the severity of forest fires (caused by liberal opposition to logging). Coal-fired power plants are no longer being built in the US. If you want to see where the problem is, check out
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
Same with vehicles and factories. The problem is not the US; the overwhelming amount of the problem lies with China.
1
One third of all historical cimate emissions have been caused by one single country, the U.S. It still has per capita emissions twice that of China. Any funds from the U.S, and from other wealthy countries like my own, should been seen as reducing the enormous harm we are causing the world as a whole, and in particular developing countries many of which will be hit the hardest.
3
It is easy to blame the distant "other" (the Chinese, the liberals, the illegal) for the present after having thoroughly exploited the immediate past. Your comment makes me think of a burglar claiming innocence because the other guy stole a bigger television set. The problem remains that the United States is currently responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the EU nations combined and have embarked on a willful path of eliminating restraints on emissions to line the pockets of a few. We have abdicated our historic role of international leadership due to greed, and are in the process of selling our children and grandchildren into a life of desperation for our momentary convenience. Denial, becoming too absurd even for Republicans, is being replaced by a new form of cowardice: the refusal to sacrifice until those with less give up what they have first. Greed, masquerading as patriotism, will be the end of us all.
Scientists have assumed that if they can define the problem and outline a solution then people will logically follow suit. Unfortunately, getting people to make personal sacrifices is not easy. How successful are most diets? I fear that poverty will eventually be the only tool.
4
Modern collective environmental consciousness began in the late 1960's, early 70's. There was a common term back then I haven't heard lately.
Spaceship Earth.
That term, that concept, encompasses a great deal. We can try to resurrect it but, our civilization is still having serious debate between scientific viewpoint and a fairytale sky god creating the entire universe in six days a few thousand years ago. We should be a few centuries past that debate to truly embrace and live by the concept of Spaceship Earth.
Maybe whoever/whatever comes next will get it.
7
Another ripple effect of the ongoing trade war is it can silently hurts climate change issues. Beijing announced last month that it will drop this year's target on reducing fine particle pollution. They cite undesirable weather conditions compared to last year as the main reason, but apparently it is the trade war dragging the economy hard enough that China essentially has to lower the priority of climate issues, and put economic growth and security to the top. This is a very unfortunate back-paddling considering they are the single biggest carbon emission producer.
Over the past several years China has realized that it's also in their best interest to avoid catastrophic climate deterioration along their economic advance. However, I don't think they will hesitate to go full throttle on pure GDP growing again if they feel threatened on a national level by the US nipping their nascent hi-tech industry. In the light of the impasse we all see now, the climate could be the ultimate collateral damage when the trade war wraps up eventually.
7
@Lee There are ways to reduce the Chinese GDP if you are serious about it. Trade with the democratic West is what supports the Chinese economy, and if the US and Europe cut off all trade with China, the pollution problem would be greatly reduced.
However, what you are advocating is for the US and Europe to agree to China's policy of stealing technology, of not paying for the technology it licenses and of building coal-fired power plants at home and abroad (not to mention its conquests of Tibet and the South China Sea).
2
A meaningful bipartisan solution for climate change was introduced last week in Congress. Dare we hope that the U.S. will at long last act to address this most serious of problems?
We need to speak up now in support of the terrific Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (https://energyinnovationact.org/) and help get it passed when it is re-introduced in the next Congress.
This legislation that would cut U.S. emissions by at least 40% in 12 years would be an extremely effective first step to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. And the fact that this bill’s design will be good for people in other ways by creating jobs and being fair to lower income households is fantastic. It would also be revenue neutral - it would not grow government.
Experts are virtually unanimous that a strong price on carbon would be the single best first step to reverse climate change. If this bill is enacted next year, it will start to work immediately and will be complementary to and accelerate all other actions aimed at the problem.
6
@Uli Nagel I haven't seen the bill, but I know what "being fair to lower income households" means: subsidies for Democrat-voting welfare cases, paid for with my tax dollars.
Trump/GOP’s climate change denying policies will turn our fertile farmlands into worthless desert. Our cornucopia of food growers will dry up. Doesn’t matter if you’re blue or red, these current policies will send America into the dark ages, guaranteed!
11
What's the best selling vehicle in the US? There you have it...
9
@Hmmm
Ford 150. My 2002 has over 267,000 miles on it. My son drives a 1989 that is still going strong. It's 5 years older than he is.
Which is more conservative, a truck that lasts up to 40 years and 500,000 miles or "economy" cars that have to be replaced every 100,000 miles or so?
1
@Hmmm you left out air flights. Of which the biggest voices on climate change are some of the biggest consumers.
Think Hollywood, think democratic politicians.
2
In these days of Trump, and the ascendancy of other fascist authoritarians, this is still the most depressing news. We may survive these new Mussolinis. In and of themselves they are not existential threats to all of mankind (assuming they are not delusional enough to think they can win a nuclear war). But this, the expansion of CO2 emissions, that's like a killer asteroid, one that we fling at ourselves. One has to wonder if intelligent life will ever form on this planet.
10
Global warming, I mean climate change, is a fantasy issue concocted by the left in order to take over the means of production.
A back door to socialism.
Don’t be surprised when the citizens revolt!
4
As long as Americans can come together in a forced day off to witness a narcissistic exhibition play out at the National Cathedral -- I know we'll all be fine.
4
The last global warming occurred about 9-10,000 years ago.
When did it cool down?
And what type(s) of man-made pollution caused it?
3
@bobj of Omaha, NE
I very much doubt “socialism” has much to do with any of this. If socialist agitators were anywhere close to effective enough to create the kind of scientific consensus that exists around climate science, we’d already live in a state-owned paradise.
I’m also not sure the following will meaningfully change your opinion since (quoting Swift), “Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”. Nevertheless, I would urge you to think more about data like these: https://climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/43_24_g-co2-l.jpg
First of all, the only reason we know what the temperature was thousands of years ago is because the very scientists you seek to discredit figured it out. More importantly, the issue here is not today’s temperature, per se. Indeed, were today’s temperatures already substantially higher than historical trends it would likely be too late to do anything about. Instead, at issue is the unprecedented and inexorable rise of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations as in the figure above. What this tells us is that, while there have certainly been cyclical changes in Earth’s temperature for millennia, the nature of the current climate change is qualitatively distinct and likely to have significant direct or indirect effects on most life forms, as there has been essentially little or no evolutionary pressure to accommodate the ongoing changes.
3
7.6 billion people. A huge middle class in China created by our desire for stuff. That huge middle class wants cars, dishwashers, all the material goods that add to the destruction of our ozone layer and environment. The loss of animals. On and on. What to do? Limit our population. If 1 billion people want cars, the earth can handle it. Not if 7. 6 billion people want cars. You love to blame the U.S. but why aren't the countries with the highest population---India, China, South Asia---implementing birth control practices? Because the world needs cheap labor. We are witnessing the reason our world is in peril. Greed.
10
@Ocean Blue: China is known for its one child policy. All three countries you mention, have a much smaller ecological footprint per capita than the US. Europe has reduced its CO2 emissions instead of increased it, like the US, where the increase is due to growth in consumption per capita. In the US, auto makers drop sedans in favor of gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. In Europe, cars are small, very fuel efficient and gas at least twice as expensive as in the US. Public transportation is excellent and many families don’t own a car, not to mention more than one. Homes are smaller and more energy efficient than here. As it is now, a child born in the US equals 10 born in India in terms of energy consumption.
4
Unfortunately per capita consumption is not the destructive measurement, rather it is the total amount of coal and oil burned to make electricity by each country or by the world.
3
@John: As long as the USA at large tops India in energy consumption, per capita consumption is very important as well, because US citizens have a huge margin for adopting more energy efficient behavior than Indians (who are mostly vegetarian by the way), without having to sacrifice personal comfort and get healthier as well. Indians can only reduce their energy consumption by birth control and adopting green technology from the start when they want to increase their prosperity. Different countries have different circumstances and approaches to combating climate change should reflect that.
If it is up to the Chinese we will all be dead from their lack of action...this is all the more reason to loose Trump from office next election. By then we will have had to stop the gerrymandered State debacle a la the Republicans. We need this in court now. We need a real EPA. All I can say is this need is paramount.
5
I can't help but see the irony in the reality that human civilisation will ultimately be destroyed by the principal capitalist and principal communist nations, who today account for 42% of global carbon emissions.
8
And yet our intellectually challenged "President" wants to start drilling for oil in the Alaskan Reserve , and does not believe in the scientific evidence of climate change- only his "Brilliant" hunches. What kind of world are we leaving for our children and grandchildren?
8
There are numerous alternatives to burning fossil fuels to produce the energy that the world needs for economic growth.
A few:
Piezoelectric cells--These devices are similar to photo- electric cells, and produce DC when they are mechanically distorted
such as by bending, striking, or twisting. If circuits of these
devices were strung on trees, they would produce electricity
every time the wind blew and shook the branches.
Similarly, large beach umbrellas could be set in sockets
in the sand; they would produce electricity whenever the wind blew , while providing useful shade. Moreover, the fabric of the umbrellas could hold photovoltaic cells, which would produce DC whenever the sun was shining. Note that is three different ways for which beach umbrellas could
produce socially useful energy.
Flexible structures like tents , carports, trellises,and billboards likewise provide potential sites for simultaneous
production of piezoelectric- and photovoltaic- DC electricity.
Other uses for piezoelectric cells include being inset into
the outside curves of highways, which would tap the mechanical energy produced by the moving cars and automatically slow the cars down without necessarily using
the cars' brakes. Further, an electroregenerative shock absorber could produce AC and DC simultanously whenever a bump in the road caused the shock absorber to
flex.
These simple technologies could revolutionize the world's economy.
arcaneone
could produce simultaneously
1
Mother Nature will be happy to say bye-bye to humans.
10
We need a 21st century power plant, and have to get away from the 17th century model we have now, worldwide. America has to lead, and if exxon mobile doesn’t want to play, then tax them silly to help clean up their mess.
6
@Cap’n Dan Mathews Or just take away the guns that Exxon uses to force us to buy fuels!
While we're talking about really smart things to do and Trump stupidly takes restrictions off coal companies to destroy more of our environment (on the same day that he demanded gas prices should stay low because apparently he never took an economics supply and demand class) can I just suggest that you, at minimum, make your next car a hybrid, if not an electric? My hybrid gets almost twice as many miles/gallon as my old car, it behaves better on the highway and it's super quiet. I've never loved a car before like this. And the price was barely higher than the standard version. Pick some ways to help that are easy right now, and then vote democratic in 2020 so we can go after the bigger solutions.
7
This article once again omits the most obvious and important sources of greenhouse gases: methane from factory farming of cows, pigs and other animals; and human overpopulation Mass consumption of these brutally confined animals is the leading cause of preventable diseases in humans, who are now sicker, fatter and consuming more disease care than ever before in industrialized nations. Plant based diet and birth control are the keys to sustainability of planet Earth.
13
France is in turmoil as Macron attempted to makes gasoline ever more expensive than it already is. All trying to do his country’s part. I felt ashamed because what is America asking itself to do? Nothing.
And we are the. Problem. I suspect some day they will all come for us when the wars over resources begin.
8
@Melissa " ... when the wars over resources begin. " A little study of history is suggested.
Australians similarly. Sigh.
@Melissa the wars over resources have already begun. It is the root cause of the migration issue.....
I was in India this year and the air was so polluted it was brown and seeped into the airport terminal. I have never experienced air quality that bad before. For those of you who have never been in conditions with extreme pollution, let me just tell you it’s not fun. Not only can you see the particulate, it immediately envelops your mouth with a metal film and burns your eyes.
177
@JWHad a similar experience while working for a year in Saigon. During the Tet (lunar new year) holidays, when most of the populace leaves town and the factories shut down, the suddenly, dramatically cleaner air made me think we'd been teleported to northern Minnesota. Of course, the extreme pollution resumed when the holidays ended.
9
@JW
I don't dispute your experience. But it highlights one of the key arguments made by those who want us to withdraw from the Paris Accord. Even though he seems to say different things at different times, a careful parsing of what Trump says most frequently will reveal that he is 'for good climate', but against having to pay for "their" problems.
"Why should the US have to pay for pollution in India?"
1. Because the US contributed disproportionately to (per capita) climate change doesn't quite work with Trump's supporters, because it is in the past. 2.However, what might work better is: Because the US has substantially more to lose than India does. We .. and our children .. stand to lose a lot more .. might work. But then again, maybe not.
5
@JW When we exported all our jobs to lower wage countries we exported not only our pollution, but increased pollution because lower wage countries also have lower environmental standards. A real twofer.
12
Yeah and meat consumption is one of the largest single causes of greenhouse gases globally. Want to help? Take a look at what’s on your plate!
10
Kendra,
I am so glad to see your writing in the NY Times. Excellent!
Climate change is a tough subject to report on. Keep up the good work.
3
We cannot fix this by "curbing emissions". Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is our last hope. Somebody, figure it out.
1
Leaders who willfully ignore scientific evidence to the detriment of the public - political leaders, business leaders, and media leaders - should be tried for treason and punished accordingly. "Willfully" is the key. There is always scope for doubting the scientific consensus, but those who deliberately mislead the public to create ignorance and paranoia, need to be recognized as the threat they are. A time of social emergency is coming. The guilt of factions in the Republican party, their donors, and the conspiracy-mongering media that back them up must be recognized and punished so that we can move forward to a period where science tries to rescue us from the disaster we have created.
2
@Looking-in Re: "punishing media:" You mean "their" media, not "our" media, right?
The report states that they used cement production data to estimate CO2 emissions from that industry. Well, Saudi Arabia is the 3rd largest cement producer in the world after China and India. And historically, it was using the least efficient technologies and fuels (oil). There is a peer-reviewed paper that estimates the effects of carbon prices and fuel price reform on the Saudi cement sector's emissions and costs: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316124047_Striking_a_balance_between_profit_and_carbon_dioxide_emissions_in_the_Saudi_cement_industry
2
It is possible to change course. Believing that may be the most important thing we can do right now.
Here are ten more things on my most-important-things-we-can-do list. We can...
1) Stop gerrymandering.
2) Restore campaign finance laws.
3) Create a carbon tax.
4) Do our personal psychological work.
5) Do our personal spiritual work.
6) Become conscious shoppers.
7) Break the taboo and bring up climate change in conversations.
8) Support green candidates.
9) Support all equality movements.
10) Support environmental organizations, especially Rainforest Trust, Rainforest Action Network, 350.org, and Sierra Club.
3
This article does not say "nuclear" or "fusion" anywhere; hence, it's a fraud. We need to decide what we would like humanity to look like 100 or 1000 years from now. If the answer is sick, shrinking and devolving, confined to urban ghettos, breathing foul air and surviving on scraps, then sure, follow the energy-poor path proposed by ignorant do-gooders and keep dumping trillions into boondoggles such as carbon sequestration, corn ethanol, diesel from palm oil, Solyndra, Tesla, etc. If the answer is thriving, enjoying clean air, water and oceans, natural food, freedoms and liberties, and a high quality of life, then the way forward must be energy-rich - much more energy-rich than the world is today. In the long term, fusion is our only hope, and we should be investing into fusion science like there is no tomorrow. In the meantime, only nuclear power is capable of replacing coal and other fossil fuels as humanity's primary energy source; to claim otherwise is criminal.
8
The problems we're facing can be fixed readily - we have the solutions. Just because we want to drive larger cars doesn't prevent us from filtering harmful greenhouse gasses and planting trees in areas where we see deforestation. We already do so. There are simple steps we can take to prevent disaster but that will not happen right away! We have to loose enough money fixing the flooding and loss of crops. We have to live through the disaster of melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels in order to get some sort of reaction from the governments of all the countries that have the largest carbon footprint.
1
No life-form, either plant or animal has ever sacrificed momentary advantage out of concern for progeny yet to be seen.
3
There are no “glimmers of hope” because so called “leaders” refuse to accept science or put forth calls for change. May God bless our kids and grandkids. I hope they forgive us for what we’ll have done to the planet they’ll inherit.
4
China, India and the other developing countries have a duty to lift millions of their people out of poverty and give them a decent standard of living, which means their energy requirement will continue to rise. While their governments may strive to generate an increasing amount of energy from the sun or wind, a major part of their energy will continue to be sourced from coal or oil.
The onus of reducing green house gas emissions will therefore have to be on the developed countries. In many cases, this can be done without sacrificing their standard of living - this article in the National Geographic explains how: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2009/03/energy-conservation/
2
It seems to me the important remaining question is, will human life be able to survive on Earth after all available fossil fuel resources have been burned? Because it looks like they will, due to the shortsightedness of people everywhere.
Now is time for westerners to understand that the asians intend to enjoy the fruits of labors we have long enjoyed; electric lighting, convenient transport, refrigeration, temperate space control. All this comfort and convenience was allowed by our dumping millions of gigatons of greenhouse gases into the common area, the global atmosphere. Now, asians demand our level of comfort and convenience. There is no reason they should not have equal electric lighting, convenient transport, refrigeration, and temperature space control.
2
Instead of endless talk about reducing carbon emissions, we should start talking about coping wirth the consequences of global warming. As long as human populations grows, carbon emission will grown.
4
For humans, the 5 steps to recovery are:
* Denial
* Denial
* Denial
* Denial
* Denial
We can only hope Congress pulls our fat from the fire. See: It works 2.25 days a week (when not on extended holiday).
I bought a hybrid car two weeks ago. It’s 10-20% more than a normal car but I felt it was worth it. You can get good prices on used ones too and they’re everywhere now. Everyone must do their part!
1
@Stephanie Wood Good points. Why do we subsidize car use with taxes. and why do we support mutlitple children with welfare?
While we sit complacently at our keyboards in the West, arguing over social justice, few realize the enormous capacity of China to finish off what we set in motion, without any of the trepidation we have.
We lost?
Seriously- we have zero chance to stop or even slow climate change.
Just look at us: we are the wealthiest nations (USA, Germany, France etc) - and even we are taking wealth before health (or even life).
Germany (I am German) used to be leading in green standards. Today we are depending with 40 ! percent of our energy from lignite coal power plants. Because in a short sighted move we decided to shut down nuclear power plants.
France - just look right now - even a slight rise in gas prices (eco taxes) is already creating violence.
USA - don’t need to talk about.
So, if even we don’t follow sane and ratio - how can we expect developing countries or India or China doing it? Wealth first - is for them even more relevant as they have much more to catch up - and thru social media they can always see what role models we have: bling, big money, big cars. Hello suv driver?! Hello hedge fond managers?
25
If there are issues with the current Climate Change Agreement let us iron these out. Just pulling out of the pact does not help anybody. The current pact was the result of a lot of hard work and so has a strong backbone on which to add.
7
Flying over American cities, there is a brown haze everywhere. The warming we already have plus rising CO2 levels will lead to additional warming. Know that your elected officials know this and plan to make it a priority to do something about it, or work to replace them. And now. Zero emissions is both doable (and the electricity generated will be cheaper) and urgent in terms of need. Strong government action is called for, and the U.S. should lead. Currently the U.S. is the major obstacle. The Paris Accords need to be replaced with commitments to funding and sanctions for non-compliance. Talk and half way measures will not solve this problem. The warming which we have now is severe, and will lead to additional warming, without taking action now.
6
It isn't a cheap or permanent solution, but the whole world should be investing in direct air capture plants like the ones already demonstrated by Carbon Engineering in Canada and Climeworks in Switzerland. The former also produces carbon neutral alternative fuel that will power any gas or diesel vehicle and the latter boosts crop production at a nearby greenhouse by 20%. We would need to build about 1 for every powerplant. Doing so would create thousands of jobs in the US alone.
On the renewables front, solar is cheaper than ever and we now have multiple methods for building non-polluting nuclear plants that don't meltdown and don't produce weaponizable waste. Sadly, the only quasi-mainstream media outlet I've seen even report on this stuff is Vice News. Come on humans, get it together. Smart people have already invented the solutions - we just have to employ them.
8
"EIA estimates that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions declined by 861 million metric tons (14%) from 2005 to 2017. ... Energy-related CO2 emissions in most regions are projected to stay relatively flat through 2019 with slight growth in India, the United States, and China."
The Energy Information Agency (EIA), a U.S. government department, provided this information. The decline in the U.S. is largely due to the switch from coal to natural gas at American electrical plants. Natural gas burns more efficiently, creating less CO2 than coal per energy unit.
The world has a problem, but the U.S. has done more than its part to reign in warming gases.
3
@David Ricardo
Exactly! They declined between those years because of the worldwide effort to change to solar and other non-pollution technologies. Pulling back now will be disastrous,
2
After reading these comments, I realize that despair and hopelessness is cresting. Humans cannot change fast enough. Those who think the problem is having children have it backwards. It's children who will change. Just like in science, the dominant paradigm falls when the old guard dies.
It's essential the environmentalists stop throttling discussion about solar geoengineering. Anyone serious knows that won't solve climate change, but it will give us added time. People aren't going to use it as an excuse to consumer more - they already consume as much as they want. Instead, it will drive home the dangerous situation we're in.
2
@Brian What dangerous situation? The climate has been changing and going thru cycles for eons. And what of these dire warnings of "rising sea levels" we've heard for going on 30 years now? Florida, Italy, Japan, all still seem to be in one piece.
Tho it is worth noting that coastlines are constantly changing, you know, form geological processes????
We need to declare war on global warming and do a mobilization like the one we did in World War II. There would be jobs for everyone, a reduction in the standard of living, and massive propaganda to produce a sense of national purpose. People would have to change their lives so as to consume less energy -- cut down on commuting and commute by public transit, turn down the heat and turn up the air conditioning, and so on.
We are not going to do this, and will suffer the consequences, which will also change our lives and be much more unpleasant than declaring war on global warming.
5
@sdavidc9 So, essentially you want the human race to collectively turn off the lights, curl in a corner and die, right? There is an alternative: invest massively in advanced nuclear and fusion power research, build enough nuclear reactors not only to replace fossil-fuel-burning power plants but also to provide enough new electricity-generating capacity to run billions of electric cars, to desalinate ocean water, to remove chemicals from the agricultural run-off before it reaches the oceans; replace nuclear with fusion once fusion is made to work. Instead of surrendering to climate change alarmism, we should aim at both defeating human-caused climate change and ensuring a bright and sustainable future for our descendants.
1
I have a 16 year old Toyota Corolla. It is not a small car but compared to all the monster sized cars now on the road it is tiny. I remember long gas lines and everyone buying smaller cars. Now the reverse is true. Everyone is buying large gas guzzling cars and SUVs. So most people are cutting off their nose to save their face. In the long run the planet will not survive all these burning fossil fuels, and our future, I'm sorry to say, is that we will become an extinct species. I see no turning back.
7
@KWW You make no distinction...what about all the Diesel fuel cars still manufactured in Europe? This is where the problem has been recalcitrant. You should see the fogs in the UK...just step outside and you smell the sickening diesel fumes. And the manufacturers...Land Rover, Jaguar (one company) and the German carmakers...Daimler Benz and Volkswagen and BMW (the cheaters) keep churning them out. Time to refuse to buy their cars.
1
Not like we can actually do anything about it. Even if the Democrats win in a landslide, not only would they give in to the pressures of big money and dilly-dally but whatever measure they did put in place the Republicans would simply tear down as soon as they were in power.
3
@Dundeemundee
But a concerted worldwide action will have a positive and measurable effect, even pulling in skeptics! Just withdrawing from the agreement with no plans formulated does not help anyone. Time is of the essence.
2
@Dundeemundee, what a cheery comment. Of course we can do something, but not if we accept defeatism. In fact turning to renewable energy would ensure our continued economic dominance and save us trillions. I don't share your outlook.
@Dundeemundee Yup, when it comes to truly solving the environmental conundrum, the current breed of Dems are just as useless as the GOP. Since the 1950s, there has been a unanimous consensus among physicists that the only long-term answer to humanity's energy needs is controlled thermonuclear fusion. Given all the clean energy rhetoric we heard from Obama during his 2008 campaign and his huge handouts to the likes of Solyndra, you'd think he would propose large increase to our anemic fusion research budget? Nope, Obama barely kept the U.S. fusion science program on life support. If we were to invest in fusion science just 10% of what we invested in the Lunar program in 1960s-70s, we can have a clean source of unlimited power in 15-20 years. What's absent is the political will to make it happen.
1
The current energy infrastructure - vehicles, power plants, grids, pipelines, container ships, etc. - is the largest human resource deployment on the planet.
It will take a phenomenal and expensive effort to replace it. Despite what some believe, there's uncertainty in solutions, too.
The only example I can think of is the atomic bomb. Historians of the period claim it never would have been developed outside of an extreme wartime condition. It cost about 1/6 of all the U.S. expenditures on WWII, which itself was enormous. Yet this investment was based on an idea that most U.S. leaders didn't understand, and most doubted. It was driven by desperation, fear that Germany would do it, and the reputation of Einstein.
Try to imagine what an equivalent scenario today would be, to cause the massive change in energy use. Instead of war, or as well as war, it may be famine. But humans need more time. They just don't have the capacity to change as fast as is necessary.
2
On car pollution and use, my insight having lived in florida most of my life, and now in germany, supposedly an example to follow, is: not really. Higher gas prices at the pump means smaller more efficient cars, but only for some. Here in germany, there is a disturbing trend (perhaps coming from the US), for larger cars (SUVs and the like). And even though public transportation is readily available, germans still love their cars, and especially diesel cars, which cost less to fill up!
Like in other comments below, it is really hard to change habits, and let go of comforts.
Most likely we will have to feel the impacts of global warming on a day to day basis to finally react... and by then, it will be too late. It is truly a mess, and the loud one that speaks and tweets is only making it worse.
2
@Daniel The example to follow was never about personal choice but collective choice. Europeans have collectively agreed to tax gasoline high to discourage its usage.
We see the same trend in Norway regarding SUVs but then again electric car sales are also taking off. I think gasoline taxes could still be set higher but not sure he way Macron did it. When people at the bottom are suddenly leveled with higher taxes, you need to offer a compensation. I don’t think gasoline taxes should be a net gain for government. They need to reduce other taxes to make the gasoline tax bearable for those who cannot change in the short term.
6
When the areas of the earth that support some of the largest concentrations of humanity become uninhabitable, there will be no free market, or even free society for that matter, left to turn to for solutions. We will watch helplessly as millions migrate north and south for food and clean water. The only other time the free world has had to fight for its survival was in World War II and even then, 66 million people died. Denial has replaced appeasement as the strategy of failure. I despair that this time failure will win, only to hasten the sixth major extinction of the planet.
11
@Jack
The sixth major extinction is upon us, but some humans will survive. If the surface of the planet becomes unlivable, a few of us (the rich ones, some experts, and some servile flatterers and fawners of the rich) will survive for generations if necessary. Maybe this is why they deny climate change -- to make enough to afford a nice underground place.
It is dismaying that such people as Trump do not realise that renewable energy would create so many meaningful jobs.
8
How many of the climate scientists were so dismayed that they sailed, walked or rode a bike to the conference in Poland?
5
@Billy This problem is not solved by personal choice but collective choice. Why do so many people bike in Amsterdam but few in New York? It has little to do with personal choice and everything to do with how suitable each city has been made for biking.
What climate scientists are trying to make is do, is to agree to make the collective choices that will reduce emissions: that may mean policies to promote electric cars, public transport, different zoning rules to reduce transport needs, encouragment of roof top solar, building bike friendly infrastructure etc.
10
@Erik E
I'm not sure that flying to Poland will somehow make NYC more bicycle friendly. btw the last time I rode a bike in Amsterdam (1971), the wheels got stuck in a sunken trolley track and I crashed to the street and was nearly run over. Have they fixed that?
If Trump had lived during Galileo's time, he would have agreed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Let's take our cues from the scientists who are qualified to speak to the problem of man made, global climate change, and not from a businessman who chooses to profit off the office of the presidency.
19
@Tony C
And the contemptuous way he dismisses the whole climate change issue will delay and even delete work needed to address the problems.
Carbon fuels are priced way below their true social costs.
Carbon taxes, to rectify that imbalance, have been clearly advocated and discussed for over thirty years now. The still-persisting, willful and bipartisan failure of our generation to act on implementing such correction -thus further cementing in centuries of disrupted climate and condemning many future generations to a poorer and more dangerous world- will doubtless rank as one of the longest-lasting crimes of human history.
5
@Sage
Yes you are right, carbon fuels are priced by the market. No-one knows what the effects of rising temperatures will be. The probability of a computer model forecasting 5 years out yet alone 80 years out is extremely small. There is a chance that it will be beneficial - everyone sites the most extreme negative outcome. As usual, Americans (and everyone else) needs to learn more math.
@mike
Change is almost never good on this scale. Even if the overal climate becomes more favorable it is most like not a good thing because farms and population centers are currently placed and built according to the present climate situation.
If Greenland became amazing for farming and Spain unlivable that would not be an benefit as it would likely cost trillions to relocate the Spanish population to Greenland and build up cities and farms from scratch.
For climate, constant and predictable is best.
1
@mike
The damage to the future economy, and study after study has suggested that there is a clear, sizable and growing net damage from human-caused global climate change, is not priced by the market. The market allows our generations to profit at the expense of future generations. Even math-challenged science deniers can understand that. It is Econ 101: common goods and externalities. Even third-rate business school students learn this. Military and corporate leaders have understood it for decades.
Has anyone mentioned planting trees to absorb CO2? My home city of Sacramento has promoted tree planting for decades. They help to cool things down in the hot climate here, as well. The county will give up to ten free small trees to every homeowner who asks. They are not fruit or nut trees, but there is a wide variety of shade trees, all of which are attractive and many of which have lovely blossoms or fall leaf color. They also have a website describing each tree, the Sacramento Shady 80, although I think there are more than 80 trees on it. Size, growth rate, water consumption, which diseases they may be susceptible to, and more. The Sacramento area, which is otherwise scenically quite ordinary, is beautified by lots of trees everywhere, outside malls, office buildings, and along the streets as well as in homeowners' yards.
3
@Frances Grimble
The Amazon rain forest is being destroyed on a large scale, faster than we can plant and grow trees. Plus insects that attack trees are migrating poleward.
4
I have a little daughter and a little son who will be roughly 20 in 2030 and I'm worried for their future. Let's be honest and face it, we won't change our behavior, we can't for many reasons. The worst climate predictions, if true, will likely happen. The massive political effort and change of human behavior that would be required worldwide to reduce emissions EFFECTIVELY is highly unlikely. If any I see only technological remedies such as geo-engineering. Is that even possible? I dont' think anyone really knows at this point. What a mess.
173
@Mr. Chocolate: Curious if your two children are your biological children?
6
@Rose yes, why?
3
@Rose
Nobody should feel put on the spot for having two biological children. Two children per couple, on average, is actually the only long run sustainable number. Fewer than two means the population of normal humans (not talking about genetically modified half cyber creatures) eventually dies out. More than two eventually explodes the population into disaster.
If you want to do something to help fight climate change, tell your children (however many) about how the oil and coal industry funded the anti-science playbook of global warming denial and its largely Republican Party mouthpieces, and how Hillary Clinton Democrats defeated Bernie Sanders, and successfully maneuvered to keep a carbon tax off the 2016 Democratic Party platform.
22
Has there ever been a clearer articulation of the futility, and stupidity, of slowing the American economy to combat CO2 emissions as progressives want to do? A slight dip in China's productivity, and they fire up another hundred soft-coal burning factories last year.
The world's only hope is capitalist-driven solutions emerging from a robust American economy that has the luxury to experiment with them.
31
Is that not what’s happening now? Elon Musk and other like-minded capitalists offering solutions such as electric cars, solar panels, wind turbines, etc?
Also, what data is there to prove that the American economy slows when environmental regulations are put into effect? Last I checked, coal plants aren’t re-opening under Trump (they’re still closing), even though he’s given coal companies tax breaks and carte blanche on the environment.
They’re closing not because of “progressives,” but because other capitalists (natural gas) are putting them out of business. What do “progressives” have to do with it?
89
Only partially true Joe. Wind and solar power development were seeded with government funding way back in the day. Many risky technologies are nucleated with government monies at there risky initial stages. That's true worldwide. Procurement by the military is another boost that helps to get to scale. Once a viable market come into view, private companies jump on board. That's a good thing.
A second point is that carbon-based fuels are discounted by not recognizing their enormous external costs. If you paid those costs at the pump, alternatives would emerge much sooner.
74
@DParent
Europe has as twice higher gas prices as US. So such incentives works perfectly well leading to decreased their energy consumption: fewer trucks or big cars but small and economical. Also, Europe is far ahead in house energy conservation while America didn't have such standards and people loose their heat. They have times more solar panels also. Smart incentives.
47
Once it is clear how not only incredibly necessary but also abundantly profitable it will soon be to develop the alternative fossil-fuel green economy, and tech truly gets behind it, it will cause an unstoppable momentum. The question is are we too late and can this train outpace the carbon one?
We need all our forward thinking, innovative minds on this task NOW. This is (yet another) wake up call. Let’s go, let’s do this, our ancestors and future generations are waiting and watching, pulling for us, hoping and praying this planet is still an option for incarnation.......
The denial that’s currently in vogue and informing our misguided decision-making will soon be untenable, as we are being forced to look at and acknowledge the deep hole we’re in.
Articles and forums like this are just the beginning.
113
@Jonathan "The question is are we too late and can this train outpace the carbon one?"
I can admire your enthusiasm and good intentions, and I have shared them, but given the political and human-psychological obstacles that reveal their immense nature every year, what if the likely answer to this question, right now, is: "Yes, it is too late"?
"The denial that’s currently in vogue and informing our misguided decision-making will soon be untenable, as we are being forced to look at and acknowledge the deep hole we’re in."
I see no evidence that it will "soon be untenable" but, rather, that things are well past that point.
Yes, there is and has been a deeply ignorant and self-centered denial of human driven climate change. But as the evidence rolls in and the emissions only climb, I see nearly as much denial about just how deep the hole is from those calling only for strict measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
To extend the hole analogy, you cannot fill in a Florida sinkhole using a shovel and with most people just watching you try.
1
@Jonathan
Agree completely. One such tech is carbon capture and storage on existing fossil fuel plants in the developing world. This stops co2 going into the atmosphere and we have this tech already. My letter is somewhere down the queue!
http://www.ccsassociation.org
As the article notes, US greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise modestly this year - less than the global average - after several years of declines. The declines in previous years weren't due to Obama administration policies, but were in spite of his policies. Declines were due to the increased used of natural gas produced from fracking. Last year the US decreased carbon emissions by 0.5% while the EU increased by 1.5%
The increase in the US this year is likely due to a booming economy, which uses more energy and produces more greenhouse gases. And this is the conundrum faced by climate change advocates - economic growth requires fossil fuels, and reducing the use of fossil fuels impedes growth. Just ask the "yellow vest" protestors in France.
32
@J. Waddell Methane is the principal component of natural gas. Methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas than carbon dioxide. --various sources
23
@HLB Engineering
The methane is burned, resulting in in CO2 and H2O.
5
@J. Waddell, fossil fuel enjoys a temporary advantage, but if the U.S. wants to lead the world economy in the 21st century we need to invest in renewable energy. Since continued use of fossil fuels and resulting warming will result in a 10 percent drop in GDP by the end of the century (according to the latest government report) no one can seriously argue that fossil fuels will sustain economic growth into the future, nor that they will improve wages.
The economic growth argument no longer holds water.
12
What's unexpected? You lower the price of something like oil and people will consume more. You raise the price and they consume less. What's needed is the political will to impose a carbon tax (a pollution price is what our federal government is calling it) and then rebate it back to people so that they consume less carbon and have more money to spend on other things like bikes or public transit.
The rebate makes it tax neutral but people feel the impact and change their behavior. Stop that train and get it heading in the right direction.
247
@SMC
Whilst in principle I agree, this would destroy the already poor rural Americans who rely on driving long distances to earn a living. It would also decimate long haul trucking and trigger a major spike in food costs. We can only take so much from the people at the bottom. They have already had their wages and benefits plundered by corporate greed. Aggressive investment in alternative energy is needed, laws passed to ban car production that doesn't meet strict environmental targets, and a spate of other creative solutions, including a carbon tax, on those who live in areas where alternative solutions are available.
12
@SMC Well we see how that worked in France. Regressive taxes don't care about consumption needs.
We need to move to clean energy fast.
7
@SMC I have to agree with you on the carbon tax but like anything else it's not all that simple. Transportation is just one piece of the problem. Our meat intensive diet, the trend toward enormous, energy guzzling houses and the ever growing need to heat and cool these houses in the face of longer hotter summers and in some places colder longer winters.
Right now I'm down here in Port Arthur Texas, the spiritual and physical home of the U.S. petrochemical industry, where climate change is a dirty word despite the fact that nearly everyone was flooded by Hurricane Harvey last year.
Nearly everyone here works for, used to work for, or knows someone who works for, one of the refineries. Gas here is dirt cheap--under two bucks a gallon.
Most of the people here are not rural. Electric cars would work just fine for them for daily use but I haven't seen one hybrid or, God forbid, electric car. I imagine that anyone who bought one would be laughed out of town. It's a mindset but it's also a lifestyle.
Ordinary people have a great deal at stake here and so it's easy to accept the lies that global warming isn't happening. It's also easy to point the finger at members of the liberal elite who want THEM to change their way of life but have no intention of changing their own.
Somehow our leaders have to find a way to convince folks like these not only that they face disaster if they don't adapt but that changing will lead to a better life for them and their children.
6
The nations will keep on ignoring all evidence of climate change ; most don't care by denying it until it becomes too late . If the recent fires , the unseasonable storms and floods , temperatures and increased humidity due to evaporation and melting of ice doesn't convince those in denial , nothing will . I feel it will be sooner than 2040 . The lure of consumerism , especially in China and India and our own country is strong ; who cares about tomorrow and the extinction of other species . Population displacement has already begun due to prolonged drought in third world countries . That brand new SUV is what everyone wants ; there is a reason why Ford will no longer make sedans . Welcome to accelerated climate change .
6
Effective policy is what is most needed. The most important challenge is how to decarbonize the system and we need to have more wind, solar, and nuclear power, as well as carbon capture as we move away from using fossil fuels, and use more fuel efficient cars.
4
The usual warning that we have another 10 years to change course, make drastic changes to the way we consume energy so we can avoid catastrophic environmental changes, isn’t relevant anymore.
We know that it has been too late for a while now and we can only hope that consequences won’t be too dramatic.
But seeing how life, insects, fish and other animals is vanishing from earth, it is a worrisome sign that this planet might not be suitable to live on anymore very soon.
Unfortunately we don’t have a planet B to escape to .
3
@Gwenael, if by too late you mean that we're already experiencing the results of global warming, I agree. But it can get worse--a lot worse. It's not too late to mitigate the most disastrous consequences.
@SandraH.
Too late means that the science predictions for what will happen in the next decades in terms of rising temperatures and oceans is in my opinion a done deal .
How are we going to prevent China from overtaking us if we tie our hands with environmental restrictions? They burn all they want. What's the point of conserving on our end when their pollution blows over here? At least, if we pollute as much as they do, our pollution will prevent their pollution from dominating our view.
1
@Bill, China is investing in renewable energy technology with the goal of becoming the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. If we lose the race in energy technology, you won't have to worry about China overtaking us--they'll lead the world's economies.
1
Perhaps not the best course.
I haven't come across many instances in the history books where it was the defeatists who won in the end.
Ir looks like only catastrophic events will force changes in behaviour by people. Politicians and governments outside Europe are only focusing in short term gains.
10
It’s no mystery why oil use is going up. Prices have been going down thanks to big oil’s success in making the US a top oil producer- unimaginable folly given our ever more chaotic weather patterns.
3
Thanks for this report. Kinda gloomy for our species. One place that must be measured carefully are the emissions from the thawing Arctic permafrost and the impact of ocean acidification on the food chain. In short, the priority is urgent.
I strongly believe that the International community can agree to give priority to creating a source of very cheap electricity. With cheap electricity, the market can easily electrify logistics transport, agriculture and personal travel, we also can create billions of gallons of desalinated water and we can build millions of machines to scrub the atmosphere of carbon dioxide. For those who must fly we can synthesize jet fuel from air and water.
One version of an idea for cheap electricity is described by Dr. James Powell in his book "Spaceship Earth" in which a very cheap payload launch system can be used to Maglev launch thousands of solar PV satellites to beam microwave energy to antennae fields wherever there are populations on Earth. The wholesale price is about 2 cents per kilowatt hour which is very very cheap and electricity this cheap will essentially change the flow of capital investment very quickly.
Good news. the World Bank will invest $200bn to combat climate change and Powell's et al will have their proposal before them.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/03/world-bank-invest-climate-change?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
Our problem will be to redirect the fossil fuel employees to a decent future life.
3
So how many people are really willing to stop driving or at least to limit how often they do. Everyone seems to drive themselves somewhere; one person per car or, more likely, a big truck or an suv. 5 1/2 years ago, I sold my small Ford Ranger and bought a touring bicycle with lights and panniers and now commute mainly using my two wheels or my two legs. So are we Americans really willing to change knowing the consequences if we don't?
13
@Suzanne Custer: I commute 35 miles a day, each way, so bicycles are not an option for me. However, I just took posession of a Tesla 3, soon to be charged at home solely from solar. Over 5 years, I calculate the cost to be the same as a Honda Civic, it's just that the initial outlay is much more. But the driving experience is certainly not the same as Civic. The Tesla 3 AWD experience is simply amazing, 0-60 mph in 3.3 seconds. It is really a sports car. I will never go back to a gas car after only two days of driving this wonder.
15
@Suzanne Custer Yes! I am changing! I'm taking fewer plane trips. I think twice about it because of global warming. I leave my Prius parked and I walk as much as I can (I did that today, actually). I eat plants, not meat (although clean meat is coming). I buy less, much less. I want to slow this machine.
19
@Suzanne Custer
I have Prius to drive which is efficient compare to rural favorites SUV and trucks. And working on the garden to grow some of the veggies and berries. To keep it I have conserve my water and carry it from the kitchen outside to CA draught soil. Every drop count, right?
1
this article rightly seems to be changing the emphasis from "The Planet" to "Global Human Infrastructure"
"The Planet" has survived much worst than us, and eventually will recover
but there has never been at anytime anything close to our "Global Human Infrastructure" - its survivability [ and our current economic basis ] is what is in danger
10
Humans will not stop burning fossil fuel until there is no more fossil fuel. Our only hope, therefore, is to adjust to that inevitability, a probable outcome, I believe, despite our country's obsession with voices brainwashed by the far left and right.
Either way, don't worry. The earth will survive until long after the Sun explodes. It will do fine without us.
@Pete Perkins, how do you propose adjusting to climate catastrophe? We're talking about the catastrophe on a much larger scale than we see now.
Don’t we owe something to the other forms of life on earth? Or is it all about humans? You seem to think so.
1
The ability to marshall all the Nations of the World to reduce emissions is done simply by cracking down on China, the US, India, and Europe which represent 60% of all carbon emissions in the World.
In other words, reducing emissions to stave off calamitous climate change scenarios is virtually impossible. The apocalypse of Armageddon will become the mother of change, not agreements between Nations.
6
Sadly it’s too late to stop 2C. Maybe we can delay 5C, but doubtful.
Imagine sitting in a 100F apartment with disposable income and a smart phone watching people like you in AC bliss. What would you do? Probably buy an AC - I did, in 1990.
Imagine sitting in your now air conditioned apartment with still more disposable income watching videos of people like you traveling to really interesting places, in a car. What would you do? Probably get a car. I did, in 1988.
Imagine sitting in your air conditioned apartment, car in the garage, and watching videos of people like you flying all over the planet to exotic places you want to visit. You still have disposable income. What would you do? Fly.
Chances are many reading this have heat and/or AC, a car and have flown in a jet. The genie is out of the bottle, pandora’s box is wide open - everyone wants comfort, mobility, new experiences. Nearly a billion more people will have resources for these 1st world choices in 20-30 years. Essentially the number of US middle class capability could quadruple globally in the next generation, concomitant with increases in greenhouse gases.
The reality is that the equation toward a better life for millions in China, India, Africa, and the rest of the developing world involves burning more fossil fuels. By the time that equation shifts most fossil fuels will have been exploited for profit and ejected into the atmosphere. The beacon of a better life is the light of an oncoming Freight Train.
30
@Mark Nicely stated and spot on analysis-thanks. Took the words right out of my mouth. The most radical and profoundly effective thing anyone can do about the problem personally is to NOT produce children.
2
@Susan Anderson - you raise an excellent point - as we properly memorialize a strong leader, this week, considering current climate change announcements, we should also herald George H.W. Bush's environmental leadership:
https://www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/economy/george-h-w-bush-understood-that-markets-and-the-environment-werent-enemies?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHCAFYAYABAQ==#aoh=15440722768996&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From %1$s&share=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/george-h-w-bush-understood-that-markets-and-the-environment-werent-enemies
3
What if we didn't have the scientific knowledge and tools to measure and predict climate change and forecast the effects of it? Animals don't. Some adapt or migrate and survive, some don't. I suspect for all our knowledge and intelligence, it will be that way for humans too. Wealth and weapons will determine who survives and who doesn't.
5
@abigail49 And animals become extinct also. That is the most likely outcome with BAU. The problem isn't just the resilience of humans, who have not experienced wet bulb temperatures in this zone, but rather the food supply.
And at some point, wealth as we think of it will be a nonissue too. Before extinction, humanity's quality of life will rapidly deteriorate due to planetary chaos. But you're right: in the short term, wealth will insulate people from most of the consequences. I have several back up plans myself.
1
Donald Trump, because of his refusal to lead in this global crisis is putting this planet on a dangerous course. In the lifetime of our grandchildren/great grandchildren there may very well be a huge migration all over the globe because of floods, fire, drought, and lack of food. That Trump has regressed in the progress we have made with fuel efficiency, that regulations of protecting our water and food supplies is weakened because of Trump's bending to polluting industry is unconscionable, and the list goes on........
The 21 Trillion dollar debt his tax cut will make worse losing needed revenue for our country to survive the economic chaos that is sure to come doesn't phase him. It never has. He once said he was the "King of debt."
9
@Diane
Indeed. And I give him lots of credit for massive criminality across the board as he has worked so very hard to deserve. BUT, "Trump", in less than 2 years, has done not much to make the problem what it is and what it is becoming. Lots and lots of all of us all over the world have been working on that for decades and decades. Don't get me wrong, he certainly ain't helping, but the problem is bigger than even his ego. Much, much bigger. So I can't give him credit, even as much as that would be appealing.
6
@Matthew. You are correct. It’s very popular and wrong to think that trump overnight is the problem.the problem is 7.8 billion humans growing at 80 million per year. Until we come to our senses and pull our heads out of the sand and acknowledge the reality of over population we are wasting our time. Ez and smugly self righteous to blame trump but in reality HRC or BHO it makes no difference.
3
@Matthew
Certainly, I did not mean to infer this crisis was because of him, that would be ridiculous. However, I do put on him the deleterious regression, the halt of meaningful leadership and will to promote even a modicum of concern with a real focus on solutions.
Time for ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles) to replace fossil fuel driven ones now; and time to end fracking now. Which means regime change is needed now to combat and hopefully overcome the existential threat of climate change.
5
@Buckeye
If you are concerned about climate change, why do you want to end fracking?
Most of the decrease we saw in US carbon emissions was due to a transition from coal to natural gas power plants. While I supported Obama's clean power plan, the reality is that most of the transition happened because the price of natural gas dropped from around $8 to $2. Why did the price of natural gas drop? Because of additional supply from reserves tapped by hydraulic fracturing.
In fact, it is technologies developed by the oil and gas industry- namely directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing- that have had the biggest positive impact on the United State's carbon footprint.
We have so much natural gas that China now imports giant tankers of liquified natural gas produced by American ingenuity.
But natural gas is only a step in the right direction. We need to get real about transitioning to a zero carbon future.
Probably the best investment anyone can make in protecting our future is not buying a Tesla- it's educating yourself about the energy policy. Only once we cast aside prejudices and political tribalism can we begin to see the facts and make informed opinions.
2
Specious Republican reasoning. But the Tesla and stop eating animals are the two most important things people can do to address this problem. I've done both.
1
Hi @ JCX,
Driving an electric car has a very modest impact on your overall carbon footprint. I don’t know where you live in Reality USA, but if you live in West Virginia driving an electric car actually results in MORE GHG emissions than driving a gas car, because the electricity grid there is dependent on coal. If you live in Washington, which is blessed with lots of hydro power, driving an electric car is significantly cleaner than a gas car, however its still a small part of your overall carbon footprint.
There used to be a convenient calculator on the EPA’s website but last I looked I couldn’t find it. You can compare electricity grid carbon intensities of different states and countries here: electricitymap.org
I’ll reiterate that the most important thing anyone who claims to be concerned about climate change can do is try to educate themselves about energy policy. I realize not everyone is fluent with numbers but you have to spend time with the numbers before you can begin to talk about solutions intelligently.
Its funny- this might be the first time someone has called me Republican. Facts are by their nature non-partisan. Please try to rise above political tribalism. Its tearing this country apart and lowering the collective IQ of our conversations to the second grade level.
1
I may think my carbon print is light because I ride a bike everywhere. But just one trip by car destroys my "budget".
A homeless person in America exceeds the average global carbon footprint just by using the few services they use, the fast food they eat.
In Carbon Ideologies William Vollman constantly asks "what was the work for?" By 'work' he means that convenient energy that spews forth from every outlet in your home, the easy transportation with the press of an accelerator.
2
@Pete, we only need to link work and emissions if we consume fossil fuel to perform that work.
What's the "greenest" city in the U.S.? Not Palo Alto, not San Francisco, but Chicago, IL, where 85% of electricity is generated by carbon-free nuclear fission.
If you're riding your bike in Chicago, and you're powered by the Chilean asparagus you ate for dinner (imported by air), the energy required to get you from Point A to Point B is responsible more carbon emissions than driving an electric car instead. Carbon footprint is funny that way.
1
@BobMeinetz, if only Chicago were powered by nuclear fission, our problems would be solved. We would have an endless source of cheap renewable energy without the messy meltdowns. Unfortunately I think you mean nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fission is not yet a practical technology for energy, although a number of U.S. labs are working on the problem. It doesn't seem to be a prospect in the short term.
@BobMeinetz
Bob, I'm sure the mention of nuclear anything makes some people shudder. Steven Pinker in his Enlightenment Now thinks we're not going to get through this without nuclear. I may grow most of my produce in my backyard and buy the rest at a local farmer's market well aware of the carbon debt of getting it there. My point is that in spite of best efforts, just one foreign vacation or one child or ... and all my efforts are outweighed.
And Vollman's "work" doesn't refer to employment, but the work done by the energy whether renewable or not.
1
Trump: "the Paris Agreement was “fatally flawed” because its system of voluntary pledges let other countries off the hook, adding that “American taxpayers — and American workers — shouldn’t pay to clean up others countries’ pollution.”
The U.S. is more responsible for global warming than any other country in terms of cumulative CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, not to mention cumulative heat pumped from AC, autos, industry, power plants, heat islands, lessening the albedo effect and more, and shrinking the lungs of the planet on the other end with deforestation and pollution to satisfy our consumption. It's our mess more than anyone else's, Mr. Trump.
13
One thing we need is for cities to be constructed so that people can easily use public transportation and not face long driving commutes. This should probably include ensuring that most jobs are not concentrated in a handful of large US cities.
15
@Frances Grimble
LOL, sure, that's easy! We can get that done! Not much that would need to be done! Rome wasn't built in a day, we got lots and lots of time....oh, wait...oops. Well it was a good idea anyway.
1
I was dismayed to read that the reason GM was closing some plants is because trucks and SUVs, which consume far more gas, sold better than sedans. ‘Cheap’ oil means that Americans still haven’t learned their lessons.
81
@lm I have a large pickup truck that I use to drive to the park and ride to take a commuter bus to NY each day. Last year a deer came out of nowhere and ran into the side of my truck and really messed up the passenger side door and front fender. If I had been in my Honda the car would have sustained way more damage. I was only going 25 mph when the deer ran into me. I feel safer in my truck and I usually drive under 7,000 miles a year. It also comes in handy when I have to bring stuff to the recycling place or pick up something from Home Depot. It is also 4 wheel drive so I don't worry as much about getting home when there's a bad snowstorm.
Three weeks ago I had another accident, I was driving to NYC on a Saturday very early at 3 am to go to work before the bus started running and a small Toyota sedan cut me off before I was about to enter the Lincoln Tunnel. I was doing the speed limit and had to brake hard to attempt to avoid hitting the car but the front of my truck's headlight and bumper impacted the car's rear bumper. Luckily I am a careful driver who drives within the speed limit and no one was hurt. There are plenty of people out there who drive like maniacs those are the ones I am afraid of! I like my Honda which is over 12 years old but I mainly use it for short trips to the local store. I don't really feel that safe in it when driving on the highway going over 65 mph. I read the stories in my local paper and people die in these small cars in accidents a lot.
3
@Sam C.
Car mass, size, and safety are not so clearly related.
The larger your car, the more likely to get in an accident.
The more mass your car, the less physical harm you sustain.
For some reason, however, that's mainly true in multi-car accidents.
The relationship is also blurred because people drive big cars differently, for whatever reason.
For the most part, all cars have been getting safer. Before cell phones skewed the data, car fatalities went down year after year. That's due to testing that examines whether humans survive crashes, not whether the car does.
4
@lm
Face it, humans just don't care.
1
The moonshot proposed by JFK in 1961 was accomplished in less than a decade.
We can accomplish great things when we put our minds to it . . .
can it be that making that impossible traverse through cold, dead space and landing on a distant rock hurtling through space was an easier feat than changing the mindset of the greedy billionaires who control our energy production?
16
@D.A.Oh
The "moonshot" was a cakewalk in comparison. Plus that picture of Beijing might help you understand that is it not just a US problem. We are dependent on striving economies to pull back. Economies that represent 1/3 of the earth's population between China and India alone. LOOK at that pic: they want to be US, all wanting cars, and not just cars, but like US, big cars/SUVs. They have no intentions of doing so, and we being US cannot blame them for wanting to have what WE have.
So WE could do stuff (well, not really) and it still would not change outcomes.
4
Carbon dioxide emission causes:
1) Increased biomass
2) Greater biodiversity
3) Improved crop yields
It has virtually no impact on global temperatures or climate.
The people get this. Their leaders do not.
It will be fascinating to watch this conflict work itself out!
5
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. You simply are not paying attention to what is happening. Biologically, carbon dioxide could increase plant life but the temperatures are rising too fast to not affect the existing biomass negatively.
36
@Steve MD
I am a retired Air Force weather officer who studied meteorology at NYU and MIT. A knowledge of quantum physics is required to understand the infrared properties of water vapor and CO2. Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas but is uncontrollable. CO2 is a close second. We can control carbon dioxide to a limited extent. Your assertions are denied by the laws of physics.
7
You both might be missing that if we need to eat one carrot now to get the nutrients, we are likely eating four very soon to get the same nutrients. MD. So what.
1
The day of reckoning is upon us. Such tragedy awaits those who will follow us and our depraved indifference. Maybe I am being over-dramatic, perhaps. But the science seems to point to the worst case now being more likely than not.
What will it take to seize this our last chance? It will take a recalibration of the world economy, we have to address this as one. Carbon capture will have to become profitable and massive. Reforestation will have to funded by all. Carbon free energy paid for by taxing carbon out of use.
Saving the planet will have to become job one world wide. Good luck with that.
20
@steve Carbon capture, that's a good one. Like intellectual design.
Predicting global warming may be even harder than it has been. Coal releases particles which actually reduce the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere. Cleaning it up could accelerate warming.
Getting control of activities by man that are affecting the concentration of greenhouse gases may have to require a strict regimen that sets objectives that everyone must follow.
Meanwhile, this nonsense about the U.S. being exploited by other nations doing less has got to stop. The risks to world from extreme climate change is just too great to play those kinds of games.
7
@Casual Observer
Meteorologists are full fledged scientists who examine anything and everything that can influence our climate, including solar radiation and the reflectivity (albedo) of the earth and atmosphere.
Except that much of the "cooling" sulfur is and has been captured with modern (since the 1980s) scrubbers.
@Casual Observer Great. We can all celebrate darkness at noon while rapidly dying off from exposure to heavy metals and fly ash.
What is really interesting, and no one mentions much, is the fact that the fate of the planet is no longer in the American hands. We could cut our emissions to zero, and still deal with 4C by the end of the century if China and India continue business as usual.
Another interesting fact is sea level rise. It is projected to be an S curve. We are at the very beginning of an exponential. Lots of uncertainty. If we get to 36” of sea rise by 2100, 10” of that will happen in the last 15 years. Then there will be another 10” by 2110. Crazy stuff, like a fire tornado is crazy.
5
@Aleks Totic
China and India both signed the Paris Agreement and are committed; Trump took the U.S. out, as you know. These countries have huge challenges, no doubt, but they are addressing them.
"China seeks to establish itself as a world leader in renewable energy and energy efficiency. They’re already the world’s largest clean energy investor with $103 billion in 2015 – a third of all global renewable investment – with the U.S. a distant second at $44 billion. Meanwhile, India has undertaken a ‘national mission’ to deploy solar energy in cities and villages across the country — committing already to 175 gigawatts by 2022. That’s equal to about 200 coal plants!"
5
It would be refreshing to read an article about how a reasonable family can begin planning for the worst- 3 months of rations and medicine, 6 months , years. What is realistic and what’s a pipe dream.
I for one recently found out that a can of spam can last 35 years and that’s good to know if the government shuts down and we’re living in a Carnac novel like The Road, I hope it doesn’t come to that but we will begin stockpiling food water medicine and games to keep the boredom at bay, but there also is part of me that thinks we will need guns and a 24/7 watch to make sure the undesirables stay at home.
4
@Ted Siebert, it sounds like you're planning for a movie script, not a climate catastrophe. It won't do any good to stockpile rations and guns--you'll only throw the spam out eventually, and the guns won't help you in a fire or flood. Some billionaires plan to sequester themselves on their own private islands, but that won't help either if the islands are underwater.
There's no way to avoid death by survivalist planning, but chances are the worst catastrophes will happen in your grandchildren's lifetime. The only realistic way to protect your grandchildren is to address climate change through collective (government) action.
More things are interrelated.
We could reduce driving distances by other choices in housing availability nearer work, or work nearer housing, and by stepping back from the delivery driving of doing everything "just in time" to hold down inventory costs by increasing transportation miles.
We could reduce emissions of ships at sea, a huge source in total, by reducing the shipping of items back and forth around the globe for labor arbitrage. Example: The British fishery in the Irish Sea sends the fish to China to be cleaned, then ships them back to Ireland for sale. Other examples are the way electronics are assembled from parts shipped around and around, and aircraft from parts made on different continents.
There is a lot more that can be done. Heating and cooling is done wastefully, from the source of energy, and from the use of more energy instead of heat pumps, and from the failure of insulation, and from oversize buildings of unused space kept heated and cooled.
It is a lot more than electric cars or a few windmills.
16
All energy is renewable. It may not be economical to recapture and "reuse" it. See: 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
1
It’s too easy to dismiss the consequences of not making the changes by categorizing them as externalities. The cost of electric vehicles is higher than gasoline fueled ones. On that basis gasoline is more economical. The costs of living with rising seas and killing heat waves and super storms are truly externalities in that frame of reference but they could be so costly to address that it may be beyond our means to do so.
1
@Casual Observer No good engineer dismisses externalities simply because he can't cost out their effects.
4
@HLB Engineering, theoretically carbon emission are renewable, but the technology is a distant dream. The only practical renewable sources of energy today are solar and wind.
We can do this. It isn't a US thing, China thing, India thing: It's a world thing.
We have (Tesla) solar roof panels, and (Tesla) cars that are chargeable from those roof panels. That's 2/3 of the equation: home electricity and personal transportation.
Then we have to deal with manufacturing (business) and mass transit (public).
If we can go from horse and carriage (1900) to hybrid vehicles (2000) then we can go totally renewable even faster.
What's required: massive tax incentives - and maybe some penalties or excessive taxes.
Add to that government programs to build solar fields, wind farms and build new sustainable mass transit systems AND incentives for businesses to adapt to sustainable energy.
And what would it look like worldwide for the economy ? An enormous citizen and government propelled work/business program to get solar on every roof and a chargeable car in every garage that's likely to expand the economy by tenfold. In every country, every nation. A worldwide economic supersurge.
What are we waiting for?
15
@Random
An EV costs $20,000 more per vehicle to manufacture than a comparable ICE vehicle.
Electricity generated from solar panels costs eight times what electricity generated from coal costs.
A household with an EV and solar power has to charge the car during the day and has household electricity for at most 14 hours of the day, assuming they charge during two daylight hours and show up back at 4pm to run their heat and a/c. I'm having trouble seeing how paying more for 14 hours of electricity benefits the world.
The money pulled out of the economy to pay for the solar power and EV leaves nothing for anything else.
@Random. We’re waiting for humans to embrace birth control and economies that are sustainable with falling populations. It isn’t going to happen but that’s what it will take
6
How well do you think roof solar panels work when they are covered in snow or the sun doesn’t shine? You failed to mention batteries to store power, but if everyone needs large lithium batteries worldwide, costs for lithium will skyrocket.
It’s way past time for environmental groups to reverse course and support an immediate and rapid increase in the development and production of nuclear energy worldwide.
Nuclear energy may be the one thing the left and the right could agree on to rapidly reduce CO2. It would put us at the forefront of a global clean energy industry, create jobs and save the planet. Wind and solar alone can’t save us. That much is clear.
8
It's a shame but this is the big political problem. All the good intentions in the world aren't going to offset, much less, reduce behaviour that leads to more GHG. So the only effective response is regulation and incentives for technology change.
As long as the United States persists with its knee-jerk rejection of government action, any global effort is doomed to fail, regardless of what benefit may result. And the political climate in the US is only getting less sympathetic to the improvement of human welfare, and more fixated on private gain.
The US didn't create the problem; they had a lot of help. But they could be the catalyst that starts to solve it. Unfortunately, today's US never saw a challenge too big or too small to run away from.
4
@Stevenz Incentives, offsets, grants, bond issues, loans, subsidies: only multiply more C burning activities.
Last week we saw pictures of "Interstellar"-like dust storms rising up in China, engulfing entire regions and spreading fine dust particles across the continent. This may seem like a far off issue for Americans, but there's no guarantee that it may not happen anywhere else in the world, inclyding US and Canada. One especially bad year and the world may face terrible problems like food shortage, economic crisis and others. Now if something like the movie Interstellar, 2012 or the Day After Tomorrow happens, Trump may belong in the exclusive class of people who may get a ticket onto the next Noah's ark, but the question is, are you? Is it still a problem only for the rest of the world? An analogy may be made to having a house in California and not joining fire insurance because you just dont think you youself will be making any fires.
3
@HJ
Dust storms block incoming sunlight and result in global cooling. It is not pleasant to live under a dust cloud and it reduces air quality in Asia. The dust from Chinese coal burning without emission controls plus smoke from Indonesian forest clearing to grow biofuel palm oil travels across the Pacific and gets added to fog and local pollutants to decrease air quality along the West Coast of the US.
What is your proposed solution?
1
@HJ Oh to be in China when Beijing merges with the Gobi.
@ebmem, the Chinese dust storms have nothing to do with coal pollution, and they're not going to cool the earth. They're the result of desertification.
China is investing more in renewable energy technology than any country on earth--almost three times as much as the U.S. The solution is renewable energy (and not palm oil, a diversion).
1
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise Like a ‘Speeding Freight Train’ in 2018"
Why is this news?
When I was born, atmospheric levels of CO2 were rising by 1 ppm every year. This was during the time that our scientists were raising concerns.
About 20 - 30 years after I was born, atmospheric levels of C02 began rising by 2 ppm every year!
Then our scientist recorded in 2015 atmospheric levels of CO2 rising by 3 ppm.
When I was born, atmospheric CO2 levels were under 300 ppm. Today, they are over 406 ppm. I even remember when I our scientists warned that 350 ppm was the red line.
This is just in my lifetime.
None of us alive today will every see atmospheric CO2 levels drop below 400 ppm.
So again I ask why is the headline, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise Like a ‘Speeding Freight Train’ in 2018" so alarming now?
I ask this because I've known for years that that the yearly rise in C02 levels had doubled and tripled during my lifetime!
This issue has been going on for decades and can not be blamed on just one president.
If people want to know who to blame, I would suggest looking into a mirror!
5
@The Critic The year before I was born, the U.S. resident population was one third of what it will be next year.
2
@The Critic, who is blaming climate change on Trump? I think that's a straw man. The issue is not whether Trump is personally responsible for global warming, but whether he is part of the problem. His response to the Camp Fire in California answers that question.
All of this is unfolding while we waste two years waiting for the president's term to expire.
Trump said that he doesn't care about the nation's looming debt crisis because he won't be in office when it happens. My guess is he has the same attitude towards Climate Change.
There is something fundamentally wrong when the fate of the planet is held hostage by someone so completely incompetent.
Darwin's theory on survival of the fittest was right. Our inability to change course demonstrates that humans are obviously NOT the fittest.
13
@Henry J
In 2009-2010, the Democrat House passed cap and trade and Harry Reid, with 57-60 Democrat Senators, did not allow it to come to a Senate vote.
After losing the House majority, had Obama or Harry Reid been willing to talk to the Republicans, they could have gotten some legislation. Maybe not exactly what they wanted, but an incremental improvement. Instead, on the environment as well as immigration, they made the decision that their 2012 electoral prospects were better if they demonized Republicans and continued to blame Bush for everything. It worked only for Obama, who won in 2012. Democrats at the state and federal level lost 1000 elected offices.
How about if the Democrats in the House put together a bill that makes some improvements. Meanwhile, the 53/47 Senate puts together a bipartisan bill. They compromise on something. Maybe they have to throw in some money for the wall, or take money out for EV subsidies to get Trump to sign it, maybe not.
Following this path means incumbents are re-elected in 2020 and Democrats hold the majority. If the Democrat House puts together a leftist California Democrat plan that the Senate won't pass and/or Trump won't pass Dems lose the House in 2020. If the House Democrats spend the next two years resisting and working to impeach Trump and Kavanaugh they lose the House in 2020.
If you want change show leadership. If you believe obstruction will get the Presidency and the Senate in 2020, throw the dice. Please.
@ebmem, huh? Democrats try to address climate change in 2009, so you blame them for not having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to pass a carbon tax. Reid didn't bring the bill up because it wouldn't pass.
Democrats haven't been demonizing Republicans on this issue. The truth is that there is no longer a GOP senator or representative willing to admit that man-made climate change is real. The GOP, including Trump, run on climate change denial.
Why can't the right bring themselves to use the word "Democratic?" How can anyone take seriously a comment that includes this level of partisan pettiness?
@Henry J Expecting a defective decision making process (congress), designed in the 18th century which is laden in pork and vested interests to lead us out of the environmental darkness, proves Einstein's idea. "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane".
Women waited 157 years for the vote, minorities were excluded from "all men are equal". If America is to alter the trajectory of Climate Change RIGHT NOW, we need to employ the methods that ended Vietnam and resulted in Civil Rights.
Massive demonstrations on Capital Mall will force the incumbents to act. We need to unleash the creative capabilities of Apple, Google and others to produce technology to solve this.
Waiting for a two party system whose only goal is to retain power will not act fast enough.
The patient is bleeding profusely. The time for treatment is immediate.
I believe the end began when man realized fire could keep him safe and warm. The tipping point was past when this guy thought he could start a fire himself, and didn't need a natural event to keep him safe and warm. It didn't work to well at home in the cave as thousands choked to death from the smoke pollution so we had our first smokestack, now we have mega corporations with millions profiting from those smokestacks.
The climate change is unstoppable especially as we choose to ignore it, it's what we do best.
3
Sorry to say, but the ‘speeding freight train’ of greenhouse gas emissions is only going to be slowed down by one thing - massive world depopulation.
China, India and the rest of the developing world pursuit of first world lifestyle will continue to nullify any gains by the developed world in reducing global emissions.
So, the west (that is North America and Western Europe) should create resilient social and economic systems while isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. Let everyone else drown or broil to death. Then, when the world population has gone below about 1 billion people, we can start figuring out how to heal the human race and restore the planet, if even possible.
Until this brave new world dawns, we should stop pretending we have any ability to marginally change the plight of humanity. To do otherwise is the height of human hubris.
5
Part of this problem stems from overpopulation. Governments should make it easy for people to voluntarily not have children (free birth control, abortions, and sterilizations for everyone who wants them). And reward the people who don't have children with tax breaks.
26
@Frances Grimble Governments should offer subsidies to suicide volunteers. How one would collect.. I haven't quite worked out.
Carbon is necessary for life, and the planet will always be able to naturally regulate emissions.
1
Water is necessary for life, but you can still drown in it.
1
The planet will always regulate itself, it just will function without people.
@Rolf Really? Check out the previous million years.
Hope springs eternal I suppose, but any level-headed person knows we've now ventured onto the path of no return. The only question is how severe it will be. Suffice to say there are numerous examples in history of civilizations succumbing to environmental degradation, but this will of course be at a global scale. As civil society breaks down, the chaos to be visited on anyone born this century will make our worst nightmares seem tolerable by comparison. Even those already well into adulthood should probably also expect the worst. Those of us under 50 do stand a good chance of dying directly from the effects of climate change.
Of course, we've known this was coming for well over 30 years, yet have done next to nothing to address it. If anything, we are doubling down on the very behaviors that have caused and are worsening the situation, outright refusing to take a new course. Yet we know what happens to species that fail to adapt. It is this willful ignorance, as people continue to recklessly waste energy and reproduce like rabbits, that leaves me less than sympathetic for the fate of humanity. What leaves me deeply unsettled is what we've done and are doing to the biosphere that gave us life. An incredible and miraculous diversity of animals and plants is being consigned to oblivion because of our idiocy and immorality. This is the ultimate sin.
54
Since California emissions are already down to 1990 levels and still being reduced I'm wondering which states are causing the overall increases....I'm guessing Texas and Florida.
6
If something cannot go on forever, then it won't.
3
Its really quite sad. It reminds me of a Movie I saw as a teenager called "La Grande Bouffe".
Its about a group of men who decide to go to a villa outside Paris to eat themselves to death.
We the human race are eating ourselves to death.
3
Yet more disturbing news. But please, please, don’t just write comments in the NY Times. The most effective response to climate change is at hand.
This week H.R. 7173, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018, was introduced. It is sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. This bill will:
• Place a gradually increasing fee on carbon based fuels
• Pay out the proceeds to American households in the form of a dividend, to protect them from energy price increases
• Impose a border adjustment to protect U.S businesses
• Target emissions reductions of 90% below 2015 levels by 2050
• Achieve more than would the Paris Accord and the Clean Power Plan
• Limit EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses as long as targets are being met
This is our best and brightest hope for strong, effective, bipartisan action. Contact your congressional representatives and urge them to support H.R. 7173, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018. You can to this conveniently by going to https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-congress-about-climate-change.
Join an organization supporting climate action, such as Citizens Climate Lobby, Americans for Climate Dividends, EcoRight Price, Students for Carbon Dividends, or Young Evangelicals for Climate Action.
Act!
10
It isn't enough and it isn't doable.
Trump has been honest and absolutely right.
While Chinese communist dictators are allowing their people to consume whatever amount of coals and to copy whatever technologies they want to have from advanced countries with unlimited amount of money supplied by its local and central governments, so called liberal elites and media in the US are constantly blaming Trump for his legitimate resistance against this new and strongest evil axis in the human history: Chinese Communists Party.
3
@YHan, China is spending almost three times as much as the U.S. on renewable energy technology. If you really want to keep up with China in this century, commit to 21st century technology.
Trump's trade war has nothing to do with this topic.
1
just like in Noah's day and for the same reason.
2
@Yuri Pelham Noah didn't exist. Trump and the Chinese do.
1
At this point only a massive reduction in earths population can save us. Either through people voluntarily avoiding childbirth or some catastrophic winnowing of our population.
10
Unfortunately, our race, as a whole, does not have the necessary tools to comprehend our own self induced plight.
3
I own two electric vehicles and have solar panels.
C’mon people, do your part!!
7
@T Although I applaud the effort, unfortunately the electric cars and solar panels you bought only resulted in a small percent decrease in your carbon footprint.
Checking electricitymap.org, as I write this at 7:55 pm only 32% of California’s electricity is from low carbon sources. That percentage, which is typical for the evening hours, would be higher if we hadn’t closed the San Onofre nuclear power plant and will undoubtedly decrease if we go through with closing California’s last remaining nuclear power plant in 2024- Diablo Canyon.
Currently practically all solar in California, including the panels on your roof, is load balanced with natural gas plants (part of the load balancing is also hydro and imports). Considering solar in California has a capacity factor of around 20%, its best to think of solar as an auxiliary to fossil fuels and not a replacement. If we had an energy storage technology capable of scaling up to around 24 hours of storage the story would be different, but unfortunately we currently don’t.
Because of the high carbon intensity of California’s electricity grid (around 300 gCO2/kWh vs a steady 50 for nuclear powered France) switching to electric cars only has a modest impact on your carbon footprint. Also, most of your footprint is from things you might not think about- natural gas for space and water heating, air travel, production and transport of the food you consume, making the imported and domestic goods you purchase.
5
@T Did you produce those yourselves? See: power plants; C burning activities.
if we don't adopt solar and wind power pronto, we may have to return to a model closer to pre-industrial revolution mode. we might all be mentally and emotionally healthier.
1
The climate apocalypse prophecy isn't about controlling the climate, we know that is not possible, it is about controlling you and me.
4
@jaco
As if the monthly tribute we all pay to the power company, and the gasoline companies aren't "controlling you and me" right now. I'd rather some of that money went to clean, renewable energy rather than the 1900th century system we seem to be stuck in. Other industries have modernized and improved. It's time for energy to do so as well.
1
@jaco, please. Would you rather face wild fires or a gasoline tax? If you think regulations are strict now, wait until things get worse.
This article could have linked to the actual Natrue article released today and co-authored by the Global Carbon Project scientists. Instead it linked to a different one. For those seeking a more optimistic read and a ray of hope that we can find a way out of this mess, the correct link is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07585-6
2
Dear NYT:
Only a fair, uniform and universally applicable greenhouse gas tax on all forms of release -- not just transportation, but from the extraction of raw materials, product manufacture, transPacific shipping and other grotesque supply chain inefficiencies,wasteful consumption and disposal practices -- can turn back this black atmospheric tide.
In order to effectively deter greenhouse gas emissions, the tax paid must be directly tied to that material, process or product responsible for the emission.
It must be made part of the end-user cost of each each process or product, without exception. We can help the poor as needed.
To avoid unduly harming the poor and developing nations, the tax should be revenue neutral and not be used to fund corrupt central governments, armies of bureaucrats or socialist fantasies -- as are being floated here in the USA.
And yes, Trump is correct: the USA should not be singled out and have its economy destroyed. China and India must pay on the same scale as the US and Japan. We cannot pretend they are developing countries anymore.
It can be constructed like a value added tax. Perhaps this can be made part of the WTO mandate; if not, the USA should impose this tax unilaterally and fairly.
No more silly cap and trade boondoggles. No more Solyndras. It is time to get out the stick.
3
When a large portion of Florida goes under seawater, a large amount of carbon burning activities will submerge with it. Good news?
4
Thank you for this article! But I think it understates the problem and is too kind to the USA.
"An American withdrawal would represent a serious blow to the pact." Given Trump's statements over the last 2 years, surely "will" is more accurate than "would".
"...the world is failing to make sufficient progress to avoid the worst effects of climate change." Given the worsening trend referenced in the headline, I'd expect:
"...the world HAS FAILED TO MAKE progress..."
More subtly, the emphasis on country's emissions hides the true culprits. Would it make sense to say California pollutes 40 times more than Delaware if the average person in those states is doing the same thing? CA has 40 times more people. I would rather talk about per-capita emissions, that points to changes in culture and policy that can be adopted or shifted away from. We in the USA are the worst polluters and China has the most people.
Please keep bringing us articles like this! Thank you.
9
Proximate causes aren’t the issue.
Distal, but real cause, is too many people.
6
We need leaders who support all kinds of ways to reduce emissions and take this on as the global emergency it is. But it will only be incremental if we do nothing about overpopulation.
There are currently too many people on the planet, with the biggest growth in poor countries. And if we want to lift people out of poverty there aren't enough resources on earth to accommodate their increasing needs.
We're entering an exceedingly dire situation, with seemingly no real sense of urgency or plan, except for some wealthy people to go and exploit other planets. I hope this isn't human destiny.
6
@Rebecca. You may be right about population, but the solution to that takes at least a couple of centuries. You willing to wait that long? An awful lot of positive change can happen while waiting for five billion people to die.
The crisis of climate change,given it is a slow yet progressive damage to our planet, is not taken seriously enough to make a difference. The increased frequency and severity of floods, droughts and fires and health issues derived from this nightmare are a disgarce, in part due to our avarice in exploiting natural resources that ought to be protected. It is ironic that these United States, one of the largest polluters on Earth, is allowing a brutus ignoramus to ignore , by choice, the ill effects of this destruction. How is it possible we can stand idle and allow this beast, with republican complicity, to screw things up this badly?
4
Dear Mr. President, the United States started mass-producing cheap automobiles. The United States created gasoline with which to power them. Thus ALL the world's automobile pollution is the United States' fault. Not only that, the US created the mass advertising-fueled consumer culture that's stripping the planet of what resources it still has.
7
As always, the contribution of farm animals emissions that contribute to global warming are totally ignored. Why? I honestly think that it's because most journalists and most climate change activists don't want to give up their meat, dairy and eggs. They therefore fail to report or act on the (extremely conservative) estimate that 17% of emissions that cause global warming are from animal agriculture. And the crazy thing is that the science is behind the whole food plant based way of eating as a preventative to heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases by using no animal products whatsoever.
6
@Martha:
"...most climate change activists don't want to give up their meat, dairy and eggs"
------------------------------------
I'd say that's a characteristic of deniers.
How many vegans do you know who deny climate change?
Its too late to reduce the impact of climate change by cutting back on fossil fuels alone.
We need to develop efficient ways to pull CO2 and other GHGs out of the atmosphere, including the upper layers. This must be a top research priority.
2
This may seem extreme but we must accept the challenge now offered. Humanity is not facing financial loss or deprivations as a consequence, we are facing death of most life on the planet including us. We must change or die. It's that simple.
13
We are not going to solve this. We may make things a little better, give us more time to live, perhaps even allow a fraction of humanity to survive longterm. But life as most of us have known it is not going to be available to children born now. Food shortages? Economic collapse? Disease? War? All of the above. If you're thinking about it, not pregnant yet, DON'T HAVE KIDS.
74
One counterintuitive takeaway:
Much of the massive greenhouse output from China is the result of U.S. demand for Chinese goods. These goods are manufactured with fewer environmental controls than would be the case in the U.S. or Europe. President Trump's trade war with China, tariffs and all, could help reduce the aggregate greenhouse emissions, albeit unintentionally.
10
@Jeff
Thanks for reminding us. We love to export our pollution. One result of Trump's hi-jinks is that China is no longer taking our unsorted recyclables, which means we might have to start paying attention to our waste. What a hope!
2
Instead of whining about "Solyndra" or even the slight actions taken under Obama, we need a Manhattan Project for urgently developing non-greenhouse energy sources, spreading them into use, and mitigating the effects of global heating. (I no longer use the euphemism "global warming".) The Manhattan Project was very expensive. The new project will be even more expensive, but it is worth every dollar because it is the only way we can save our civilization -- and there is little time left to do it.
There is no chance of this under Republican rule, but maybe some sensible states can start it. Force-developing solar power and electric vehicle use might come first. ("Force" as in forcing something to move ahead as fast as possible, just as with the Manattan Project.)
Since it has no military thrill and there is no World War at present, this project is unlikely to be executed even if Democrats take over the federal government, I fear I may live to see the end of civilization, or at least the "hordes" of billions of people fleeing the newly uninhabitable tropics and subtropics.
10
Your comment is right on target, though it seems clear that a Global "Manhattan Project" would.he required. I'm not sure if our species is capable of this, but if it actually could, it might have the added benefit of securing world peace.
1
This is how the world dies. Not with a bang, but with a whimper
9
@Dan It's a wonderful quote. And true. But I promise you, when we start fighting over the little that is left, there will be plenty of bang before the whimper.
9
@Dan I plan to exit with a sigh.. and a large G&T.
1
It is unfortunate that Americans get such poor education in the sciences, especially in math, physics, and statistics. Ignorance and utter inability to think critically are at the root of the American hostility towards climate science.
Unfortunately, the political dimensions of ignorance guarantee that ignorance will perpetuate itself, with catastrophic consequences for the planet. Ignorant Americans elect their ignorant government (Trump today, someone similar or worse tomorrow), and it is in that government's best interest to cultivate and preserve American ignorance.
23
@Richard Monckton Ignorance => the perpetual motion machine of representative government.
@Richard Monckton -- Amen to all that. Our collective ignorance (and defiance) of science boggles the mind.
2
@Richard Monckton, It's always been easier to manipulate ignorant people. When some governments or regime changes occur they always go after the academics, professors, artists, writers and other intellectuals first.
2
Thinking about having kid(s)? Please re-think that.
50
More evidence about “simple” or “minor” health impacts of global climate change or visible effects such as smog might help convince Trumpist skeptics that the planet faces possible catastrophe from which it, and we humans (let alone other species) cannot recover.
For instance, horrid smog in Chinese or Indian cities may weaken nasal passages, perhsps mleading to frequent and nearly unstoppable nosebleeds, which in turn might lead to significant anemia (maybe enough to require transfusions).
I feel sure many clinicians can come up with other examples.
We know Trump doesn’t give a hoot about his children or grandchildren, really, but they may be as susceptible as the rest of us to these “under the radar” impacts.
He is in a position to help avert such scenarios—and given that the US IS the principal polluter per capita, perhaps one could argue he has that responsibility to the US and the world.
Still, he will presumably be long gone before we see these widespread health and public health consequences, much too late to protect his own family (even if we were to believe he cared) , let alone the rest of us.
6
I am not an expert in this area, but I cannot see how we can support the extent of personal machinery transportation (automobiles) without substantial CO2 emissions. Even with so-called electric cars, the powering of the electric grid comes from coal-burning power stations, to a large extent.
We will have to face that we will need more nuclear power to power our desired electric cars. Hard to face.
5
@Victor Mark Nuclear power plants cannot be built without massive expenditures of fossil fuel source energy. Signed.. U.S. Navy nuke (1970s)
3
More liberal left wing babble …..the world warms and the world cools...controlled mostly by the sun...get your facts straight before trying to scare people.
@Tony J Mann It's just math, Tony.
4
@Tony J Mann
The earth gets most of its energy from sunlight, and to maintain a constant average temperature, it must exhaust the same amount of energy by infrared radiation to outer space. Solar viability is not a player in our current crisis. Increasing greenhouse gases is equivalent to putting a heavier blanket on the bed.
1
We are too stupid to survive.
37
@Mike Since the industrial revolution.
1
Well, it appears those big brains of ours weren't such a great evolutionary development after all.
3
The good news: we're not going to die from Global Heating.
+++++
The bad news: our descendants will.
+++++
Responses? Alas. Too little, far too late.
Since a more sensible transportation system must be a major part of any possible solution to this problem--and by "sensible," I mean rail–based between and within towns, and rail-based to the maximum extent possible for the movement of freight--I find it unfortunate that the authors of the study chose to compare the acceleration of greenhouse gas emissions to "a speeding freight train."
Freight trains are exactly one of the things our chaotic, wasteful transportation system needs more of.
I'd prefer to say that greenhouse gases are accelerating "like a speeding honkin' gigantic SUV," or "like a giant truck tailgating you on the interstate just to carry a shipment of toilet paper that could (should) have been able to go by rail while you're driving a car but could (should) have been able to make your trip on a heavily subsidized, inexpensive, fast, frequent, and comfortable train."
14
Some numbers might be useful
List of CO2 emissions, tons per capita, by country
North America
US 16.5 tons/capita and year
Canada 15.1
Europe
France 4.6
UK 6.5
Germany 8.9
Sweden 4.5
Spain 5.0
Asia
China 7.5
1. Properly measured, that is calibrated relative to population, China is NOT the word's worst polluter
2. Calibrated to its population, in the Western world , the US , and Canada are the worst polluters
3. The most effective way for the US to reduce its
CO2 emissions would be to tax transportation fuels with
a carbon tax. To get Americans out of their oversized pick ups and SUVs. Swedes do not live worse than the US
but emit less than 1/3 per capita. Germany is more industrialized per capita than the US, pays higher wages, is the worlds leading exporter, but yet emits half.
Data
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/
54
@Woof this isn’t entirely right as a claim either.
If Canada had the same population as china, it’d be a far worse polluter, but Canada has 36-million people which, using your numbers equals 543.6 million tons of of CO2
China has a little less than half Canada’s per capita emissions, but also has 1 billion, 409 million people for 10.5 7 billion tons of CO2 put intothe atmosphere.
The USA has a population of 325 million and still using your per capita numbers pot out 5 billion 362 million tons of co2.
Clearly Canada is not by any stretch among the worst polluters, if only because it has a small opoulation. Can and should it do better? Of course! And it’s working on it, but like other govts around the world it’s wasting time messing around with half-baked carbon taxes that don’t work well because outside four or five major cities, thereare no alternatives to switch to. No viable urban or interurban public transit, car dealers who won’t display or bring in EVs despite growing demand; poor takeup of wind power except in quebec; very little take up of solar power and only tiny investment in tidal power despite have three incredibly long coastlines, one of which includes the highest tides in the world in the Bay of Fundy, rising and falling 40 feet about twice a day. The public is well ahead of the government on this. Trudeau talks a good game, delivers inconsistently. Forget carbon taxes, declare Canada a no-emmisions passenger vehicle zone by 2030.
1
The root of the problem is an exponentially expanding human population which, because of rapid economic expansion worldwide, can buy cars, air conditioning, red meat, jet airplane flights, etc. I was taken aback that the expert quoted in the article was surprised that oil consumption is increasing. Parents drive their 3rd graders to basketball tournaments 200 miles away (one way) on weekends. That wasn’t done 30 years ago. I recently sat next to a 13-year-old fencer who criss-crosses the country to attend fencing competitions. Increased affluence of an expanding world population leads to more, more, more consumption.
But no one wants to say it out loud—children and the extended life science is giving us are going to be our doom.
Because fat is loaded with calories fat was good for early man, but he didn’t get that at every meal. Now, a fatty, four-meal-a-day diet is making the world fat. Babies were good for establishing early man in the world, but most babies died (as did many women who gave birth). Now few babies die.
But there is a fundamental right to procreate even if the parents can’t support their children. And these are the people who are going to be able to afford electric cars, expensive gasoline, and hugely higher electric bills? What just happened in France?
When are we going to promote population reduction on a worldwide basis? If we don’t reverse population—not just reduce growth—then everything else we do is just spitting straight into a stiff wind.
12
The politicians are not taking seriously these dire warnings about the effects of carbon emissions.They plan in two week increments-to plan a year ahead would be a stretch.Now that the worst consequences have been moved to 2030 they should do some quick calculations- a president elected in 2020 and who served two terms would already be facing environmental catastrophe.This is our next election and who is seriously worrying about carbon emissions.?Along with environmental disaster comes economic disaster.This threat is not for poorer nations-it is not going to go somewhere else.It is here and it is now!
9
Everybody knows that if you turn on your car engine in your garage with the door shut, you can die--you can now also die if you forget to turn the car off and go to sleep above the garage.
Now multiply that by 7 billion people with about 5 billion cars worldwide, plus ships, airplanes, heating and cooling our homes, running appliances, plastic everywhere and the list goes on. We're addicted to creature comforts we can't seem to give up.
We have a very small planet with a thin atmosphere. We have begun to kill ourselves and other life on the planet. Isn't it time to wake up. It took the Earth and its processes millions of years to create the oxygen we breath, and we're destroying it within a couple of hundred years.
How many billions does a single person need in a lifetime. How much "stuff" do any of us really need. We are running out of time. Stop thinking of what "I" want now and think of the children who have to live (or die) with what we've left.
We have not and are not paying the full cost of the things we use. The full cost would include cleaning up after ourselves. We have been playing a Ponzi scheme with natural resources that is about to crash unless we begin to hold ourselves responsible.
116
"Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change." - Climatologists James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley.
Renewables? They're a drop in the bucket. We not only need to stop closing carbon-free nuclear power plants - we need to build more, as fast as we possibly can.
If we don't start taking climate change seriously it will soon be too late to do anything about it.
21
@BobMeinetz
Here in Georgia we have major mismanagement leading to cost overruns in the billions for the first US nuclear power plant since 1979 -- which remains under construction. A $4.4B project is now estimated to cost $25B. The delays predate the 2017 Westinghouse bankruptcy. Construction began in March of 2013, but the application was 1st filed in 2006. Completion is now estimated for November 2021. This is the showcase plant for a new generation of nuclear power plants with every seeming incentive to get it right in order to revive the industry, yet they can't seem to legitimate nuclear power as "doable."
1
@TJM, no, Vogtle isn't the showcase AP 1000. That same nuclear plant, with the same reactors (Westinghouse AP 1000s) just went on line in China costing 1/4 the price.
Maybe it was constructed by Chinese slave labor at the end of a whip. Or maybe, an entrenched U.S. natural gas industry engineered $20 billion worth of regulatory delays so Vogtle would be doomed from the start. What are the chances?
2
President Trump...has vowed to pull the United States out of the accord and has moved to roll back Obama-era regulations designed to limit emissions from vehicle tailpipes and power-plant smokestacks. On Tuesday he wrote on Twitter that the Paris Agreement was “fatally flawed” because its system of voluntary pledges let other countries off the hook, adding that “American taxpayers — and American workers — shouldn’t pay to clean up others countries’ pollution.”
[ What a tragedy. ]
7
@Nancy
1. America has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world. So yes, WE "built that".
2. It's easy to call any compromise "totally flawed" without even trying to come up with something better. If at least he would leave intact what Obama installed, we could just blame him of being lazy. But then he would lose his "ratings". So he has to destroy whatever greatness Obama gave America, at least like this he can still claim to have done something.
What a tragedy indeed.
10
@Nancy Obama's efforts are the little Dutch boy at the dike.
One thing I worry about is that, even if industrialized nations drastically reduce carbon emissions, decreased demand will cause fossil fuel prices to plummet which will make them irresistible for the developing world and thus actually accelerate their consumption.
4
All I see on TV is ads for huge vehicles. I own a Chevy Bolt and am very happy happy with it. Some of my neighbors and friends have leased Bolts after seeing my car and hearing how pleased I am with it. I think more people would buy, or lease, an EV if they saw more ads promoting these vehicles.
32
@Caroline
Bicycles are pretty nice too. I bought an old cruiser with fenders for $100. I ride it through Minnesota winters. Around here all the power plants burn coal, or use nuclear.
3
You have avoided the compelling message of many people about the role of meat and dairy in climate breakdown. Here's George Monbiot's lament: "Whether human beings survive this century and the next, whether other lifeforms can live alongside us: more than anything, this depends on the way we eat. We can cut our consumption of everything else almost to zero and still we will drive living systems to collapse, unless we change our diets." We have personal control over what we eat. Cutting meat and dairy far exceeds changing our lightbulbs or other lightweight steps.
10
@Jamie Jackson, meat and dairy play an insignificant role in anthropogenic climate change, which began during the Industrial Revolution - when fossil fuel extraction came of age.
Every carbon atom in meat and dairy came from CO2 taken from the air by plant photosynthesis. After animals eat those plants, and humans eat those animals, the carbon goes right back into the air from whence it came.
The idea additional atmospheric carbon comes from eating meat and dairy is a myth.
2
@BobMeinetz -
Not 100% sure but I think what Jamie is refering to is the immense clearing of forested land, including Amazon rainforest, and immense use of resources needed to raise the corn, grain, and other crops that provide food to farmed animals. Animals who are consumed for their protein when we could shortcut the process and feed ourselves on the vegetable proteins instead. What is the ratio difference? Something like 7 lbs of feed to produce a single lb of beef (live weight). Less for pork and much less for poultry, but still significant. So there is indeed additional carbon release price to pay in feeding people this way. 'Diet for a Small Planet', by Frances Moore Lappe remains a sound guide for eating well while keeping your carbon footprint small.
4
@BobMeinetz
Sorry Bob, you're utterly wrong. Feedstock production and the methane and Co2 produced by livestock whilst they grow is a massive - massive - contributor to climate change.
3
Imagine not needing a car. How wonderful that would be. Imagine public transportation so good you didn't need a car. Why does anyone think we can't do this? Why does anyone believe we won't save our own lives?
13
@Ineffable
On the weekends I could get from downtown Manhattan to my place in Queens in twenty minutes by car. By mass transit an hour and a half. I think it would be impossible to create wide spread around the clock mass transit that would be affordable for working people. And was as fast as a car.
@joeG
I don’t know about Houston, but NYC is a great city to bike in.
It is already impossible, too late, to prevent a 2 degrees Celsius global warming!
The latest iceage the global temperature was about 4 degrees Celsius colder than today. With the expected 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer global temperature by 2100 the conditions for life on Earth will be very different compared to today, and few animals... will be able to adapt in that extremely short time!
7
Except for some Middle East caliphates the U.S. tops the list in per capita carbon emissions. Each of us generates twice as much climate pollution as the average Chinese, and five times as much as the average Indian.
"American taxpayers — and American workers — shouldn’t pay to clean up others countries’ pollution.”
We can't even clean up own own pollution.
35
Welp, now it's all about pain management, there's no recovery to be had.
3
Thank you for persistently reporting on this. It is absolutely essential.
26
Donald Trump and the people who elected him deserve a lot of the blame for this predicament. The day after he was elected, a mood of hesitancy and doubt spread around the world, because it was understood he would not be a climate leader as Barack Obama had become, and as Hillary Clinton would have been.
And the consequences of Trump's arrogant, ignorant failure will be increasingly deadly. News about the climate crisis so often seems to be about remote, academic things, the subjects of classes in chemistry or physics. But the measures that matter most are the lives of the world's living creatures.
11
@Mark Caponigro Don't forget Ralph Nader and the Green party in the 2000 election in Florida. They caused the election of GWB who promptly pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.
3
Readers, if you need reason to hope, look no further than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposal for a Green New Deal, with more Representatives pledging their support every day. The only way to action is activism. Drop what you're doing, stop paying lip service and take to the streets with your community. There's a wonderful opportunity in DC on Dec 10 with Sunrise Movement to demand Congress give us a Green New Deal. There's a good chance we'll get one and finally make progress. Will you join us and be part of history? Register online to come!
46
@Jon, I see Ocasio-Cortez's proposal for a "Green New Deal" has yet to include nuclear energy as a means to reduce carbon emissions.
Until it does, it's less than nothing - a distraction from the only source of energy capable of making a difference.
4
@Jon good luck with that in the country that elected Trump... you're dealing with at least 40% of voters who are basically suicidal on a political basis.
2
The EU has more people than the US and uses a third of the fossil fuels we do. Dont they like full size pick up trucks like real human beings. How uncivilized and utterly un American.
16
@hb, When vacationing in Oslo, I saw one very large pick up truck, with huge wheels and music blasting loudly. My family and I concluded it belonged to an American who had moved to Norway.
1
Despite management blah blah that change is the only constant, business craves stable operating environments in which assets can be used and depreciated in an orderly manner.
The trouble is that short term profits are being prioritised at the expense of climate stability which will destroy any semblance of the very environmental stability businesses crave.
Every shareholder should be demanding accountability from company directors for long term sustainability, even in those businesses producing fossil fuels. How will they protect shareholder value in the future carbon neutral economy ?
Instead, the rich 1% have bought right wing politicians and waged war against the clear high integrity scientific message that we need to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas levels quickly to pre-industrial levels.
Well, it really is time for extreme protest against the utter insanity of right wing climate change denying political leaders the world over.
They are intellectually and morally corrupt.
The question that needs to be asked is whether we will let right wing politicians condemn future generations to suffering and death without a real fight.
If one could travel back in time to Nazi Germany during the Second World War one would have a clear moral justification for killing Hitler.
We in the present face a moral imperative to end the stupidity.
Except this time we are not talking about saving 5 or 10 million people.
We are talking about saving billions of lives and our species.
8
Fake news. A total witch hunt. Just a bunch of angry dem scientists who hate the republican donor class. Sad. Believe me.
2
If you can see air I'm sure it's not good for you. Also I recommend a thesaurus since the word sad is thrown around a lot from Trump cult members.
3
Ultimately, it will take a severe drought or a large hit to the food supply for many people (and governments) to wake up.
Because this threat is still seen as something that’s “distant” or “not hurting me right now,” people won’t care about until it’s almost too late to stop it.
My prediction is that the temperatures will continue to rise until a major catastrophe occurs. It will be at the last possible second, of course, and world governments will respond by investing trillions (with a T!) into carbon-negative factories, like the one in Iceland. It’s still in its infancy, but it sucks in carbon dioxide from the air and turns it into solid rock. That, IMO, will be our only way out of this.
https://qz.com/1100221/the-worlds-first-negative-emissions-plant-has-opened-in-iceland-turning-carbon-dioxide-into-stone/
14
@Joe The problem is by then it would be too late! What's the point of waking up only to face a nightmare? And BTW, Harvey, Michael, etc are not major catastrophe?
1
One of the groups that should be most for doing something about all of this are the rabid anti-immigrant/refugee crowd. For we are already seeing the displacement of peoples and that will only increase with greenhouse gas emissions going forward. But sadly, the overlap between anti-immigrant/refugees and climate denialism is rather large.
8
People who have studied this far more than I have feel that it’s pretty much “game over.” Unless the Earth as a whole makes a total effort similar to the effort during WW II, it’s just way to little To late.
46
I’m not sure which “game over” you’re referring to, but it’s absolutely untrue that steps taken now to mitigate warming could not help enormously. The dynamics that will play out ecologically over the next few decades have not exactly been seen before and come with some margin of error. That said, there’s no question that the probability of not-so-bad outcomes improves with every fraction of a degree.
3
So sorrowful for my grandchildren. They will face enormous difficulties left behind by this generation. This problem appears to be unsolvable at this time, given the lack of good will from the leadership of nearly all of the nations here on planet Earth.
15
@GLO It is going to be even more difficult on your children. When they are in their late and old age, they will be devastated as they struggle with many many fewer opportunities and resources. Today’s grandchildren will grow up with the “new” world, and will have learned how to adapt by the time they are young adults or middle aged.
1
"...as people around the world not only buy more cars but also drive them farther than in the past." Not to mention elites flying jets to global warming conferences so they can tell the rest of us we have to cut back. When those who say that this is a serious problem start to act like it's a serious problem I will believe it's a serious problem.
2
Really, are elites flying jets to discuss climate change policies a bigger problem than social habits involving totally unnecessary and costly consumption?
I am working on vaccines and risk both picking up and transmitting disease whenever I travel, which I do to meet with other researchers. Should we stay home? (Admittedly, we try to Skype when possible.)
3
Animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. It's dismaying to see the lack of coverage about the environmental impact of our consumption of meat and dairy.
50
@Amanda, except for the fossil-fuel machinery that's used to grow the plants they eat and to process them, "animal agriculture" is an insignificant contributor to anthropogenic climate change.
Carbon that animals expel is carbon that came from the air to grow the plants they eat. When they die, it goes back into the air - a cycle which had been repeating for millions of years before humans evolved.
3
No, Bob, the animal industry is extremely wasteful from an energetic perspective (with some animals worse than others), and they produce more than carbon.
4
In the 60s, Japanese emerging heavy industry dumped its waste into the sea based on the idea that the sea is too big to be contaminated. However, the severe pollution did occur after some threshold had passed, which directly claimed a lot of human lives. Now many people easily assume that our earth is too big to be contaminated by "gas." I hope history does not repeat.
6
We must act now to reduce emissions. Call your member of Congress today and ask them to support the recently introduced Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 7173) which would reduce US emissions by at least 40% in 12 years. It's a policy that would create jobs, improve our health, and put money in most people's pockets. And amazingly, it has bipartisan support, a requirement given our split control of Congress.
7
Everyone should do their part to reduce emissions in order to prevent the global warming. But the sad fact is that even if the US and Europe reduced our emissions to absolutely nothing, China will soon be emitting enough all by itself to cause devastating global warming. Unfortunately, our fate is not in our hands. Our fate is in China's hands. But China is determined to continue its destructive behavior that will end in disaster.
China puts on a great PR campaign touting its solar energy projects etc. But China overtook the US in 2005 as the world's largest CO2 emitter, now emitting more than twice as much CO2 as the US. China emits 30% of all the CO2 emitted in the entire world, yet produces only 18% of the world's goods and services. It is that statistic that reveals how irresponsible and filthy is China's behavior. China uses 50% of the entire world's coal consumption. Almost 50% of China's electricity is produced by burning coal. And instead of retiring coal generation plants, China builds more coal plants to replace some that age out.
The Paris Climate Accord was a negotiation triumph for China and a defeat for the human race. Under the Paris Accord, climate disaster is assured rather than prevented. The Paris Accord gave the world's stamp of approval to China's plan to continue increasing its annual rate of CO2 emissions by another 25% by 2030. China plans increased emissions which alone are more than half of total US emissions.
5
While true that China is building coal-fired plants at an alarming rate, we must also remember that power consumption per capita in China is far less than here in the US. And a large fraction of the past increases in GHGs in the atmosphere is from the US' past economic growth while China was on the sidelines. It's hard to critique China when they are working to increase the standard of living of 1.3B people. So there is truth on both sides. Here is an excellent article: https://www.skepticalscience.com/China-GHG-emissions.html
2
@Errol National totals aren’t relevant to this problem. If national totals mattered, China could just split into four countries with 1/4th the emissions each. Any carbon budget has to be global, the only fair way to allocate a global budget is per capita (with compensation from historical polluters to historical non-polluters), and we still emit the most per capita.
1
@DParent
No, per capita numbers are used to deceive and manipulate people to ignore the important facts. Mother nature does not care one whit about per capita emissions. Mother nature only cares about total emissions. People with political agendas use per capita numbers, not mother nature.
If we really want to make a dent in emissions, then a serious investment in nuclear power is needed. We can't meet all of our energy needs with simply solar and wind power. They are too expensive and too variable. A serious investment in nuclear power both here in the US and abroad is really the only viable solution. Hopefully humanity can also make progress on fusion power to make that viable as well.
7
@Zachary Wheeler, You don't think nuclear is expensive? And can we bury or store the radioactive waste in Katy, TX for hundreds of 1,000s of years?
1
What few in the media correlate is our system of capitalism and how it is impossible to make any substantial changes environmentally without a wholesale redesign or discard of the modern market world order. The money system now relies on GDP growth. Any understanding of compound interest leads to the horrific realization that even small yearly percentage growth leads to gigantic doubling after 50 or so years. The planet can not sustain us as we are. There is no way it, no, WE can survive a doubling or quadrupling.
What we need is depopulation and dematerlism. An economic collapse. No government dares to speak such truth so we go on pretending half hearted measures make any difference.
57
@Elliott Chen the alternative to capitalism is the USSR which was a failure in every respect.
@ConradCA There are other ways to think other than capitalism vs communism. One's failure does not make the other a success.
4
@ConradCA
Capitalism as we practice it is clearly failing spectacularly in the long run. It's not about economic systems anyway--it's about moderation, temperance, self-control, discipline. It's about balance. And we lack it mentally.
2
Please remember this every day from now on as Trump plays Rope-A-Dope with humanity and the planet.
26
@Shillingfarmer This happens way before trump, may be GWB.
The picture shown in the article is misleading, it appears to be likely from particulates in the air from diesel vehicles, and while equally dangerous doesn’t tell the whole story about carbon emissions. You can be driving in pristine, sunny California and still be emitting carbon.
6
@VS
Correct.
And then we're not talking yet about the fact that it's America that has a far higher carbon footprint per capita than China (and the biggest in the world, actually).
We should STOP suggesting that developing countries are the main cause here.
They did NOT build that, they are merely imitating the West (all while already being leaders in clean energy) and its dirty industrialization phase, which started this problem in the first place.
But it's always easier to blame others ...
14
Our "fearless leader" isn't worried about climate change, because he only cares about himself, and he figures he'll be gone. His wife? Children? Don't make me laugh.
19
@otto Global Warming is a conspiracy to give government control over every aspect of our lives which is exactly what the progressive fascist ideology seeks to achieve.
1
I would suggest a privately funded memorial near the Washington Mall that lists all of those in power who have dismissed the world's scientists about climate change and its perils. In the future, their offspring and the world can visit this memorial to see the fools who betrayed the world and allowed our beautiful planet to be destroyed.
131
@Frank If the planet is destroyed, then who will be here to see said memorial?
2
Call it the "Sanctum Santorum".
1
“We’ve seen oil use go up five years in a row,” said Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science and an author of one of the studies. “....[I]n the U.S. we have most of the major car manufacturers saying they’re going to get out of the sedan business and build S.U.V.s and trucks.”
In the interests of greater environmental responsibility, efficiency and awareness, we should probably recycle a few obsolete slogans, such as:
-- "If we act now, we can reverse the carbon emissions trend and save the planet."
-- "Write your congressperson today! If we all act together, there is nothing that we can't accomplish."
These political nostrums, and others like them, can now all be replaced with: "Party like there is no tomorrow -- because there isn't!"
11
For a similar viewpoint taken two years ago using the same analyses and outcome base, please go to YouTube to view the season one of: "Years of Living Dangerously." Using celebrities to approach this unnerving topic, a well-balanced and highly informative set of eight episodes show not only the serious issues of climate changes, but several remedies--practical, do-able and exciting.
Couldn't find the second season on YouTube, ordered a DVD of Series 2 of the same title, "Years of Living Dangerously"--celebrities include in this series: Jack Black, Gisele Bundchen, Ty Burrell, Don Cheadie, America Ferrera, Thomas Friedman, Joshua Jackson, David Letterman, Sigourney Weaver, and...Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Very informative and hopeful stuff here--might want to check it out! Being informed helps win the needed support at the political level, which is vital to successful changes being made to our way of living.
5
We should be talking more about a major, perhaps the major, root cause: overpopulation.
128
@Alex
Absolutely.
And the impact of overpopulation isn't just on climate, or even primarily on climate.
5
There is no way we will be 8 billion soon but we can imagine that we can stop this catastrophe.
it is simply not realistic.
brace yourself for impact.
3
“We don’t inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children”—Native American proverb.
We citizens of Earth are pillaging our planet and squandering our children’s inheritance. There is only one planet Earth, and there is only one political party that appears to ignore, and at times flaunt, this atrocity.
30
Space Command will SAVE US!
Earth is a lost cause.
Survival depends on immigration - FAR, FAR AWAY.
Book NOW!
Call Soylent Green Industries.
Time to leave Spaceship Earth for greener pastures.
2
We need to thank the Catholics ,evangelicals and culture of corruption GOP for allowing the Greenhouse gas emissions to rise. When we have every city in America looking like the photo in this article it will be to late to see the sun and blue sky that we are use to seeing.
9
@D.j.j.k. Their motto is god will provide. Even if he doesn't provide what's so bad about going to heaven for eternity.
3
@Tran Trong you Global Warmist need to prove your theory using the scientific method first.
1) Develop a scientific method of measuring the climate that doesn’t require adjusting the raw data so it supports your theory.
2) As the science is settled the models should all predict the same climate. Save the model predictions for the next thousand years.
3) compare the predications against reality for 1000 years and the theory could be considered valid if they match.
1
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise Like a ‘Speeding Freight Train’ in 2018
...and Donald "Casey Jones" Trump is the one driving the train...
except "Casey Jones" was pulling the emergency break while Trump just keeps shoveling more coal into the boiler....
7
The yellow vests movement in France, the defeated Washington State referendum last month on a carbon tax, and so on: the public will simply not accept the imposition of a carbon tax to discourage fossil fuel consumption. Democrats and liberals are as unwilling to do this as are Republicans and conservatives. Stop with the silly attacks here on Trump and the Republicans the Democrats are just as much to blame. Better get ready for the 2030 coastal flooding start shorting coastal real estate in America. Details here: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/4/paris-riots-show-failure-macron-carbon-tax-public/
10
@Yankees Fan Inside Red Sox Nation That's why we need to go nuclear. Only nuclear power can replace fossil fuels as a cheap source of energy. Wind and solar will hurt the poor by making electricity too expensive.
4
@Zachary Wheeler. I have solar and it has reduced my electricity bill by 90%. What are you talking about? Solar works.
@Yankees Fan Inside Red Sox Nation you expect us to believe your unproven theory when your Dear Leaders don’t believe it. They fly around in private jets, have huge mansions and live on the ocean!
There is no excuse for such a technologically and scientifically advanced nation to behave in such a backward and destructive manner.
8
Just wait till Brazil's president gets the reins and cuts down the rainforest. We havnt seen anything yet! I fear we are now well past the point of no return.
8
Commenter joel strayer wrote:
"...Considering that agriculture alone produces 25% of our GHGs, and that thawing permafrost is utterly unstoppable and will double the CO2 already in the atmosphere, there is actually nothing we can do. Permafrost thaw cannot be reversed...and in fact is accelerating with multiple positive feedback mechanisms in play. …"
He is right of course.
I need to post following again:
Let us focus on the main issue, and less on the kaleidoscopic array of side effects. The facts demand that we take action, although it is likely already too late.
Population explosion: At 7.6 billion, increasing by 80 million annually.
This drives everything. This alone swamps out any and all attempts at 'damage control'. And we are not going to do anything about it. The population of this planet more than doubled in my lifetime. It's all over folks.
Climate change is simply one of many looming disasters.
The Keeling curve currently at 411 ppm CO2 and rising drives the rise in sea level, temperature, and acidity. This is already baked in, and will continue for many decades to come no matter what mitigating attempts are made.
We have already passed a number of tipping points. I'm not going to enumerate these any more. It is an exercise in futility. I will support any person or entity that will do the right things, even though it is utterly pointless at this point.
9
@oldBassGuy
Well put sir. I totally agree.
1
It is most amusing watching the media contort and refer to the French tax as a "fuel tax" when it is a "carbon tax". The US media can't call it what it is because it is being rejected by the French middle-class in a big way.
2
I understand that humanity has 12 years to pull itself together and reverse the runaway emissions freight train. The Times should put a Climate Clock at the top of the home page and the print edition. Business-as-usual is a suicidal path, and we need to be shaken awake so that we can get off of it before it is too late.
8
@Cindy Starr what are the consequences for these chicken little warmists when after 12 years their predictions turn out to be lies?
All folks concerned about rising greenhouse gases must take a long look at the photograph that begins this article and ask: Where are the hybrid cars and electric cars?
Indeed, this is a photograph from Beijing. BUT, what are you driving?
All the complaining about lack of government directives and Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is really an excuse used by the hypocrites who claim to be concerned while they drive their internal combustion engine vehicles despite the reality that a hybrid would meet their needs.
Last, the group believing their hydrogen car is clean are dead wrong. H2 is produced by stripping hydrogen from natural gases and light petroleum distillates.
Government is 'we the people'. We all have an obligation to drive hybrids and install PV panels in applicable regions.
4
Amen, Jim. I love my 2017 midnight blue Leaf - maneuverable, great pickup, cheap operating costs, and carbon free (I have solar panels on my roof).
2
That speeding train is heading for a cliff that most of the world's people refuse to acknowledge. Let's just say it: civilization as we know it is doomed. It's already in the early stages of crumbling. Pessimist or realist?
@Trainspotter Pessimist and realist. Me too. For the life of me I see no way out. I still try, I still needle and vote and try to diminish my part... but really, I don't see a way. Does anyone really?
why didn't they just call the meeting COPD since that's what they're doing to us. ?
5
How many peeps do you know who have actually made any meaningful change in their consumption of fossil fuels in the face of this disaster?
What I see, hear and read in comments to news articles on climate change, is that most of us blame Them - oil companies, Chinese, republicans, elected officials… anybody and everybody else, while few of us change our own actions.
I've come to the conclusion that the worst offenders are my fellow Greenies who are well aware of our imminent demise, lament it and complain about the dearth of gov't action. Meanwhile, they send their check to the EDF and hop in their urban 4wd SUV to drop off the recycling as they drive to the airport to take a long weekend vacation in (resort du jour) or drive 8 hours to G'ma's for xmas. Everybody hopes for a different outcome while refusing to take individual action. Sayonara, homo sapiens.
8
@Miss Anne Thrope - exactly... every one of us is culpable, particularly those of us affected by affluenza, entitlement, privilege, and hyper-individualism. What? Cancel my winter vacation to Mexico? Reconsider my globe-trotting get-aways? Turn in my 5,000 lb. pickup for an puny EV? Not that the fossil fuel industry cares a whit.
Not a chance of a snowball in hell that we'll get out of this one without catastrophic damage and decline.
1
@Trainspotter the earth was a lot warmer in the past and it survived just fine. We will all be a lot better off with a warmer earth and a lot more CO2 in the air. People who have to go thru brutal winters will be a lot happier with a warmer earth. We should crowd fund a factory that burn old tires and thereby increase global warming.
@ConradCA - here's a suggestion, Conrad. Write your climate theories down, stick 'em in an envelope and leave them for your grandkids so they can fully appreciate your efforts to help them be "a lot better off with a warmer earth".
1
So much for "better late than never."
At this point in the continuing degradation of planet Earth, anyone who believes that we can stop the coming catastrophes is seriously delusional.
3
In addition to the US, China and India need to get off coal fast.
1
Note that so far there are 27 comments on this information. If the topic were sports, new cars, political footballs, economics, fashion, congress, SCOTUS, weather, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, advertising, social media, cell phones or any number of other popular topics ... there would be hundreds or thousands of comments.
That alone would foretell that very few people care much one way or the other.
4
To the deniers, it's not just fire, flood and extreme weather that is on the horizon, but think about our food supply. If you believe you will ride it out by moving to higher ground and buying an air conditioner, how about all the people that will be coming to your neighborhood as refugees.
7
This is not the right direction to be going in.
Reporting emissions by nation rather than by per capita within nation is a farce that makes Americans falsely think they aren’t as guilty as Chinese or Indians. We’re all going down this rabbit hole together and we all, but especially Americans, need to make drastic reductions in our individual carbon footprints. Accomplishing this will take taxes, regulations, and individual commitment.
9
It is pretty clear that global business leaders will have to do what political leaders either can't or won't. All those billionaire and mega-millionaire CEOs, big investors and their hired technology brains need to get together and commit to a plan to reduce carbon output across the economy. Consumers are much more likely than voters to accept necessary big changes handed down from corporate suites instead of Congress. In a representative democracy, it's always too easy to vent anger at "the government" and vote out politicians who make the hard and painful decisions instead of kicking the can down the road. Instead of resisting government environmental regulation, such as it is, our business titans can save us from climate disaster and make money doing it, I'm sure.
1
We are in the slow process of extincting ourselves which is not necessarily a bad thing as evolution will likely kick in and a different hominid will evolve, presumably one that is less hostile to its environment and able to self-regulate its population. I view that as a good thing. Human 2.0, a kinder and gentler species (in a nod to GHW Bush, on the day of his service). The unfortunate thing is that we are also extincting a huge swath of other life forms on this planet. We have created a fine mess of this planet and nobody seems to care at all; the attitude is - party on.
13
Hominid 2.0 will not be gentle but the opposite: descendants of the grittiest survivors of this mess.
3
@Scott Werd
The only way to create a kinder and gentler species is to start cultivating and practicing kindness here and now.
The vast majority of ALL life on earth, not just human life, is about to go extinct if we don't.
And needless to add that species that go extinct, do NOT come back, so to hope that aver we destroy humanity as a species, a new human being will arise is absurd ...
There's only planet and one humanity. NOW is the time to give up all cynicism and to start to act.
Vote!
@Ana Luisa,
If there is one lesson to be learned from evolution it is that no species is permanent. They all have a finite life here on earth. Same will be true for humans. There is nothing wrong with that; it is what evolution is all about. I am of the view that our actions with what we are doing to our planet is proving ourselves to be unfit in an evolutionary sense and as they say, only the fit will survive. It is an unfortunate denouement for humanity, but it is what it is.
People in the U.S. need to stop justifying having so many kids. In the face of the climate catastrophe that is coming -- and that we've known about for quite some time -- the correct number of biological children to have is zero or one. Period.
Seriously, every new life you bring into this world is going to consume carbon. Through housing, transport, food, and future offspring. I don't care if you live simply, take the bus, eat vegetarian. You need to do all those things PLUS have, at most, one biological child.
28
@Rose
Actually, US population growth is stagnating for decades already, as always happen in any fully developed economy.
What is necessary is for the US, which has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world, to start taking responsibility and massively switch to clean energy (and no red meat, as that produces even more greenhouse gases than our own energy consumption) NOW.
If all the American citizens who are well-informed and know what to do to end this disaster stop having kids, then only the kids of the "bad guys" will rule this country and the planet, and that wil only make things worse.
3
@Rose
Au contraire. An very small proportion of humans read the NYT. The best thing they can do for the future is to proliferate extensively and raise the average human intelligence.
4
@Rose I had 0 kids not to save the planet, but because I can't imagine a decent life for my offspring. Already our food and water supplies are being tainted and it is only going to get worse. Personally I could care less if the human species survives. What kind or creature destroys its own habitat?
1
I understand raising the alarm about global warming. However, it is also obvious that the world is not going to be able to keep the temperature rise below the 2 degree mark. It will cost money and jobs in the developed world and that does not seem politically possible (i.e., look at the recent yellow vest movement in France). Until recently, China has been commissioning 1 coal fired electric plant a week. Do you really think China or India will decommission new electric plants (i.e., there is a direct correlation between energy per capita consumed and wealth)? Even if the US & the Western world can reduce their carbon footprint, the rest of the world will just replace & increase that carbon footprint with their energy needs (i.e., China is already selling coal fired electric plants around the world). We need to look at what is doable and begin planning how to reduce and live with those negative impacts.
@Rod How do you plan to negate the impact of 5 meter water rise?
3
@Tran Trong. Well the Dutch have built a very good dike system that works or people will have to move away from the shoreline. There are solutions, which will cost money. Infrastructure projects do create high paying blue collar jobs, which could be considered a benefit.
@Rod
It isn't simply increasing sea levels right? Ocean acidification is happening today. Changes to weather patterns will alter agriculture. And more...
1
Climate change should be the top news item each and every day. It’s very alarming that conditions seem to be getting worse much faster than was previously predicted. We need leaders who take the climate change challenge seriously. More actions need to be taken ASAP.
21
@Javaforce
"Climate change should be the top news item each and every day".
Trump is the top news item each and every day, and does it help ??
1
Now we know why we can't find intelligent life outside our solar system. As carbon based life evolves on a habitable planet, it discovers planetary carbon stores (coal, oil, gas, wood) to burn for energy. As the life form becomes more technologically advanced, it requires ever more energy, produced by burning ever more stored carbon. Inevitably, the resulting carbon dioxide alters the planet's atmosphere, trapping more and more heat from the planet's star until the planet becomes uninhabitable, too hot for the intelligent species, which then declines to extinction unless, in competition for the shrinking remaining habitable land, it first destroys itself in war. We're probably not the first species to do this to its planet; we're just the latest one swallowed by the carbon trap.
15
Millions of years ago, one could generally say that Mother Nature regulated CO2 by overall temperature. When temperature dropped, CO2 levels followed suit.
Now the reverse is true. Atmospheric CO2 levels are driving temperature. This should frighten everyone on this planet.
At the same time, the oceans are going anoxic. High levels of CO2 and anoxic oceans have been associated with most mass extincions in the past.
1
@Nathan Gant
I don't think that's true. There have already been five Ice Ages before ours started, and five Great Extinction of species on earth before we started the Sixth.
Volcanoes next to huge coal fields are supposed to have caused one of those Great Extinctions, precisely by the massive amount of carbon emitted in the atmosphere, and the subsequent global warming and acidifying (and even changing color) of the oceans.
So CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas, and its concentration has varied enormously, over the last billions of years.
The only difference today is that's it's not volcanoes but human beings that are emitting the equivalent of 500,000 Hiroshima bombs each day.
3